Air Safety and Terrorism

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:05 am

Within the past month I was traveling on a plane and a train.

On the public address systems I was frequently warned to "look out for suspicious packages". I thought about the irony regarding the hysteria over terrorism while flying above New York City. I had planned to drive but the plane ticket was cheap and I felt thousands of times safer in the plane. The Jersey Turnpike is hell. It is no exaggeration. When driving to NYC, it is likely that you will encounter more than one serious accident which often includes fatalities. Billions spent on the so called war on terrorism. Why not put the emphasis where it is needed down here on the ground on our crowded and very dangerous highways? You would think collision detection and prevention would be quite possible with modern technology. The paranoids are running the world while citizens do not benefit. Xenophobes along with the tabloid media are everywhere. The United states is so intent on killing people in wars and we spend zero on National Health Insurance because they think that is communism. What a stupid and idiotic country I live in.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:45 am

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

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:31 am

Trains are safest followed by planes and way behind are cars.

You probably felt unsafe the first time you drove a car at a high speed too.

Chance of accident:

plane = 1 in 11 million

car = 1 in 5,000

http://www.fearless-flight.com/flight-s ... istics.php

Stardust: a good way to avoid trolls is to not read the forum. May I suggest that you follow this advice since you seem to be so upset by words. Perhaps it will help with your blood pressure which I guess is above average.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2006-08-19 11:37 ]

Post by **hubird** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:50 pm

On 2006-08-19 13:28, stardust wrote:
Did you know that per kilometer it is three times more risky to go by train than per plane.

On the other hand per travel hour it is three times more risky to go by plane compared to train

quite a dilemma

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:31 pm

travel hours with or without delay compensation ?

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:32 pm

To argue against anti-terrorism measures on the basis of relative accident statistics is bizarre I think.

For a start, comparing car accidents to air terrorism (for example) you are comparing accidents to premeditated willful murder.

Perhaps more importantly, why do you think the current chance of being killed by terrorism is relatively low ? It's because of all the anti-terror efforts.

Take all that away and we'd see a massive increase in the "percentage chance of death" from terrorism.

Does anyone really think it was not worth stopping the destruction of six mid-Atlantic flights ? And if we did nothing then maybe 60 flights would blow in a week, ending the economic viability of most air routes. So then maybe all the trains get blown up, followed by power stations etc.

All this assumes of course that we accept the reality of a terrorist threat. I do. But I've noticed that some people consider it part of a massive conspiracy by western governments.

I don't think our governments are clever enough (and evil enough) to pull off such a massive and internationally co-ordinated plan. Given the scale I think it's even less likely than the ridiculous moon hoax conspiracy theory.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:52 pm

did you forget the manhattan project? thousands involved, kept top secret for years.

the trick to keeping things secret is compartmentalization. break the project into small groups each responsible for a small part of the action and don't let the groups communicate with each other...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:28 pm

On 2006-08-19 18:32, Spirit wrote:
To argue against anti-terrorism measures on the basis of relative accident statistics is bizarre I think...

it's the proper way to put it into (reality) context and prevent hysteria, nothing more.
it doesn't mean to take no actions against threats if there's evidence.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:51 pm

After I moved to US, it was kind of surprising to learn that people used to be allowed to carry guns on domestic flights.. I read the sign "please check all firearms" (probably from pre 911, but left as is) and I was like... you gotta be out of your MIND!! Although I saw on TV that a gunshot hole in an airplane won't cause it to colapse or cause people to get sucked out... guns and airplanes doesn't sound like a good mix.

And it seemed like domestic flyers weren't screened like for international flights.. because all the x-ray devices and bomb sniffer machines look like they've been thrown in there in a hurry. (like deploying vending machines) It's like they'd find an unused space in the airport, and throw in the machines. Actually, I don't think domestic flyers were screened at all pre-911. Call that safe flying. That's not anti-terror, and it's not even anti-idiot. It's dangerous!

On the other hand, though, I applaud the fact that the system actually worked 'till 911.. as far as I know, atleast.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2006-08-19 21:59 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:07 pm

Yes Kensuguru, It's in the constitution that all citizens have the right to bear arms which is kind of vague but is generally interpreted as the right to own a gun, although not all types of guns are allowed. There are many accidental deaths, suicides and many stolen guns yet people insist they feel safer with one in the house. It is a typically selfish attitude. Another example is the large cars they drive. They are said to be safer... but not for the smaller car you hit! If you only care about yourself yes large cars are safer but if you are not an a-hole and care about other people then large cars are more dangerous. It's all a matter of perspective.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:24 pm

well, yeah, the "right" to own one I guess i can agree. I also learned from my Alabama friend that there's a "concealed", and an "unconcealed" version of the gun license.. strange there's a line between those two.. but I guess if I were to rate them, the man with the "unconcealed" firearm would be a little more threatening..

I from what I hear, 70% of Floridians own guns. Some people get guns as birthday gifts! Maybe the remaining 30% bathe in guns and washes their heir with bullets. Personally, I limit myself to cooking with guns.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:03 pm

weapons are the right of the people as long as the government and criminals can have them.

if the government is made up of people, then many of them will be corrupt. in fact, there is no better place to be criminal from than the government. an armed citizenry is the only chance for an honest government. an honest government trusts it's citizens with weapons and depends on those citizens to help maintain order(the militia spoken of in the us constitution, the armed citizenry organized for the common good).

a dishonest government fears the citizens's arms and tries to regulate them. it's hard to take advantage of and bully people that can shoot back.

actually Ken, in a crowded place, the razor sharp type sword carried in Japan by fuedal soldiers is a much more devastating weapon than a handgun. several brave people could disarm a gunman in a crowd pretty quickly, maybe a couple of people would be injured. a samuri sword swung freely in a crowd might maim dozens before it's owner were overcome. perhaps this has something to do with low ceilings in traditional public meeting places and eateries and the extreme level of politeness between people in Japan.....

there are many things garunteed in the us constitution that are ignored such as the right to move one's goods and vehicles along any public thoroughfare without being questioned or disturbed by any official anyone, abrogated in favor of vehicle registration. most americans don't understand their rights or what it means to be soveriegn, so they are giving up those rights to the entity known as government and are losing their independance...many of them feeling intelligent in doing so.

emzee · Post by **emzee** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:32 pm

Apparently the clause about "the right to bear arms" was a typo caused by a tired stenographer. The founding fathers intended to say "arm bears". By the time they realised their mistake it was too late, so they left it.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:46 am

I had a family member die from a gunshot. I don't care how long it takes to eliminate them Gary. Gun ownership is one of the many reasons we look stupid to Europeans. I'm sure our cowboy president would love to return to the wild west days when you could grab as much land as you want from the natives. Are you serious about needing weapons to protect yourself from the government? Come on Gary I know you are not a wacko.

Weekend America did a piece about flying and terrorism yesterday:

http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/p ... 60819.html

mp3:

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/ ... nd=13:35.0

"If you count all the Americans that died from terrorism since 1964, it is about equal to the amount that died from an allergic reaction to eating peanuts".

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:07 am

I personally know a police officer who handles his gun with extreme caution, who is obviously well trained. My opinion is that that's the sort of mentality that is required in handling a deadly weapon, be it a gun or a sword. "let's go shoot 'em soda pop bottles in yer back yard" doesn't really cut it, and unfortunately, alot of the gun bearers in the south seem to be like that. (atleast the teens, from what I hear) A weapon under control is a tool. It's when it's out of control, when it becomes a weapon. A worn out statement, but I think rings true in both the US and the samurai context.

-- back on topic:

One thing I have to say about airport security is that I wouldn't mind the authorities taking their time to be thourough... as far as flight connections don't get messed up. I mean, what's the point of having transits when they most likely will not happen? Any one had that experience?

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2006-08-20 08:16 ]

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:10 am

well, they should put up a CPA (Counter-Peanut Agency), stop every peanut from entering the country and invade china, as that is the world's largest producer of peanuts.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:59 am

It is well known that Soviet spies penetrated the Manhattan Project.

On 2006-08-19 18:52, garyb wrote:
did you forget the manhattan project? thousands involved, kept top secret for years.

the trick to keeping things secret is compartmentalization. break the project into small groups each responsible for a small part of the action and don't let the groups communicate with each other...

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:08 am

For years I heard republicans talking about the communist threat and the war on drugs. Now they have a new enemy. My point is that people in power love to spread fear. Maybe they are paranoid or maybe it is just an evil way to gain votes.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:57 am

And maybe the world is - and always has been - full of conflict

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:17 am

[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-08-24 03:28 ]