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
Aircraft safety
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Salty, Feb 13, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
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? -
No intel agency "pet terrorists" on planes?
What does that even mean? -
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. -
There seems to be more danger from poor maintenance (since deregulation) than from terrorists.
-
-
*crickets*
Is that another example of your "libertarian" views? -
Actually, human error is the biggest risk factor in flying.
CLICK HERE
Your odds of being a terrorism victim are infinitesimally small. -
Interesting disscussion :rolleyes: BUT, would somone mind actually answering the OP! :BangHead:
-
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. -
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. -
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.
Or do you really think that there is no threat? -
They seem to be forgetting the thousands killed at the World Trade Center. -
But even if you add in the total 9/11 fatalities, the risk is extremely small. -
In fact, I think the no bottles of water is just a way to help the concessionaires sell more water in the concourse. -
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 -
-
-
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. -
>>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?
Page 1 of 2