Air Safety and Terrorism

ReD_MuZe · Post by **ReD_MuZe** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:43 am

if those security measures save 1 life,
it is worth it.

im happy to have my bag checked when i go to malls... and i do not feel it invades my privacy. if any, i get another person to greet hello on my way.

in israel we have had many security door keepers giving their lives to save hundreds.

ofcourse this is not the way to stop terror. it is a way to minimise its damage.

i also agree that this buisness like many others is run very poorly.

a person that knows well one of our big malls can sneek a pretty big bomb inside with no problem at all. but so far no bomb exploded inside our malls (just outside). does that make the averege suicide bomber an idiot? well idont think so.
i guess any person with explosives on his body would not be able to think str8 just becouse of the presure (not to mention his state of mind).

I dont use busses. yes im paranoid. you wouldnt find 1 person here in israel that doesnt know a person involved in a suicide bomber. in my case, its my brother, and a dear friend of the family.

terrorism is a symptom of a much bigger problem (im not sure how big). the way to treat the symptoms is treating the illness. untill we find a cure, we will have to settle with semi effective cocktails, that will just prolong humanities life untill it finds the solution...

Peace!

ReD_MuZe · Post by **ReD_MuZe** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:47 am

come to think of it...
you know of that conspiracy story about how AIDS cure has been found already, but the companies didnt want to put it out not to kill their buisness...

[ This Message was edited by: ReD_MuZe on 2006-08-21 08:47 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:03 am

On 2006-08-21 06:46, at0m wrote:
One thing that security measures have in common wherever I've been: it's a big business of hi-tech toys, that does a great job putting down unemployment levels.

It definately is big business. Yet I'll bet there are other ways to increase employment rates besides just increasing the military/industrial complex.

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:05 am

On 2006-08-21 08:47, ReD_MuZe wrote:
come to think of it...
you know of that conspiracy story about how AIDS cure has been found already, but the companies didnt want to put it out not to kill their buisness...

First trial phase of an AIDS vaccine

Post by **garyb** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:55 am

On 2006-08-21 05:40, piddi wrote:
GaryB im just impressed that you manage to drag UN into your scifi story, as it has opposed almost every "anti-terror" operation lately, be it the invasion of iraq, Guantanamo bay or Israels war on Lebanon.

good cop/bad cop.
did you know that u.s. president clinton signed an agreement(that has not ended)turning over control of u.s. military forces to the u.n. security council during the balkans "exercises"?

do you know where the name of the u.n.'s printing operation, the Lucis Trust comes from? maybe you know of madam blavatsky, mr. hitler's favorite mystic, who formed the nazi race ideals and who had a student named alice bailey who formed the Lucifer Trust(because she beleives in "the seething power of Lucifer"(symbolized by the swastika, a rotating vortex). years later, lucis trust, u.n. thank you very much.

heck, forget that bit of insanity, when has the u.n. ever stopped bloodshed? did they stop it in rowanda or congo(how many millions? 5, 6?)? how about kosovo or in the middle east right now? they certainly didn't stop the iraqi brutality, they made it worse. and how about u.n. officials trading little girls into sexual slavery in the balkans a few years ago? the contractor that was scapegoated(and lost not one contract) the early reports just admitted that the sex trade was way up since the u.n. had taken the scene. yep, get visited by the u.n. and then your daughters(10-13 years old) get shipped off to be slaves of some businessman or diplomat. nice.

when this "war on terror" started, mr bush said "they hate us for our liberties and wish to take them away from us" and then proceeded to begin usurping what the us constitution calls "god given rights". if god gave it, the government has no business taking it. if the terrorists are the ones "trying to destroy our freedoms", then the one destroying the freedoms must be a terrorist(very simple logic, any programmer could recognize it).

oh no! you can't bring a bottle of water! it might be a liquid bomb! oh dear, your bic lighter might be able to light the fuse in the heel of your shoe!(

yep a lotta explosive in that there shoe, it coulda blowed up his whole foot!) why do all the terrorists they show seem to be literal retards?

nobody is being saved with these techniques(airport screeners generally have the iq of lint, they ain't stopping sh*t). security is an illusion. they are only controlling the populations minds with them and convincing people that they are chattel to be herded. it is unfortunate that there are so few free humans left.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:06 am

On 2006-08-21 09:55, garyb wrote:
heck, forget that bit of insanity, when has the u.n. ever stopped bloodshed?

The UN operation in East Timor was very succesful and stopped civil strife. When they moved out it began again (eventually). Now the UN forces are back and peace is restored. UN forces are very popular in East Timor.

On 2006-08-21 09:55, garyb wrote:
oh no! you can't bring a bottle of water! it might be a liquid bomb! oh dear, your bic lighter might be able to light the fuse in the heel of your shoe!

Didn't recent such actions prevent about 1500 people from being blown up ?

On 2006-08-21 09:55, garyb wrote:
why do all the terrorists they show seem to be literal retards?

Again I point to the Bali bombers which were composed of students, prefessionals and top religious leaders.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:14 am

On 2006-08-21 10:06, Spirit wrote:

On 2006-08-21 09:55, garyb wrote:
oh no! you can't bring a bottle of water! it might be a liquid bomb! oh dear, your bic lighter might be able to light the fuse in the heel of your shoe!
Didn't recent such actions prevent about 1500 people from being blown up ?

no. that "bomb" was as ridiculous as the shoe!

i'll give you the other examples you gave. let's assume that the u.n. actually helped there. after all the big words at the u.n., they've got to do something good sooner or later.

look, i'd never say that there are only bad people in the u.n. that would be like saying that there are only bad people on the police force. it's just that the bad people are in a position of power and that's there's a culture for badness within those power structures. badness within those power structures is much more threatening than any fringe "terrorist" group, unless that group has the aid of the power structure.

when "terrorists" are intellectuals, i really have to wonder what's up. the very nature of intellectualism generally rules out action(too busy thinking about it). somebody must be pissed about something real bad...mind control? false flag? freedom fighter? mass hysteria? i don't know...

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-08-21 10:18 ]

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:43 am

first of all, yes i know about Kosovo as i was there 99-2000 as a NATO soldier. NATO did invade kosovo, not UN. UN was responisble for setting up a new gouverment and a temporary police force, and training the new local police force.

NATO was able to strike down on the serb attacks on Albanian people. it was not, however, capable of stopping the aftermath, which led to a massive albanian strike on serbs in kosovo, which again led to the fact that kosovo is almost clensed for serbs.

you may want to read this one: http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/ab1-4.html

UN's role in the armed operations u mention is, as you know, a peaceKEEPING force, not a peaceMAKING (im not that good in english, but i hope u get my drift).

You also claim that UN never did anything to stop iraqi aggression. I have no idea what you are aiming at since UN told USA to NOT strike against iraq based on US intelligence on iraqi WOMD. Bush didnt give a flying fuck and was determined to go in anyway, AGAINST UN recommandations.

You can draw your own conclusion as to what brought up more iraqi aggression.

[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2006-08-21 10:53 ]

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:47 am

oh and i forgot one thing. I agree about the shoebomber, but please read up on what happens to cabin pressure in high altidudes (i guess at0m will jump in here

)

im not saying the latest "anti-terror" arrests are legit, BUT if someone managed to stabelize liquid nitrogen and WAS ABLE to trigger it, you dont need a big pressure peak (or explosion in example) to do MUCH damage in a plane.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:41 am

I was really referring to the "liquid bombs" rather than the shoebomber. I just kept that bit for context.

A "test" liquid bomb almost brought down a plane on a Philippines to Japan run in the late 90s.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:47 am

a 'shoesole' volume of that stuff ignited against a firm object (say the cabin floor without carpet) will probably blast the plane in 2 pieces (according to what an airforce officer once told me about liquid explosives...)

cheers, Tom

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:09 pm

It's seemingly a blast if you inject it then run around.

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:24 pm

@ shroomz

there is a point though; as far as i have read up to, the shoebomber had enoufh explosive to do major damage. he didnt, however, have a proper ignition device.

i have NO IDEA if the current "terrorists" had proper equipment either, but i will underline that it takes a SMALL explosion to help the air cabin pressure to blow out the planes structure.

again i point out that the shoebomber had a plastic, not a liquid explosive. he was probably glad to have bought some C4 for a heck of a lot of money. if he spent $10 on a proper ignition device as well he might succeed. it probarly would enhance his chances of beeing cought though.

and for math i leave it elsewhere... (he did frighten a lot of people though, which is the true nature of terrorism.)

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:46 pm

Regarding the whole liquid bomb thing, i've just been reading up on it and i've seen one scientist description of the process involved(avoiding telling you exactly how to make a bomb). i doubt you could do it on a plain - i can't remember the specifics but you have carefully drip an acid into your liquid (whatever that is) over a period of hours, keeping the liquid at 10 degrees Celsius, then leave it for a week. How's all that going to work in a plane toilet?

"...er, excuse me sir, there's someone out here who needs a pee."

"Oh, OK, i'll just be a few hours... have you got a fridge by the way...?"

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:54 pm

On 2006-08-21 10:47, piddi wrote:
BUT if someone managed to stabelize liquid nitrogen and WAS ABLE to trigger it, you dont need a big pressure peak (or explosion in example) to do MUCH damage in a plane.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:57 pm

[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-08-23 03:25 ]

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:06 pm

http://www.aviationpics.de/test/test.htm at the bottom shows in pics and in a movie what 200g of semtex does to a pressurised Jumbo. You don't need much for disaster to happen on altitude...

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:47 pm

On 2006-08-21 13:57, Shroomz wrote:
If supposed terrorists really really want to blow airplanes out the sky so much why aren't there very many actual cases in recorded history? Because it's fabricated nonsense. The recent 'terrorist threats' were part of a bigger plan & that plan wasn't about blowing up aircraft (although 1 plane & a few hundred people might have to be sacrificed in order to install the seriousness of the threat in our minds while our lifes evolve into our 21st century police states).

well, why do go thru the trouble of security on a plane when it is SO MUCH EASIER to strike in a marketplace?

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:55 pm

Cos attacks with/on planes are so much more spectacular? Planes speak to the imagination, they already scare people without exploding or hitting the Pentagon.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:57 pm

[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-08-23 03:26 ]