A reader writes:
Your reader's hypothesis seems too convoluted to me. Would a terrorist group really decide that while they couldn't get a detonator on a plane they could still sneak on some kind of a quasi-bomb? The detail in the story that sticks out in my mind is that the would-be bomber waited until the plane was approaching the airport. By doing this, he may have been hoping for maximum damage on the ground as well as in the air. Of course at this point in the flight the bathrooms would be vacated, as per normal landing protocol -- which explains why he was in his seat at the time.
Another writes:
Mutallab sat in Seat 19A. His choice of seat was not by accidentit is right in the middle of the wing. This area is one of the more structurally vulnerable areas of the plane. The lavatory areas are not located in such a structurally vulnerable areablowing a hole in the fuselage in these areas would be less likely to bring the plane downsee Aloha Airlines Flight 243 or United Flight 811.
Another:
My understanding is that his seat-- 19A-- was located directly over the one of the plane's primary fuel tanks.
If you want to increase your chances of taking the whole plane down, detonating near the fuel tanks (which at that point in the flight would have been near empty, and thus filled with more combustible fumes) is the most logical course of action. This guy, moron though he indeed may be, went to Yemen specifically to get training for such his mission-- my sense is that his choice of seats, and the decision to attempt to detonate there, was not left to chance.
Another:
Slate had an article last week on the possible effects of an actual explosion.
Another:
A very interesting observation indeed. Al Qaeda is certainly aware that its campaign against civilians has won no supporters and has, in fact, reduced its standing in the Muslim world. Another 9/11-type mass murder would almost certainly galvanize the world against it again, much like in the aftermath of 9/11 itself. It is much better served by simply taking its cues from Wasp and provoking the U.S. into harming itself. And I am sure the leaders of Al Qaeda have figured that out as well.
Another:
The reader is making an assumption that is something like the "Efficient Market Hypothesis." Call it the Efficient Terrorist Hypothesis: terrorists get caught when they want to get caught because even a foiled attack causes terror. But here's the thing: it is a rare person who is both (a) willing to kill civilians (and possibly himself), and (b) competent enough to execute the plan. Most people would only carry out the attack if they went nuts. That's why there are so few terrorists. It's also why this guy got caught: he was willing to do the crime, but was kind of a dumbass and got caught.