We could discuss this at length, but I will move on to something else. It seems to me that anyone can understand that an airplane is a fragile vehicle. It seems to me that the essential aspect of the expertise needed relates to security rather than transport. However, you are not the one who decided this.
With respect to the questions raised last time, you said that it was very difficult to prove a negative. In terms of our concerns, I think that you are really looking in the wrong place. You should have looked where proof of the positive exists. The proof of the positive is the terrorist incidents or attacks that have occurred. We are certain that they have occurred. We can ascertain whether the people who committed them had characteristics from which we could have predicted that they were a danger.
I do not know whether studies like those exist; myself, I do not know. It seems that the people who came before you also did not know. What we generally know, in the public, is that there was not much about the people responsible for the events of September 11 that would have put them on the list, nor was there about the person who claimed to have explosives in his heels, and so on.
Did you look only for negative proof, or did you look where positive proof can be established?