Omar

The secured cockpit will stop the in-cockpit flight crew from having their throats cut open by box cutters. However, the stewardesses will still be at risk. Cockpit weapons may stop a final intrusion...maybe. But catastrophic or crippling explosives brought aboard by low-lifes will still take out everyone/everything when they're done right. Lockerbie proved that, I believe. There are lots of ways to get explosives on a plane, but it seems that most of the time they've been personally carried on. Intelligence is slow & often faulted, searches are immediate. The most brilliant people in the world have made big intel errors from Pearl Harbor to "WMD". Of course, we all know that....now. Personal searches are immediate. Obviously not perfect. What is though? But, I'm guessing there are hundreds of people working hourly on the problem of how to improve personal searches. I'm betting, there are thousands of people working on how to "get around" personal searches & complete their dastardly missions. I vote for both methods to continue expanding.

My first exposure to the "new day of security" was flying home from Germany in 1972 following all the wacko problems in Europe (caused by others). Each passenger (like me) was taken into a room & searched. But, I'm still here to talk about it & remember it. I wonder if we might check with some of the surviving families of the WTC, Pentagon, PA, Lockerbie, & many other vermin induced catastophies & ask them if they feel that increased personal (pat downs, x-rays, etc) are necessary & helpful or just a waste of their time also? If it were possible to ask any of the targetted deceased (mild term) victims, what might be their response to the same question?