|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 7:29:29 GMT -5
I think the best part is we have sophisticated detection devices, which we eschew in favour of public displays of "security."
In other words, we'd rather look safer than be safer.
I say safer because such devices are never completely foolproof. Besides, I doubt we'll ever be completely safe. Doesn't stop me from shopping, though. >.>
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 29, 2011 7:38:09 GMT -5
Here's my question: why smuggle stuff onto the plane? Either you take control of the plane and run it into places รก la 9/11, which doesn't require explosives, or you explode the plane, which only kills the people on the plane. Blowing up an airport would kill more people, and would be effectively easier. So why not search people before they even reach the terminal? Why all this searching rigamarole to get on? Security is rather crappy if you're not trying to board a plane. Observe. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 29, 2011 8:06:54 GMT -5
I think the best part is we have sophisticated detection devices, which we eschew in favour of public displays of "security." In other words, we'd rather look safer than be safer. I say safer because such devices are never completely foolproof. Besides, I doubt we'll ever be completely safe. Doesn't stop me from shopping, though. >.> Never. Never, never never. As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed. The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above. I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800. Do enjoy your next flight. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 8:13:25 GMT -5
I don't fly. But that has nothing to do with terrorists.
|
|
Alyra
Full Member
ex-fundie
Posts: 143
|
Post by Alyra on Jun 29, 2011 9:34:52 GMT -5
I think the best part is we have sophisticated detection devices, which we eschew in favour of public displays of "security." In other words, we'd rather look safer than be safer. I say safer because such devices are never completely foolproof. Besides, I doubt we'll ever be completely safe. Doesn't stop me from shopping, though. >.> Never. Never, never never. As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed. The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above. I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800. Do enjoy your next flight. Thanks for that. In two weeks I'll be getting on a plane for the first time, and I'm not looking forward to it. That was just what I needed to hear to make me feel better. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 29, 2011 11:09:54 GMT -5
Never. Never, never never. As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed. The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above. I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800. Do enjoy your next flight. Thanks for that. In two weeks I'll be getting on a plane for the first time, and I'm not looking forward to it. That was just what I needed to hear to make me feel better.  You're welcome. Fact remains, TSA bullshit aside, outside of the Middle East, you are more likely to die from a shark attack or beesting than you are to die in a terrorism related incident. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 29, 2011 11:16:15 GMT -5
Never. Never, never never. As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed. The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above. I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800. Do enjoy your next flight. Thanks for that. In two weeks I'll be getting on a plane for the first time, and I'm not looking forward to it. That was just what I needed to hear to make me feel better. My first plane ride was four years ago, and I still get on planes just as nervously as I did the first time. Though that's more a fear of being arrested than a fear of hijacking - I got pulled out of line because they got a false positive on my bag, and was completely terrified. Think of it this way: it is more likely for you to be killed by a vending machine than by a plane. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 11:20:55 GMT -5
Fact remains, TSA bullshit aside, outside of the Middle East, you are more likely to die from a shark attack or beesting than you are to die in a terrorism related incident. Agreed. But because we are both an alarmist and reactionary society, being shown that it can happen nnow means we're totally afraid it will happen again. Often. Which is kind of, to borrow a worn out saying, letting the terrorists win. When we give up both freedom and dignity (TSA's definitely the latter) for peace of mind (not even actual security), the guys who want us pissing our pants have won. It is especially alarming to me, after all these "safety" procedures, how often we get articles demonstrating that airport security can be compromised. And THAT'S what people decide to not be concerned about.... |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 29, 2011 11:24:22 GMT -5
Thanks for that. In two weeks I'll be getting on a plane for the first time, and I'm not looking forward to it. That was just what I needed to hear to make me feel better. My first plane ride was four years ago, and I still get on planes just as nervously as I did the first time. Though that's more a fear of being arrested than a fear of hijacking - I got pulled out of line because they got a false positive on my bag, and was completely terrified. Think of it this way: it is more likely for you to be killed by a vending machine than by a plane. Oh man, the false positive thing! I have a small army backpack. Its comfortable, holds a lot, has my name stitched on it, fits in overhead compartments, and so on. So I use it all the time when ever I travel. If I were a woman, it would be my handbag. Also sort of a sentimental attachment, because I've had it for years, and took it overseas and stuff. Back when I was in the army, I used to hang it below my seat in the turret in the crew commander's position. Now... when you fire the machine guns in the T50 turret, there is a clever system fior collecting all the spent brass and link, and funneling it into a bin, that fails spectac ularly and essentially is less useful than goggles against acid. So, every time I'd fire the guns at the range, my lap, uniform, boots, and this bag would get covered in brass, and it would take a day or two before I'd stop smelling of cordite. So this bag has, in its time, been literally buried in spent brass, and so covered in gun powder residue that the camouflage pattern was invisible. So... at airports, they now have these chemical sniffer things, looking for any explosive compounds. Pro tip 1... Gunpowder is classed as an explosive by these things... Pro tip 2... they can pick up REALLY small amounts of it, even years and years after your bag has been anywhere near a weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 29, 2011 11:25:15 GMT -5
Fact remains, TSA bullshit aside, outside of the Middle East, you are more likely to die from a shark attack or beesting than you are to die in a terrorism related incident. Agreed. But because we are both an alarmist and reactionary society, being shown that it can happen nnow means we're totally afraid it will happen again. Often. Which is kind of, to borrow a worn out saying, letting the terrorists win. When we give up both freedom and dignity (TSA's definitely the latter) for peace of mind (not even actual security), the guys who want us pissing our pants have won. It is especially alarming to me, after all these "safety" procedures, how often we get articles demonstrating that airport security can be compromised. And THAT'S what people decide to not be concerned about.... QFT |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 29, 2011 11:28:07 GMT -5
Never. Never, never never. As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed. The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above. I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800. Do enjoy your next flight. Thanks for that. In two weeks I'll be getting on a plane for the first time, and I'm not looking forward to it. That was just what I needed to hear to make me feel better. Oh don't worry. If they want to cause mass destruction they don't even need to blow up the airplane. ...they can just blow themselves up in the middle of the security checkpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 29, 2011 11:31:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 29, 2011 11:47:12 GMT -5
I don't fly. But that has nothing to do with terrorists. I don't like to fly and avoid it as much as possible. It has next to nothing to do with terrorism and a lot to do with invasive TSA screenings. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 14:48:08 GMT -5
I don't fly. But that has nothing to do with terrorists. I don't like to fly and avoid it as much as possible. It has next to nothing to do with terrorism and a lot to do with invasive TSA screenings. I was with them up untilthe "horribly painful and invasive rectal imprint" policy. |
|
Alyra
Full Member
ex-fundie
Posts: 143
|
Post by Alyra on Jun 29, 2011 14:56:16 GMT -5
Too bad there's not a way to travel quickly without planes.
I know.
A TARDIS for everyone!
|
|
You're welcome.
