It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why No Liquids On Airplanes Is Stupid

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
okay, they are taking liquids from people and banning liquids on all flights. couldnt the terrorists use the tried and true method that drug smugglers have been using all these years, and simply swallow packs of liquid explosives (no health risk, since they will die anyway) and puke them out in the bathroom, or just tape them to thier inner thigh. i have flow quite often after 9/11 and i never have had a TSA agent touch my inner thigh. seems to me that this whole thing is about fear and control. if the government was smart, which i think they just might be, and this was really about terrorism and liquid explosives and saving lives, wouldnt they have a whole body pat down? or liquid explosives sniffing dogs checking people as they go through security but letting them keep thier liquids. this no liquids on planes thing is stupid and wont stop anyone determined to destroy us.
hey, at least there arent snakes on planes

THAT IS IT! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE *snip * LIQUIDS ON THIS * snip * PLANE!


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/11/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
sorry for the profanity. i meant to edit it all out. oopps


[edit on 11-8-2006 by Trash_Bag_Helmet]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Why No Liquids On Airplanes Is Stupid


Do you blame them???

If you want a Liquid drink while onboard a plane you can simply buy one, Better to be save than sorry!!!

Maybe the airline companies should stock on nappies and Baby Milk, Baby food jars, just a thought so mothers can request them save mother from having to show security staff what exactly is in the babies bottles yanno!!

Hang on is that not profiteering ???? from someone elses distress or invonveniance? hmmmmmms....

[edit on 11-8-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
yes i do blame them. its not just liquid drinks. its all liquid. shampoo nail polish lip gloss. i fly qiute often and normally dont check a bag, as i am not staying long and only need a change or two of clothes. all my shampoo and whatnot is carried on with me. this is a huge disservice to most flyers like me, whoi go for business and pack very lightly. now ill have to check bags. im not going to buy shampoo and stuff every time i go somewhere.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I don't think you guys get it. Its an inside joke by the government. They have bets between themselves on just how stupid the American public is. And every time the public accepts something even more ridiculous more money changes hands, bets are made and they try again. Side bets are made on how many posters on ATS side with the government and helpfully explain why this latest outrage should be accepted.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't think you guys get it. Its an inside joke by the government. They have bets between themselves on just how stupid the American public is. And every time the public accepts something even more ridiculous more money changes hands, bets are made and they try again. Side bets are made on how many posters on ATS side with the government and helpfully explain why this latest outrage should be accepted.


oh i get it. thats what i am saying mr lear. it dosent make sense, it dosent make anyone safer. obviously they are messing with us BIG time. i am NOT SIDING WITH THE GOVERNMENT



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
WOW. Mr Lear, i have just looked you up and, man, i have great respect for you. your record is truely impressive. keep up the good work! its an honor to have you on my thread.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Trash_Bag_Helmet]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstoneIf you want a Liquid drink while onboard a plane you can simply buy one, Better to be save than sorry!!!


And there's an incentive for airlines to charge $10 for a bottle of water, since they know you have no choice but to buy it from them anyway...

I also wonder if it's the end of duty-free wine bottles purchased after security (when your bags are already checked). And then of course, coming soon, a ban on MP3 players and laptops onboard... Flying will go back to what it was in the 70's, before the walkman was introduced - a very sober and austere affair.

Edited for wrong HTML quote code

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Otts]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Actually I think it means the govt should crack down on reruns of "McGuyver"

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
its happened before. During the 70s (cause of the IRA) no hand luggage was allowed on flights between Northern Ireland and the mainland UK. It seems we are forgetting that the UK has been here before (we've had terrorism since the 1800s).



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Yeah... it's really getting ridiculous.. When will people wake up and realize. The government is not protecting us... it's making us all like children... Even a PILOT had his CONTACT LENSE SOLUTION Taken away from him!! www.torontosun.com...




The flight attendent interjected: "We saw a kid have a snow globe of New York taken and one pilot had his contact lens solution removed from his bag," she said. "Isn't he going to need that at some point during his day?"


[edit on 11-8-2006 by DoNotBelieveThem]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   


And there's an incentive for airlines to charge $10 for a bottle of water, since they know you have no choice but to buy it from them anyway...


Did you even look at my last comment on my post??

Hang on is that not profiteering ???? from someone elses distress or invonveniance? hmmmmmms.... ???????

See it now I have posted it again!!

hmms my answer to your question was not posted oks now Im annoyed



[edit on 11-8-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoNotBelieveThem
Yeah... it's really getting ridiculous.. When will people wake up and realize. The government is not protecting us... it's making us all like children... Even a PILOT had his CONTACT LENSE SOLUTION Taken away from him!! www.torontosun.com...


[sarcasm]um.. I'm sorry, but I would rather have a pilot that can't wear his contacts fly the plane than take a chance on it being hijacked! [/sarcasm]


People are angry, people are voicing it. Of course those that will defend everything ever done until their own demise will laugh, that's to be expected though. There will always be those that want to believe that the government is "protecting us" and "keeping us safe" from hijackers on planes and terrorist poptarts with extra powered sugar at Super WalMarts, but really, when are we going to do anything to stop it?

I remember right after 9/11 there was a suspicious white powder found in the changing room at a WalMart. Of course, they locked the place down until they could analyze the diaper in the pail, baby powder probably would make a great terrorist tool when changing little Johnny's diaper. Boogeymen everywhere, our government here to protect us from them.


Our protector "just doesn't spend that much time thinking about him (Osama)" though does he? Nah, the most wanted terrorist, the man who orchestrated attacks on our soil, pushed to the wayside. He wasn't scary enough I suppose, not scary enough at all. So we get a convenient reminder of just how scared we should be when it all starts to waver. I've seen so many people say "well, if you knew everything that happened every day, you would be really scared!" Uh huh, that's why we only get small doses of what happens all the time right? To keep us on our toes, how thoughtful of them.
Next time I see an old lady buying toothpaste and Powerade, should I ask her if she is a terrorist?

"We must remain vigilant." Well we either are going to be, or we're not, but when I am told "you don't know nearly a thousandth of what is really happening out there" I am not able to be vigilant. These politicians need to either put up or shut up, and stop stepping up to podiums with their "we need to remain vigilant" bs.


/rant

breath in.. breath out...



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by Trash_Bag_Helmet




oh i get it. thats what i am saying mr lear. it dosent make sense, it dosent make anyone safer. obviously they are messing with us BIG time. i am NOT SIDING WITH THE GOVERNMENT



I was refering to others Trash_Bag_Helmet. You are with the good guys.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Apparently, they don't even need a specific liquid, they can use the beverages served to mix with the other bomb materials.

Or, er, solids.

Its a bit of a catch 22. If they don't ban beverages, when there was a plot to smuggle bombs in as beverages, they're being stupid. But banning beverages, its stupid in itself. Not much that can be done.


this is a huge disservice to most flyers like me

Getting blown up would be a bigger disservice. I don't buy that its a disservice in teh first place, you can still bring all those items, you'd just have to have your bag stowed with luggage is all.


Even a PILOT had his CONTACT LENSE SOLUTION Taken away from him!!

If a pilot wanted to destroy a plane, I'd think he doesn't need a bomb, so yeah, thats pretty stupid.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Okay, it's worse than that. The transportation authorities stated (and, yes, I'm paraphrasing, but as close as my remaining memory cells will allow) that they were requiring all liquids be stowed in checked baggages because "we inspect these for explosives". THIS IS THE WORST THING THEY CAN DO!

A rule that we can't access our carry on baggage makes more sense than what they have now declared. The components that were to be mixed to form TATP would not necessarily be detected as explosives prior to mixing together. If they were in a carry-on bag that was stowed in a pressurized cabin, but the owner could not get to them, they would most likely remain stable. But to place these in a cargo hold is the worse thing the governing bodies can do. I won't go into specifics, but the automatic combination of required components can be easily achieved in the environment of the cargo hold!

WTF are they thinking!?!



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Well, I may be stupid, but if a liquid bomb simply needed mixing & detonated by a phone, ETC. Would it not be possible for a lunatic to arrange that to occur in a suitcase in the luggage hold anyway? could altitude or or air pressure not be used to trigger certain occurances? I am no scientist or mcguiver, but I can problem solve, & it all seems very lame to me.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by solidgear
Well, I may be stupid, but if a liquid bomb simply needed mixing & detonated by a phone, ETC. Would it not be possible for a lunatic to arrange that to occur in a suitcase in the luggage hold anyway? could altitude or or air pressure not be used to trigger certain occurances? I am no scientist or mcguiver, but I can problem solve, & it all seems very lame to me.


All the individual componenets are harmless, but when combined dangerous. The idea is that 3 people can bring in 3 seperate components and then combine them once past security. If all together in a bad with detonator, etc it would be pretty obvious.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
& are we sure that threee components couldn't be placed in a container with release valves which would let them mix in a piece of luggage, therefore not requiring three individuals clubbing in the bathroom of a jet? I'm sure valve systems are well easy to put into practice?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by solidgear
& are we sure that threee components couldn't be placed in a container with release valves which would let them mix in a piece of luggage, therefore not requiring three individuals clubbing in the bathroom of a jet? I'm sure valve systems are well easy to put into practice?


You don't need valves. It's a lot simpler than that. That's why I just don't understand this new ruling.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join