It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The True Odds Of Airbourne Terror

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:44 AM
So much fear right now is going around, the media are pumping it out, the politicians are telling us all to cower in fear and bend over as they screw our rights out of us, but hey it's for our own good, you wouldn't want to die in an airplane terror attack woudl you?

Well here are some rather startling statistics from the last 10 years.

Odds of dying in a terror incident whilst flying

I won't bring the numbers up because i want everyne to actually look at that graph themselves but seriously guys, do we need to be much more careful? Do we need more violations of our rights which can include a machine that looks under your clothes? Oh i know they say it's not invasive, that they don't see detail but i am sure as these machines become more common we will see videos of staff laughing at images.

Either way it is wrong, this slow progression of violation. Think about 20 years ago, if someone told you they had a machine to see under your clothes and put it in an airport do you think it would be allowed? No there would be uproar, even if a terrorist attack had happened the day before it wouldn't be accepted.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:48 AM
I'm not scared of flying.

IMO, my date with death was preset a long time ago.

It is just the BS that you have to put up with in order to fly that irritates me.

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by jam321

Agreed, you know i'm happy to sacrifice a little safety (and by those odds it really is a little) to maintain my rights and freedoms. Not to mention the sheer stupidity of having to check in hours beforehand. What is really funny is that people happily suspend their rights so that they can fly, just in case a terrorist gets on board. They then get off the plane and get into a car which statistically has a far greater chance of getting them killed.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:48 AM
My post

I actually said this exact same thing to someone...but I didn't have the flashy graphic that gizmodo does.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by links234

Well hey a fancy graphic can often convey information more quickly and fully then bland figures

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:35 PM
If you ever wonder what a good political party, or political movement might look like, then one of it's features might be (at least) it's candiates desire to explain these sorts figures, and in so doing promote the spending of the money in either different areas of public sector, or (ideally) in the form of tax cuts.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well hey a fancy graphic can often convey information more quickly and fully then bland figures

And its more fun

Great thread for bringing a bit of perspective to this subject

I heard that they can still get some weapons past these scanners anyway... i don’t know why they just don’t use more dogs... Dogs are pretty good at this job and they are far less invasive!


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Muckster]

new topics

top topics


log in