Reply #41: So the bomb in question wouldn't have damaged the plane?

[MostlyLurks]

Again, you're looking at this after the fact and saying "He didn't have a bomb so nobody would have gotten hurt." Entirely true, but also irrelevant.

The belief (supposedly: again, this is really what's worth debating) is that he had a bomb. What kind of bomb? How big? What kind of blast radius?

1. The fact that he was on the jetway does not place the passengers out of harm's way. By definition, the door to the plane had to be open because he walked into the plane, then back out again. So if he detonates a bomb, it's entirely plausible that the passengers in the plane would be hurt, possibly killed. by the pressure wave, flames and shrapnel.

2. Agreed, but you've already admitted that airport screening and security was not and can not be made perfect. As a result, you cannot use this as an argument: if the possibility exists to bypass or fool security (as you've admitted it does), then the fact that he had passed security is moot. Your argument essentially becomes "why do we have air marshalls at all when people have to go through security checkpoints".

3. From what I've read, she said this only as the situation came to a head, as the air marshalls were already moving into action. The phrase "day late and a dollar short" comes to mind. If your spouse is having a psychotic episode before s/he gets onto the plane (from CNN.com: "Ellen Sutliff, who said she sat near Alpizar, described him as agitated, even before he boarded the plane. His wife kept coaxing him, 'We just have to get through customs. Please, please help me get through this," according to Sutliff.'"), then you have an obligation to notify somebody. If you have source that says she told the airline ahead of time, or between flights, I'll gladly read it and may change my opinion as a result.

4. This demonstrates an amazing sort of reverse prejudice on your part. So the air marshall should only look sideways at Arabs? Even if the passenger in question claims they have a bomb? Or am I right in assuming that you'd agree anybody, of any color/nationality/etc might be capable of wanting to bomb a plane? If you said "yes", this negates #4 as a factor in any way.

5. I have no idea what this means.

6. Here again, you're deciding something that you don't have the right to decide. Could he have bombed the first flight? Sure. But maybe, for whatever reason, he chose not to. We're talking about someone with a bomb (supposedly): do you really want to base any aspect of your argument on the logic of somebody who is (supposedly) planning on killing a bunch of innocent people?

"The marshals had him contained." That's an assumption on your part. You don't know what was going on on the jetway, and as I mentioned before the fact that he's on the jetway does not necessarily contain him as a threat because we're talking about an explosive device, not a knife or gun.

Mostly