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: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
How bout sleeper security armed with blow guns and poison darts? Silent, but deadly.

Guns are over-spoken of for self-defense.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
With all the security the world could provide for airliners, they would never be able to prevent someone who has swallowed a soluble tablet/capsule which contains a chemical which after an hour (an hour into the flight), the person/carrier presents the "totally secure 1984 airliner" with a completely successful story of spontaneous human combustion. His/Her body engulfs the passenger level of the plane with flames, his bones act like thermite, createing a hole in the floor of the plane which in turn creates a vacuum of depressurized air within the plane, which also in turn sucks the passengers out of the plane, the plane stalls and flips out of control and randomly crashes into the ocean. The terrorist fails as the plane experienced turbulence during the first of the flight which changed the location of the plane in which the terrorist thought it would be at the time his tablet/capsule was completely digested.

As random as it is, it is something TPTB or any security would ever think of or be able to scrutinize. Therefore it cancels out thorough security as it costs too much and takes too much time to check every passenger if they have digested a dissoluble thermite spontaneous human combustion pill which could have been digested via the mouth or predigested as a suppository.


No point in all this security, as the terrorists have these termite bum pills LOL!

[edit on 8/1/2010 by the_denv]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Oh.. joy... I'd feel much safer with a bunch of civilians with guns, half of whom are trained poorly, safeties off, blowing holes in the cabin and getting us sucked into the atmosphere.

How about we don't allow people with guns on board. I think that's a better plan.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Really? No security? Well, could work.

There's no security for Greyhound busses, and there has been very few incidents I can think of...

I don't wanna jynx myself though as I'm getting on one tomorrow


However, I think both busses such as Greyhound and planes should be secured. Why?

Our species = insane.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
At least they should give people the choice. You can either travel on the state controlled airline, or you can travel on the party plane.

Party plane people don't have to wait in line, can pay with cash, one way is fine, smoke all you want, and drink like a fish until you land. No thought out plans necessary. You feel like going to Vegas, you get a taxi, go to the airport, and you're on the plane before some TSA d-bag could say Jack Robinson.

No screening, no security, just old time I feel like flying fun. Screw the nanny state, I'll take my chances and feel more alive. And if it crashes, who cares, that was my choice and there's no way in Hell that some jihadist ragtop would ever think about trying anything on a plane full of face painting football fans.

Manchester United - OY OY OY



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I say everone should be given a machette when they board the plane. A couple of terrorists with machettes would be no match on a plane where all the passangers had one.


OK, I jest! But I do have to agree that airport security is worthless. Any terrorist set on taking down a plane would do so with checked baggage, or from the ground on takeoff or landing.

The TSA security measures are a waste and as has already been said, just one more step in acclimating the public to giving up further rights and freedoms.

Can anybody recall of a single time that the TSA and their increased security was able to prevent a single confirmed incident?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
With all the security the world could provide for airliners, they would never be able to prevent someone who has swallowed a soluble tablet/capsule which contains a chemical which after an hour (an hour into the flight), the person/carrier presents the "totally secure 1984 airliner" with a completely successful story of spontaneous human combustion. His/Her body engulfs the passenger level of the plane with flames, his bones act like thermite, createing a hole in the floor of the plane which in turn creates a vacuum of depressurized air within the plane, which also in turn sucks the passengers out of the plane, the plane stalls and flips out of control and randomly crashes into the ocean.


Imagine his face when he finds out his flight's been delayed for 2 hours.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree to an extent because I dont think that increased security really makes anyone safer.

So after this underwear bomber, they want to install these full body scanners. Hmm, how could anyone get past this...oh yeah, they can insert the explosive device in their rectum and remove it in the bathroom of the airplane. And if that happens they will have to require all passengers to submit to an anal inspection before entering a terminal and then very few people will even fly.

It seems as though the US and and other govts act like these terrorist are idiots.

If someone is willing to die for their beliefs, you are going to have a really tough time ensuring that everyone is safe.

Also why do terrorists try to get their explosives on the plane? Couldnt they just detonate a bomb in an airport lobby before you even get to the terminal or plane. Or why even bother with airports, they could easily get into a sporting event with a bomb. I have taken a backpack full of food and beverages into a baseball game and the "security" at the gate had me open my bag and they looked in. There was a sweatshirt on top of a bunch of snacks and beverages and they didnt even look under it.

This whole thing just seems silly.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Oh.. joy... I'd feel much safer with a bunch of civilians with guns, half of whom are trained poorly, safeties off, blowing holes in the cabin and getting us sucked into the atmosphere.

How about we don't allow people with guns on board. I think that's a better plan.


What a scenario. Any Frank Drebin on this plane ?

Definitely i respect heroes, who will take action in their own hands. Still i prefere the airport security, even if it feels inconvenient.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
This has to be one of the most craziest and bizzare ideas I have ever heard of. First, it wouldn't matter if everyone had guns, and knew if they didn't act they would die, because if someone took a bomb in the bathroom, noone would be able to stop that. Second, these terroist are creative, they would bring a coke can or something full of gasoline or something and lite it up, guns wouldn't matter (remember these guys want to die) guns are a deterent, you can't detour these guys, they will open up and say haa for that bullet everyone is willing to put in them, however, by than the terroist would have done have the plane on the way down!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Kevlar seat covers and your Idea OP - that would be a winning combo.


...Well that and recommending (not mandating) frangible rounds. Airlines could sell them at the airport - but the smart airlines will give them out in sample packs.






[edit on 9-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Also why do terrorists try to get their explosives on the plane? Couldnt they just detonate a bomb in an airport lobby before you even get to the terminal or plane. Or why even bother with airports, they could easily get into a sporting event with a bomb. I have taken a backpack full of food and beverages into a baseball game and the "security" at the gate had me open my bag and they looked in. There was a sweatshirt on top of a bunch of snacks and beverages and they didnt even look under it.

This whole thing just seems silly.



Sheeesh, listen to Mr Common Sense over here.


Can we get back to focusing on airports - or are we all going to have to start using logic now that you're here? huh?





[edit on 9-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
While we are speaking of statistics how about a little history?
www.emergency-management.net...

Hijackings ended with the planes being used as weapons exactly one time! All other instances were resolved with very little to no loss of life. (Unless the situation went wrong, and escalated, leading to a crashed plane)

Now your proposal would make unbloody highjackings easier to escalate, and terrorist attacks on planes would be made easier, since the terrorist could just carry his gun aboard, start shooting holes into the walls, and can even count on one or two of the passengers helping him!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I do hope this isn't still the case but after being scrutinised for sharp implements - so not even a pair of nail scissors allowed - the inflight meal was served with metal knives and forks

Seriously I could think of a whole lot of other targets which would be easy pickings. So either the terrorist threat is greatly overplayed or they are an unimaginative lot



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

... since the terrorist could just carry his gun aboard, start shooting holes into the walls, and can even count on one or two of the passengers helping him!




If you define one being "helped" as "having one's torso being ripped apart by bullets" then yes - If a terrorist tried to use his gun to take over the plane, he could probably count on being "helped" in such a manner.


"Help"



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
With all the security the world could provide for airliners, they would never be able to prevent someone who has swallowed a soluble tablet/capsule which contains a chemical which after an hour (an hour into the flight), the person/carrier presents the "totally secure 1984 airliner" with a completely successful story of spontaneous human combustion. His/Her body engulfs the passenger level of the plane with flames, his bones act like thermite, createing a hole in the floor of the plane which in turn creates a vacuum of depressurized air within the plane, which also in turn sucks the passengers out of the plane, the plane stalls and flips out of control and randomly crashes into the ocean. The terrorist fails as the plane experienced turbulence during the first of the flight which changed the location of the plane in which the terrorist thought it would be at the time his tablet/capsule was completely digested.

As random as it is, it is something TPTB or any security would ever think of or be able to scrutinize. Therefore it cancels out thorough security as it costs too much and takes too much time to check every passenger if they have digested a dissoluble thermite spontaneous human combustion pill which could have been digested via the mouth or predigested as a suppository.


No point in all this security, as the terrorists have these termite bum pills LOL!

[edit on 8/1/2010 by the_denv]


I agree.

They'd also never be able to stop a person from swallowing a pill, that after an hour turned them into an invincible monster capable of eating everyone on the plane, and then turning into a giant spaceship and flying away.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Or Ebola...

....if a person ingested Ebola right before getting on the plane there would be no way of detecting that.

No scanner would work to stop something far deadlier than any bomb or gun.

*Anyhow, real terrorist target places other than airports. The scanner in the airports are just the beachhead for this technology. Once we allow them there, they will be everywhere.

I predict that the first country to have the scanners placed on people's front doorways will be Britain 0 who will also be the last to implement the OP's amazing idea for passenger security and safety.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I think this is true of society at large. The so-called need for protection is more a result of the existence of "Government" going out of it's way to maintain it's free lunch. I'm sure with minimum government, an armed population and just enough real law to enforce the existence of citizen juries, we would be just fine. The minute we go outside of a minimum government and real true law we are really opening the door to scams being institutionalized.

People live in fear, weakness and emptiness. They lack faith in themselves and in the higher power to see to justice. We have no business thinking we are instruments of justice or have to punish or control. So long as people leaves us and our property alone we should tolerate their condition. If there is something that conscience can not permit then a grand jury is the answer to decide whether action should be considered. Then a separate trial jury should decide the final determination for the situation. Juries make law not judges, cops, or elected representatives.

We don't really need any of these fake laws. We create an institution like an airport and a fictional governing power that exploits the situation to it's advantage and the airport joke is the result.

I still find it shocking at the extent to which people are willing to rationalize their own involvement in criminal behavior. Particularly the Police, Judges, Media and Politicians.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


statistically speaking ??
If everyone can have a firearm on a plane then that means bad people to not just the charles brawnson death wish vigilantys ..
So what your saying is you wouldnt of mind the underwear bomber having a gun so he coulda shot a flight attendant or two and then put a whole in the plane while some yahoo passenger 59 is on the way to unload even more bullets in a close proximaty pressurized cabin your giving people way too much credit as marksman and hostage negotitor. Tooo much hollywood freind thisnt the land of wesley snipes saving the innocent people will get killed if your idea was put into effect.
and one thing about statistics the more you increase the variables the more likely that something will happen. a hundred cars might casue 10 accidents a thousand cars may cause a 100 thats how statistics are compiled it has a lot to do with the law of probability .
AND COME ONNNN SERIOUSLY? LETTING PEOPLE WITH GUNS ON AN AIR PLANE SERIOUSLY



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


WOW . sorry for the one liner so i will say it again WOWW your special i almost feel stupider for even reading this thread im out .
statistics
statistics

uh pressurized cabin

anyone can be armed you me the terrorist

an arguement brakes out over luggage compartment space or a passenger in the wrong seat and 15 bullets go flying at forty thousand feet so you dont have to have your luggage searched?

GREAT idea champ I hope you dont carry your firearm im scared to live in a world where people think they can help by WOW sorry this is just hard to even take seriously.

Peace out yo


[edit on 9-1-2010 by triplescorpio]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join