[Blue Eyes]

Exactly, and that's why this strikes me as a 'proof of concept' attack. The point is only to show what's possible, not necessarily promote a new standard method of attack.

Okay, I can buy that. Do you see the 9-11 plane hijacking attacks the say way? Was that a proof of concept attack, as well? If it was, then all of the effort and money spent to tighten up airport security would been needless, except to thwart copycats.

This proof of concept idea is new to me. It's very interesting.

[tdadams]

Do you see the 9-11 plane hijacking attacks the say way? Was that a proof of concept attack, as well? If it was, then all of the effort and money spent to tighten up airport security would been needless, except to thwart copycats

I don't think so. I think that was an attack intended to be known as a terrorist event. It was meant to be a spectacle. It struck at high-profile, very symbolic structures. It was intended to strike fear in Americans and let us know we could be attacked in our heart. I think it would be repeated if strong counter measures weren't taken (as they are being taken now).

[tdadams]

In addition to what I just posted, hijacking an airplane is already a proven concept. It's been done many, many times. No one's flown one into a building as a terrorist act, but neither is it necessary to do so to prove it could be done. Once a hijacker has control of a plane, he can obviously fly it into a building, into the ground, into the water, etc.

That's why I think that was different from TWA 800. Hijackings were already a proven concept. Shooting down a commercial airliner with a shoulder fired missle was not, until July 1996.