Ron Paul: 9/11 Was Caused By Government Banning Guns on Planes, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 9-7-2011 @ 11:16 AM by filosophia


Ron Paul is spot on, he also shows himself as a bit of a truther to say the government set the stage by telling people to stand down to terrorists. He also told the truth about the political incorrectness of not profiling and instead targeting 95 year olds as terrorists.


reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 04:47 AM by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Skellon


pilots were armed on planes into the 70's before irrational fear made them boxes to be cut.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 05:48 AM by Skellon
reply to post by thisguyrighthere



I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.

That is not a solution.

So, instead of wondering if the passenger, of Middle Eastern origin is going to pull a gun and hijack the plane for political reasons, you are left wondering if any of the passengers on the plane that have had a bad day are going to hijack the plane?

Not to mention that a ballistic discharge inside a pressurised cabin is somewhat dangerous.

Regards, Skellon
edit on 10-7-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 11:36 AM by JIMC5499
reply to post by Skellon



Your fears are valid only if you believe the anti-gun groups statements that everyone who carries a gun is a wacko who is just waiting for a chance to shoot somebody. It is my belief that disarming the passengers and crew of airliners increaced the number of hijackings and led to 9-11.


reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 11:45 AM by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Skellon



You can honestly listen to him there and say he's a crackpot?
He obviously means security. It's a good idea.. that's why it was employed before they started stripping away liberties.

OP I have to say the way you titled it leaves it open to improper interpretation that may make people think he means anyone.. I would say banning armed agents instead maybe.. your thread though. Anyway, even just security with tasers would be good.
edit on 10-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 11:47 AM by filosophia
Originally posted by Skellon
reply to
post by thisguyrighthere



I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.


Not everyone would have a gun on the plane only the pilot so that's a big difference. I wouldn't like it if anyone could bring a gun on a plane but the pilot is different. You entrust your life to the pilot and the pilot should also be armed to further the security of the passengers.


reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 11:48 AM by filosophia
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to
post by Skellon



You can honestly listen to him there and say he's a crackpot?
He obviously means security. It's a good idea.. that's why it was employed before they started stripping away liberties.

OP I have to say the way you titled it leaves it open to improper interpretation that may make people think he means anyone.. I would say banning armed agents instead maybe.. your thread though. Anyway, even just security with tasers would be good.
edit on 10-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


It was a direct quote from a website, probably prisonplanet so maybe that would explain it, but thanks for the heads up. I think he obviously meant pilots and private security, not everyone having a gun on the plane.


reply posted on 14-7-2011 @ 10:49 AM by jessejamesxx
Originally posted by Skellon
reply to
post by thisguyrighthere



I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.

That is not a solution.

So, instead of wondering if the passenger, of Middle Eastern origin is going to pull a gun and hijack the plane for political reasons, you are left wondering if any of the passengers on the plane that have had a bad day are going to hijack the plane?

Not to mention that a ballistic discharge inside a pressurised cabin is somewhat dangerous.

Regards, Skellon
edit on 10-7-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)


You are grossly misunderstanding the point, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. "People" aren't and wouldn't be allowed to bring guns onto planes. There would most likely already be a gun on the plane, in the cockpit, under a very secure lock and key. Probably safeguarded to the point that if the cockpit door has been opened since takeoff, they wouldn't be able to open it.

Guns aren't allowed past the airport security checkpoint. The pilots wouldn't even be able to carry them on. It would be a last minute ditch effort, if they were being hijacked.

Also, I believe Mythbusters did air pressurization test with gunshots, and nothing catastrophic happen. They would have time to land the plane (correct me if you remember the episode better than I do)


reply posted on 14-7-2011 @ 11:43 AM by JIMC5499
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
You are grossly misunderstanding the point, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. "People" aren't and wouldn't be allowed to bring guns onto planes. There would most likely already be a gun on the plane, in the cockpit, under a very secure lock and key. Probably safeguarded to the point that if the cockpit door has been opened since takeoff, they wouldn't be able to open it.

Also, I believe Mythbusters did air pressurization test with gunshots, and nothing catastrophic happen. They would have time to land the plane (correct me if you remember the episode better than I do)


Then what would be the sense in having a gun on the plane? By the time you got past all of the safety features, the hijacker would have died of old age. There is a simple foolproof way of preventing 9-11 from ever happening again. Remove the plane from the equation.
Most modern airliners are fly-by-wire. For years the Navy has had a system that allows an aircraft to be flown remotely from either another aircraft or the ground. All that needs to be done is to place a "panic button" in the cockpit, that when pushed disables the aircraft's controls. The aircraft would send out a message through it's transponder that there was an emergency on board, it's autopilot woud either place the aircraft in a holding circle, or start to fly it to the nearest airport with a remote land system. After the button was pushed, the aircraft would no longer respond to any control inputs from the cockpit, it would automatically be controlled from the ground. End of problem.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Ron Paul Won (Great Read) - Huffington Post
  Posted 13 days ago with 127 member flags
Texas GOP Mutiny - SC, VA, LA and Others May Join
  Posted 15 days ago with 83 member flags
A Common Man\'s Guide to the Federal Budget.
  Posted 3 days ago with 51 member flags
*VID* Ron Paul delegates speak out from RNC.
  Posted 8 days ago with 39 member flags