Are planes safer of hijacking after 9/11? What have they done to prevent terrorists taking over a plane?

Question

Probably something good because none of them have tried another hijacking! Haha...

Are terrorists still capable of an attack as terrible as that or are the intelligence and security agencies too tough now?

Answer 1

to try that again they really have to be crazy as the pilots carry guns and there are private security guards that travel on the planes now and with the better screening there using I would say that as long as they keep doing what they are doing you won't ever see another 9-11.

Answer 2

well that isn't funny actually!

and to ur information that 9/11 thingie was an inside job...lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Interestingly, the burden of proof is no longer on the "conspiracy theorists" but on those who have stood by the government's official claim that 19 hijackers with box-cutters financed by Bin Laden, crashed 4 planes without any chance of prevention.

The following is irrefutable:

Fact: Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. Check out the FBI website. Reason? They don't have sufficient evidence to convict him. Perhaps this is why Bush said he really doesn't care about him.

Fact: There are hundreds of televised claims from that day that witnesses heard or felt explosions prior to the collapse of the towers. These include firefighters, police, newsreporters, and civilians.

Fact: 47 story - WTC 7, we are told, collapsed from fire alone. This was unprecedented for a steel frame building. Furthermore, it fell symetrically in free fall speed. Science and deductive reasoning will easily support the cause of this collpase as demolitions. Fire does not have the energy to do this.

Fact: The steel from WTC was shipped overseas before an investigation was even opened. This is the greatest destruction of evidence in the history of forensics.

Fact: Thousands of first responders have been afflicted and some have even died from respiratory failure. The government will not support investigations into the many reports which show that these heroes have micronized steel, glass, and concrete in their lungs. Fire, and the collapse from gravity would not produce this type of dust. Demolitions, however, supports the evidence.

Fact: We were told that NORAD didn't intercept any of the planes that day. This spans from about 8:24, the time of the first report of a hijacking, to 10:06, when the last plane crashed in Penn. NORAD's has a prior track record of intercepting planes within minutes. Standard Operating Procedure was not followed that day. They also changed their story several times.

Fact: The investigation into 9/11 was initially opposed by the Bush Administration. The 9/11 families pressed for one. They got it, but with remarkable conditions. The total costs of the investigation, including the NIST report, was only $16 million. The cost to investigate the Space Shuttle crash - $50 million. The cost to investigate Clinton - $42 million. In other words, the greatest failure of our defenses deserved less money than the shuttle and Clinton's perjury. What an insult to the 9/11 families.

Fact: No one has been fired for 9/11.

Fact: The spike in put options on Boeing, United Airlines, and American Airlines were never investigated. Millions are still unclaimed. This indicates someone knew. Why not check out this lead?

Fact: The August 6, 2001 Public Daily Briefing Memo was titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US. Yet prior to its declassification, we were told by Rice and Fleisher that there were no warnings. Had this news been made public, couldn't travelers, law enforcement, and the airline workers have been a little more guarded or informed to notice something that day? Wouldn't we have guessed right away that the first report of a hijacking was indeed a terrorist? Or would we have dismissed it as "one bad pilot" and continued to read "My Pet Goat" while America was attacked?

The bottom line - If the deaths of 3000 people occurred under the control of a corporation, people would have been brought up on charges of criminal negligence. Despite the growing movement and mounting evidence into the WTC collapses, the government still has made up its mind that it is fire that brought these buildings down and that 9/11 was simply a failure of imagination. They feel no one is to blame. This was the conclusion they had prior to the investigation. What the 9/11 Commission produced is the anti-thesis of the scientific method. Much of the evidence was outright omitted by them since they determined the conclusion prematurely.

If you were an underwriter at an insurance comapny, or an architectural engineer, or a fire marshall, wouldn't you want to know what really happened in these buildings? If you were a pilot, or and FAA emplyee, wouldn't you want to know which NORAD employee stood down or messed up that day?

To dismiss the overwhelming evidence that explicitly shows how hundreds of questions remain unanswered suggests a cover-up by our government. Conservative thinking has taught us to keep government in check 100% of the time.

More and more people are joining the 9/11 truth movement. We are unstoppable. To deny the smidgeon of facts presented here and the many others unmentioned is akin to being like those who have denied the Holocaust. It's intellectually dishonest.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

More reasons it was an inside job:

1. Operation Northwoods, "N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.":

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&...

2. Alex Jones Predicts Attack:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Detailed 9/11 research work

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/re...

Answer 3

Instead of being fired for resisting a hijacking, aircrews are now expected to resist.  

Also, passengers are now quick to fight, subdue, and kill hijackers.

Answer 4

safer against hijckings...yes

more security at airports

there is now a gun in the cockpit of the aircraft

air marshalls are on 45% of all US flights

and probably more things that we don't know about

--------------------------------------...

terrorists are still able to perform terrible attacks like on 9-11

when you put your mind to it, especially if you think you have an almighty God on your side, you can accomplish anything.

Answer 5

planes are safe...you terrorist

Answer 6

As a pilot and a student receiving a degree in aviation safety here are a couple facts:

Most security and new regulations have been related to general aviation (small aircraft) not large commercial airlines. The procedures that have been put in place still wont prevent someone who really wants to hijack a plane. That said, flying is still way safer then driving to the grocery store.

Here is a great site for learning about aviation:

http://www.gaservingamerica.org/

Answer 7

The cockpit doors are now attack proof and even if the terrorists got in, the pilot and co-pilot are armed with guns.  Also, the pilots and flight attendants are trained in subduing terrorists.  But all of this won't help if Bush decides to have another attack as an excuse to support a pointless half-trillion dollar war and ruin the economy.