Aircraft safety

[Salty]

In another thread, Ponco says he does not like the photo imiminage (sp?) now employed to prevent mid air bombings, ect.

So here is my question - if you were the man in charge, what would you do to ensure a flight to be safe from hyjacking form terrorists?

Salty

 

[poncho]

In another thread, Ponco says he does not like the photo imiminage (sp?) now employed to prevent mid air bombings, ect.

So here is my question - if you were the man in charge, what would you do to ensure a flight to be safe from hyjacking form terrorists?

Salty

Quite simple Salty,

I'd put an end to the "intell agencies" putting their pet "terrorists" on planes.

BTW, none of this is "now employed to prevent mid air bombings, ect." This is being employed for all the reasons I gave in that other thread.

You only think it's being employed to keep you safe from "terrorists". Which isn't really surprising considering the amount of propaganda the corporate controlled government and media has pumped out everyday to convince you of this "big lie".

It's all Hermann Goering stuff. And now you're doing the Goering dance too. Telling the people they are being attacked by an outside threat and denouncing the pacifists (which I am not btw so stop lying about me in this manner it is beneath you) as putting the country in greater danger.

I never thought Christains would be foolish enough to support another "big lie" again after the fall of nazi Germany. Guess I was wrong huh?

 

[targus]

Quite simple Salty,

I'd put an end to the "intell agencies" putting their pet "terrorists" on planes.

BTW, none of this is "now employed to prevent mid air bombings, ect." This is being employed for all the reasons I gave in that other thread.

You only think it's being employed to keep you safe from "terrorists". Which isn't really surprising considering the amount of propaganda the corporate controlled government and media has pumped out everyday to convince you of this "big lie".

It's all Hermann Goering stuff. And now you're doing the Goering dance too. Telling the people they are being attacked by an outside threat and denouncing the pacifists (which I am not btw so stop lying about me in this manner it is beneath you) as putting the country in greater danger.

I never thought Christains would be foolish enough to support another "big lie" again after the fall of nazi Germany. Guess I was wrong huh?

So that's it?

No intel agency "pet terrorists" on planes?

What does that even mean?

 

[windcatcher]

Quite simple Salty,

I'd put an end to the "intell agencies" putting their pet "terrorists" on planes.

BTW, none of this is "now employed to prevent mid air bombings, ect." This is being employed for all the reasons I gave in that other thread.

You only think it's being employed to keep you safe from "terrorists". Which isn't really surprising considering the amount of propaganda the corporate controlled government and media has pumped out everyday to convince you of this "big lie".

It's all Hermann Goering stuff. And now you're doing the Goering dance too. Telling the people they are being attacked by an outside threat and denouncing the pacifists (which I am not btw so stop lying about me in this manner it is beneath you) as putting the country in greater danger.

I never thought Christains would be foolish enough to support another "big lie" again after the fall of nazi Germany. Guess I was wrong huh?

Unfortunately, Poncho, most of us have been programmed by the graduating lie which has creapt into our society through media and education ....... and even the influence of the church.

We are conditioned to believe and accept reports of 'experts' so-called, instead of questioning and examining for ourselves. Instead of recognizing that many have a Pile High and Deep certificate meaning they are so highly specialized in one specific area that few of them have the interest or the intellect to develop an interest in the broader experiences of life and its decisions.... or to trust the well read common man who may have invested much time in reading, observing, questioning, and discovering, and developing some discernment. We are taught to question the Bible and God and the faith and we are taught in the military and in the church to trust government as 'good', and accept the reports of MSM, and government pretenses and excuses, etc., and not recognize when we're being set up.

The Christmas 'bomber'..... clues of a set up couldn't have been clearer considering the unexpected report of two credible and alert witnesses who happened to be lawyers. I have a vague remembrance of other events surrounding a major disaster where there were witnesses who heard explosions on lower floors below an impact point: And a building that on command, came down, and in the destroyed in the destruction were records regarding major investigations; and the Pentagon taking a hit immediately after disclosure that millions upon millions of dollars were unaccounted for expenses in its records, and a truck bomb which exploded a crater in the pavement beneath it, but did little damage to a floral garden between it and the building that 'it' took down 20 feet, more or less, away. At the least, the circumstances of these events are such to create a strong suspicion that intelligence had some knowledge of a plot to do us harm...... and somewhere along the chain of command, communication took a sordid turn when someone within hi-jacked the original intent and exaggerated the plan to suit a particular interest in increasing surveilance and control of our citizens: After all, they already had a scap goat.

 

[billwald]

There seems to be more danger from poor maintenance (since deregulation) than from terrorists.

 

[targus]

There seems to be more danger from poor maintenance (since deregulation) than from terrorists.

But the topic is ensuring flight safety from terrorists.

 

[rbell]

There seems to be more danger from poor maintenance (since deregulation) than from terrorists.

I suppose you will be posting statistics to back that up?

*crickets*

Is that another example of your "libertarian" views?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Actually, human error is the biggest risk factor in flying.

CLICK HERE

Your odds of being a terrorism victim are infinitesimally small.

 

[Salty]

Interesting disscussion BUT, would somone mind actually answering the OP! :BangHead:

 

[targus]

I find it very interesting that this far into this thread there have been no recommendations as to what to do to keep flight travelers safe from terrorists.

I guess that it is easier to criticize than to offer constructive thoughts.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I find it very interesting that this far into this thread there have been no recommendations as to what to do to keep flight travelers safe from terrorists.

I guess that it is easier to criticize than to offer constructive thoughts.

100% safety is an unrealistic goal. Any activity carries risk. HERE is a graphic calculating the odds of being the victim of airborne terror at less than one in ten million. The last thing I fear while flying, which I do frequently, is terror attacks.

If you want to make it even safer still, implement the "naked" scanners. Of course none of those, nor what we do today, would stop a bioterror attack of someone with a virulent and deadly disease from boarding a plane while contageous, but still asymptomatic.

 

[targus]

100% safety is an unrealistic goal. Any activity carries risk.

I wasn't aware that the OP was advocating 100% safety.

HERE is a graphic calculating the odds of being the victim of airborne terror at less than one in ten million.

Does that then mean that we should just ignore the terrorist threats?

Would you go so far as recommending that the metal detectors and luggage scanners all be removed?

Perhaps we are wasting our time by requiring identification of passengers when boarding too.

If you want to make it even safer still, implement the "naked" scanners. Of course none of those, nor what we do today, would stop a bioterror attack of someone with a virulent and deadly disease from boarding a plane while contageous, but still asymptomatic.

Well, I for one am still wondering what you think should be done to keep flying safe from terrorists.

Or do you really think that there is no threat?

 

[targus]

100% safety is an unrealistic goal. Any activity carries risk. HERE is a graphic calculating the odds of being the victim of airborne terror at less than one in ten million. The last thing I fear while flying, which I do frequently, is terror attacks.

Your link claims 647 deaths since 1999.

They seem to be forgetting the thousands killed at the World Trade Center.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your link claims 647 deaths since 1999.

They seem to be forgetting the thousands killed at the World Trade Center.

It claims 647 passenger deaths. The majority of the fatalities were on the ground. But the metric is the danger of being attacked while flying.

But even if you add in the total 9/11 fatalities, the risk is extremely small.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I wasn't aware that the OP was advocating 100% safety.

I never said it was.

Does that then mean that we should just ignore the terrorist threats?

Would you go so far as recommending that the metal detectors and luggage scanners all be removed?

Perhaps we are wasting our time by requiring identification of passengers when boarding too.

If leaps of logic were an Olympic event, you would be bringing home the gold. :tongue3:

Well, I for one am still wondering what you think should be done to keep flying safe from terrorists.

Or do you really think that there is no threat?

Again with the leaps. There is only so much you can do. Full body scans, identity verification, x-ray luggage, deny boarding to people obviously sick, and armed air marshalls. The entire shoes off, laptops out, no bottled water is merely window dressing.

In fact, I think the no bottles of water is just a way to help the concessionaires sell more water in the concourse.

 

[Salty]

It claims 647 passenger deaths. The majority of the fatalities were on the ground. But the metric is the danger of being attacked while flying.

But even if you add in the total 9/11 fatalities, the risk is extremely small.

and dont forget surrivors of a terroist attact, and the close family members of a surrivor/victim.

and dont forget attempted threats - how many funerals, weddings, important meetings were missed becasue of the shoe bomber, and others who postponed and or cancelled flights, and ect.

I was trying to google Iseral pre-flight terrorist precautions ( Must leave for church in 2 minutes)
Salty

 

[targus]

Again with the leaps. There is only so much you can do. Full body scans, identity verification, x-ray luggage, deny boarding to people obviously sick, and armed air marshalls. The entire shoes off, laptops out, no bottled water is merely window dressing.

Well, I for one am still waiting for you to tell us what those things are that can be done.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Well, I for one am still waiting for you to tell us what those things are that can be done.

You having reading problems today? Reread the passage of mine you just quoted. You for one are probably the only one. And why is my opinion so important to you?

 

[poncho]

But the topic is ensuring flight safety from terrorists.

Okay who's terrorists? The CIA have them in their employ, the ISI have them in their employ, same with the Mossad (by deception shall we do war), most intell agencies have their pet terrorists, informants they call them.

Read and follow all the "big terrorist bust" stories. The infomants are always the "man with the plan" and where with all to carry out attacks against the USA.

Their "followers" always turn out to be low IQ dumbells who are easy to manipulate into doing something stupid, not to mention easy to arrest and parade in front of the cameras. The outcome is always the same too. Big headlines, more fearmongering and more and bigger government funding, control and more intrusion into our lives.

Terrorists are assets to a government bent on grabbing up more money, more power and more control. They come in handy when you just happen to have several billions of dollars invested in a new technoloy that's only purpose is to harrass airline passengers and you need to unload it fast so your investment isn't lost.

So, I ask again who's "terrorists" is that we need all this intrusive protection from?

Answer that one question, (truthfully, without all the corporate sponsored propagandistic fearmongering jargon we've all memorized word for word) and I'll give some recommendations as to how to make air travel safer for everyone.

Like putting an end to the intell agencies putting their pet terrorists on planes to scare us into accepting ever more tyranny from an out of control corupt government full of anti-American globalists who dream of a glorious one world government.

With governments and corporations around the world raking in huge amount's of money (funding), power and control because of the "terrorist" threat, tell me...why in the world would they consider getting rid of them? They'd be killing the goose that keeps laying golden eggs right in their laps.

One more time...

Who's terrorists is it exactly that we need all this intrusive protection from?

One more question. Do you really think the government and it's corporate sponsors can keep you safe from terrorists? They don't have a very good track record in that area. Unless like the Bushbots you claim all the highly publicized fake terror busts as victories in the "war on terror".

This just in...

New 3D scanner at airports not to show body parts

Now this isn't so bad.

 

[billwald]

>>There seems to be more danger from poor maintenance (since deregulation) than from terrorists.


>But the topic is ensuring flight safety from terrorists.

Then why was the title "Aircraft safety?"

But I defer to the observation that human (pilot) error is the greatest cause of aircraft passenger deaths. Flying is safer than any other means of travel excepting nuke subs?