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.

 

Problem, Reaction, Solution and the recent attempt to Blow Up a US Airliner

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The "Problem" as we all know is all of these pesky terrorists trying to blow up our planes and our cities.


The "reaction" is the people screaming for tighter security at the airport, or so we're told.

And the Solution? Well, that goes something like this.



Calls for Full-Body Screening Devices Grow After Terror Attempt


and this

Apparently Passengers will now have to stay in their seats an Hour before landing and if you can't do that because you need to go to the bathroom, well, you just might be a terrorist.

and THIS




In the wake of Flight 253, the TSA must get more anti-terrorist tools


Oh and then there's

THIS




Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport
Which just screams to me CIA. These guys don't just stroll on board an airliner heading for the United States without a little help from some very scary guys in expensive suits. Just sayin'.

And then there's always the people who say " I don't care about getting an anal probe or having my genitals on display for everyone to see, as long as it keeps us safe from the boogyman". Well my friend, this is exactly what they want to hear and it is music to their ears. Be a good little slave and OBEY! They WILL keep you safe from the boogyman it will just cost you a little something in return. Are you willing to pay it? Most unaware people are.

Wake up people, this strategy has been used for thousands of years and it still works like a charm EVERYTIME!!!! They are playing on our fears to get tougher laws and regulations passed which ultimately strip us of our privacy, dignity, liberty, and freedom. But hey, what do I know? Carry on.






[edit on 29-12-2009 by The Lord and Savior]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I've used a full body scanner at Denver International because it was optional and faster. I personally don't think it's a big deal. It helps prevent threats to air passengers and contraband from being smuggled.

As to this event being a ruse to push for increased security I am not so sure.

I just posted about this here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I personally think it is another failure of international airlines abroad to take security seriously, that is until I see real evidence otherwise.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
There's nothing more to say -
The OP said it all -



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I think the best solution for safer air travel is for the airlines to hire anesthesiologists so we can be placed into a medically induced coma and loaded into crates for the journey.

Of course this will cost the passenger a few hundred dollars more but hey, at least we'll all be safe.


/sarcasm off

In my opinion there was either a co conspirator at the airport or just really lazy security but either way it will make air travel suck even that much more in the future.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Anjin
 


With flights to america, americans deal with immigration do they not?

I thought all main airports have american parts which passengers going to america have to go through to get on a plane to usa.

So how the heck did he get on airplane with no passport?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Personal Answer: is no private property on a plane not even clothing. Then provide all passangers with a fly suit designed to read humans so well that if it sensed potential threat behavior the suit automatically stuns the person wearing it with a pinchless poke or release of some sort of mild toxin putting the person of threat in a state of sleep or suspendedness.

All the money that WILL be used to prevent threats in the future can be used to fly SECONDARY Humanless DRONE smaller PLANES IF YOU WANT TO GET NASTY carrying all the personal property clothing ect. to the point of destination w/o a human on board. THREAT DISSOLVED $$$$


[edit on 12/29/09 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjin
I think the best solution for safer air travel is for the airlines to hire anesthesiologists so we can be placed into a medically induced coma and loaded into crates for the journey.


Way to creep me out and remind me of The Jaunt by Stephen King O.o. Now I have to go get out the book with that short story in it and read it...again
.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
Way to creep me out and remind me of The Jaunt by Stephen King O.o. Now I have to go get out the book with that short story in it and read it...again
.


Haha, that's exactly what popped into my head when I started typing.
Just make sure you breath in the anesthetic or it could be a very long trip indeed.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
It is my personal feeling that this situation was staged by the CIA.

It happened in 1993 at WTC when the FBI was 'involved' with bombing there.

I think the intention was not to set off a bomb, but to make it look as though a bomb was going to go off. That has the same effect without actually killing anyone or causing damage to the plane or those on the ground.

Whether the bomber new this or not we dont know. He may well have thought he was going to be a martyr but in fact he has been used as an bit part player to create a drama.

At this rate the sheeple will be asking to have rfid's implanted.

Nice job



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The Lord and Savior
 



"...screams CIA to me..." Did you ever think that there are actually other people in the world with own motives. That's what I love about this site. If there is anything wrong anywhere in the world it's the fault of the US. There is no doubt we have had a hand in some nefarious things but if you think the rest of the world is innocent grow up!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pacific_waters
 


If you think the CIA is innocent than YOU need to "grow up" my friend.
The problem is, there are no shortage of groups overseas that want to destroy America and the CIA is all too willing to help them achieve their goals so that they can then have an excuse to clamp down on security and make us all safer from the enemy which coincidentally is....THEM!!!!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

With flights to america, americans deal with immigration do they not?

So how the heck did he get on airplane with no passport?


The Immigration checkpoints are at the destinaion airport.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It might be an idea to try to reverse the problem reaction solution on them, I know it wont happen but if everyone decided they were not going to fly, the people who would suffer the most would be the airline companies, and the government because of the losses in revenue. If that were to happen for just a few weeks they would be screaming for you to go back to using flight as a means of transport again, in fact reversing PRS, could be a way of changing many things you want changed. but like i said its probably never going to happen.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I like full body scanners.

It means that the TSA dummies have to look at my package.

Actually, mine is too big to be called a "package". It is more like CARGO!

So that means the TSA dummies have to look at my cargo.

Carry on.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I think the biggest problem is that history proves that governments cannot secure their people from crime & guarantee individual safety; that's one of the reasons for inclusion of the 2nd Amendment! By Constitutional Law, they are only required to "provide for the common defense," nothing more. They can, at best, provide for a military to resist foreign invasion, but they cannot provide for individual safety...It's a lie to even claim to be able to do so.
Excerpted from the link above (The Supreme Law School):

In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.


Even though the government tells you that they have to restrict you in order to protect you, it's a lie; They cannot deliver on a false promise. There can be no trade-off of liberty for security...It's expressly forbidden for the government to restrict your Rights for any reason, except when you've been caught violating someone else's Equal Rights.

Even the US Founding Forefathers knew this...From Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.


If you look at more recent articles over that Christmas Day incident, it was the passengers who caught the bomber, not the security system at the airport...And yet, in a recent speech, Obama claims that more beefed up security would have caught the bomber, before he could board the plane. "Pure Bollocks," as my friends across the pond would phrase it. No matter what kind of restrictions & limitations the US government puts on the People, criminals are merely forced to be more clever.

Let me re-iterate & emphasize:
The proposed trade of liberty for security is a bald-faced lie & TBTB know it!

[edit on 29-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE
 


Actually I didn't recieve the means for this discussion from ATS (hard to believe I know) I recieved it from the msm. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join