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.

 

There Should Be No Airport Security At All

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I contend that post 9/11 air travel would be safer with no airport security at all.

Given the shoe and panty bomber events, we see the public will immediately attack the terrorists in question regardless of personal risk.

People know that if they don't act to stop the terrorists, the plane they are on will either be shot down or crashed into the ground. No negotiations will take place.

I also contend that damn near everyone would carry a gun with them when they got on a plane. - obviously a cabin full of armed passengers vs a handful of nut case terrorists is a no-brainer.

Also, the actual risk of death from a terrorist attack is only slightly higher than the risk of being struck dead by lightning.

If they really wanted to make air travel safer, they should simply get rid of the alcohol in passenger terminals and planes, since 99.9% of violence on flights is from belligerent drunks.

This would also ensure people who were armed on the plane would be sober to shoot straight and kill any threats.

Praise Mao.



Deaths over an 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005

www.wired.com...

Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Electrocution: 5,171
Terrorism: 3147




[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I was just thinking something very similar myself.

Not sure I completely agree, mainly because I'd be afraid I'd end up on a plane full of passengers like myself...either too timid, too incompetent, or too intimidated to actually stop a situation. I certainly wouldn't have a clue what to do if it happened!

However, I guess I could always make sure to travel around with Chuck Norris, right?



Of course....you'd then have to deal with those folks who decide to have air rage, or kill a fellow passenger for inadvertantly drooling on them.... guess on second thought it might not be such a good idea after all.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by smyleegrl]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


hahah

trust me, someone on there would be armed to take out the threat.

terrist wouldn't stand a chance.

Hell, they don't stand a chance now!

The only real threat would be from suicidal bombers, but ya know what? If a group of terrists is determined to blow up a plane, no amount of security will prevent that.

Hell, all you have to do is stick a bomb in your check in luggage and put a timer on it.

This nonsense about putting bombs in panties is a total joke. Anyone serious enough to blow up a plane isn't going to carry the bomb in their panties, they will put it in their check-in luggage with a timer.

This fact just further highlights the fact that the panty bomber is a staged stunt.




[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I disagree, here is why...

There are a lot of unstable people out there that might mug you on a plane for adjusting your shoe laces or adjusting your waistband.

That said, I think airport security is completely out of whack with reality. There is no need to take your shoes off. There is no need to ban liquid containers of specific sizes as carry-on items. There is no need to have two security checkpoints per gate entrance. Everyone should be able to carry on a leatherman / pocket knife.

Drug and bomb sniffing dogs are under-utilized. The newer air-blast booths are great and take no time.

Generally I like the idea of everyone policing themselves. I think that is part of the 2nd amendment which I agree extremely with. Nothing wrong with a few deterrents. But, I'll be the first to agree that airport security is way out of whack.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WARBREAD
 


No one is going to pull out a gun and shoot you for tying your shoe laces.

If there is not a clearly defined threat, such an action would risk the wrath of other armed passengers.

If someone was to pull out a gun and brandish it unprovoked, other passengers would respond immediately.

Just the risk of this occurring would be enough to keep guns in their holsters.

Plus 99.99999% of people are not suicidal. Pulling out a gun and shooting on a plane is not something a person that values their own life would do unless they were in imminent danger of death already.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Heh, I've seen this for what it really is from nearly the begining.
Naomi Wolf covers this extensively when she speaks about the ten steps necessary to take a democratic nation to a dictatorship.

At some point, you must harass your own people and force them to accept stricter "regulations" that are meant to actually do little more than make them feel subjugated to your "rules"... and traditionally, this comes by way of travel requirements.

There is a very real contingency, somewhere within our Government, to turn this great country into a monstrous nightmare very similar to Nazi Germany.

The writing is on the wall, people. Don't let them succeed.

They want you to fear a noun. For a noun is a faceless enemy. If you fear the noun, you will willingly allow them to murder anyone they choose. And in the meantime, you will fall under totalitarian governance.

Edit to add - I believe Eisenhower warned us of this.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005

www.wired.com...

Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Electrocution: 5,171
Terrorism: 3147



Looks like we need to be stripped naked by body scanners and invade three countries in order to be safe.


[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Well I dont know about you guys, but when I traveled from Belfast International Airport to Amsterdam (Schipol) there was hardly any security. This was about 2 years ago. On my way back, I only seen 1 guard at the Amsterdam Airport and he did not even check any of my mates or me.

Seems like its just America.

If it is as harsh as what everyone is saying, then I would agree that its security should be minimized to conditions previous to 9/11.

At the end of the day, an airport is just like a train station or a bus depot. A means of transport. I wouldnt want a security guard inside my private taxi during transportation lol.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Plus 99.99999% of people are not suicidal. Pulling out a gun and shooting on a plane is not something a person that values their own life would do unless they were in imminent danger of death already.


I may agree...however, its what happens when the triggers start getting pulled that I'd be more terrified about.

Most gunfights I've seen aren't cool, calm and collected.

Instead they are normally fear-filled, paniced, people trying not to get shot, ducking down behind any source of cover and pretty much just unloading their whole clip in the general direction of the threat...not selective aiming, selective shooting...

...its pretty much just *OMG! ARGH! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK OMG HAVE I BEEN HIT?*

...certainly severely increased the very real risk of a stray bullets striking other passengers, striking walls of the plane...all manner of extremely bad outcomes.


It'd be like Reseviour Dogs at 30,000ft.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
I may agree...however, its what happens when the triggers start getting pulled that I'd be more terrified about.

Most gunfights I've seen aren't cool, calm and collected.

Instead they are normally fear-filled, paniced, people trying not to get shot, ducking down behind any source of cover and pretty much just unloading their whole clip in the general direction of the threat...not selective aiming, selective shooting...

...its pretty much just *OMG! ARGH! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK OMG HAVE I BEEN HIT?*

...certainly severely increased the very real risk of a stray bullets striking other passengers, striking walls of the plane...all manner of extremely bad outcomes.

It'd be like Reseviour Dogs at 30,000ft.




yeah it would be

it would be ugly, brutal, and people would die.

BUT - that is not any different than a terrorist successfully taking out a plane. At least this way the passengers have a chance.

The whole "airplane" thing is ridiculous too. If I was a terrorist, I would simply blow up a bus, a train, or walk into a terminal and unload with an automatic rifle.

Why bother jumping through 20 thousand hoops?

If I was a suicide bomber, I would put the bomb in my check in luggage, no chance to stop me there.

This whole business about airport security is ridiculous.




[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Sorry I stopped right hee at the OP..

"Given the shoe and panty bomber events, we see the public will immediately attack the terrorists in question regardless of personal risk. "

that's the whole point - he/she/it shouldn't even get on board let along to the concorse at any airport



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdchop
Sorry I stopped right hee at the OP..

"Given the shoe and panty bomber events, we see the public will immediately attack the terrorists in question regardless of personal risk. "

that's the whole point - he/she/it shouldn't even get on board let along to the concorse at any airport


naked body scanners and incompotent airport security will not stop terrorist attacks.

period.

we know for a fact that this latest panty bomber was walked through security anyways from multiple eye witnesses.

also - real suicidal bombers aren't going to risk taking the bomb through a security checkpoint, they will put it in their check-in luggage with a timer or wireless detonator.

I trust myself and the general public to protect me better than the TSA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.





[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well... just an FYI - less than 20% of gun shots from armed encounters involving pistols result in death. Blood, sure. I've been shot. I've been in more than a few armed situations. They happen rapidly and resolve themselves rapidly.

I don't think the use of firearms on an airplane is a good idea. Collateral damage due to a lot of people in a small space. The possibility of damaging the plane unless fragable rounds are used... lots of bad stuff effecting a lot of people. So I have no issues with a firearm ban on a commercial plane.

I still think there are plenty of overzealous people out there that would mug a guy for doing next to nothing on a plane without some form of security measures prior to boarding.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WARBREAD
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well... just an FYI - less than 20% of gun shots from armed encounters involving pistols result in death. Blood, sure. I've been shot. I've been in more than a few armed situations. They happen rapidly and resolve themselves rapidly.

I don't think the use of firearms on an airplane is a good idea. Collateral damage due to a lot of people in a small space. The possibility of damaging the plane unless fragable rounds are used... lots of bad stuff effecting a lot of people. So I have no issues with a firearm ban on a commercial plane.

I still think there are plenty of overzealous people out there that would mug a guy for doing next to nothing on a plane without some form of security measures prior to boarding.




Well ya know what?

I don't think the use of explosives on a plane is a good idea!

No, there are no overzealous people out there that would mug a guy for doing nothing on a plane unless they have a death wish.

Fact of the matter is, your odds of dying from terrorism are next to nothing and the facts are you would be safer with an armed public on a plane to protect you in the event some nut did decide to go bananas.

In fact, I would argue that planes are such big targets for terrorists because they know they are completely gun free.

Ever hear of a terrorist attacking an NRA rally?

How about a gun show?


Golly gee to hear libs talk, you'd think every gun show would result in mass casualties with the national guard having to be called out.


[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Has anyone ever heard of someone being mugged at a gun show?

Just curious.

I don't think there have been any cases of this happening.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry, I disagree with you 100%, completely and emphatically.

Airport Security was a joke prior to 9/11 and up until six months after 9/11, it was a joke again.

The people who work Airport Security are needed to be there because an airport is just like a city, it has traffic flow, albeit foot-traffic, just like an actual city, not the mention the driver's who are dropping off and picking up people.

To drop security completely would be tantamount to be allowing crime to happen on many levels.

What we need is less apathy in the security force present.

I am not calling for tighter security, nor am I calling for those scanners to see through people's clothing, I am calling for however people who actually pay attention to what the Hell is going on, at all times, people that are attention to detail oriented.

Airport Security does not train nor pay their staff nearly enough to do their jobs.

While I love my guns I sure as Hell will not be carrying mine unless in baggage, legally.

I do not want anyone, carrying a weapon on board of my flight, with reluctant exception to the Air Marshall, and even that is questionable.

When you get large groups of people together, the IQ of the group lowers exponentially.

Why the Hell would you want them to do away with Airport Security?

There is no reason whatsoever to promote something like this whatsoever.

I fully support killing any terrorist aboard a flight with bare hands, and anything I can lay my hands on, but I'll never, ever, condone handguns on flights, nor will I ever condone or wish for zero Airport Security.

The threat to structural integrity of the jet alone is reason to never allow guns on board.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Sounds like you're more scared of the public than of terrorists.

Even if the airport was 100% secure against all threats, the terrists will simply blow you up at a bus stop.

But, I suppose you are for total naked strip searching at all bus stops as well.

An armed public is not something to fear.





[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I agree fully with the OP except the whole alcohol thing.

lets not hate on the drunks,they just need to hire bartenders on the planes,different skill set than flight attendants.

flying is magical,it has risks like everything else in life.
people should accept that or learn to sail and/or ride horses.

i personally think they should have those skills already,like who lives on a planet 3/4 water and can't swim?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_grand_pooh-bah
I agree fully with the OP except the whole alcohol thing.

lets not hate on the drunks,they just need to hire bartenders on the planes,different skill set than flight attendants.

flying is magical,it has risks like everything else in life.
people should accept that or learn to sail and/or ride horses.

i personally think they should have those skills already,like who lives on a planet 3/4 water and can't swim?


Praise Stalin.

I have reported you to the DHS for thought crimes.

Mao is displeased.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Sounds like you're more scared of the public than of terrorists.

Even if the airport was 100% secure against all threats, the terrists will simply blow you up at a bus stop.

But, I suppose you are for total naked strip searching at all bus stops as well.

An armed public is not something to fear.





[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]


No, I'm not afraid of the public, I'm not afraid of anyone.

I however see the stupidity of people in large groups.

And I am not asking for strip searches either, already mentioned I was not for those scanners which highlight everything under your clothes.

I am all for guns and guns-rights, and both of those stop at the airport.

"Terrorists" will kill you wherever the Hell they want to.

When groups of people get together the IQ lowers, exponentially, that's been proven.

Many times over.

When violence happens in a public place everyone reacts differently, most people panic.

I'm not someone who panics, ever, but I sure as Hell do not want gun-fights breaking out where other people are liable to panic, because idiots panicking equals lemmings running off a cliff, mass panic is sheer stupidity in motion.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join