'Plot to blow up planes' foiled - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2006, 10:14 PM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Guns could damage the skin just as easily as an explosive.

My post was about a minor ding from a slow rolling luggage cart.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26481

Can a bullet bring down an airliner?
Chances of gunfire decompressing cabin 'virtually nil'
__________________

__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:25 PM   #227
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26481

Can a bullet bring down an airliner?
Chances of gunfire decompressing cabin 'virtually nil'
But are a few rounds enough to blow open a door, and is a door enough to bring it down?

Or are a few rounds enough to open the door between the cabin and cockpit and kill the pilots?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:28 PM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


What would stop them from asking?
What would stop anyone from just saying they're Jewish to be classified as low-risk?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:29 PM   #229
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26481

Can a bullet bring down an airliner?
Chances of gunfire decompressing cabin 'virtually nil'
Excuse me...did I say a bullet could take down the airliner? I don't think I said that.

I guess my DAILY experience with airliners has been overshadowed in your mind by "world Net Daily" (whatever that is!).

That's fine. I guess World net daily is more reliable than me.

Maybe I should quote NTSB reports on how small things have brought down airliners? Hairpin cracks in engine components? The wrong type of lubrication?

IF a gunshot were to puncture a plane...it COULD take it down. We are not talking about decompression.

But you can quote WORLD NET DAILY all you want!
__________________
zoney! is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:31 PM   #230
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


What would stop anyone from just saying they're Jewish to be classified as low-risk?
I am not familiar with their program enough...but they have their ways.

They have not had an incident since the 70s I think.
__________________
zoney! is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:33 PM   #231
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Yeah, they seem to be really with it, so it made me curious as to how they operate.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:36 PM   #232
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Hey zoney, remind me are you a pilot? Or what do you do for the airline? I'm curious.

One of my best friends just signed on with Jet Blue as a pilot, graduate from the Naval Academy...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:40 PM   #233
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Or what do you do for the airline? I'm curious.
My employees call me "the company"



management
__________________
zoney! is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:50 PM   #234
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Gotcha...

Thanks
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:57 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Excuse me...did I say a bullet could take down the airliner? I don't think I said that.

I guess my DAILY experience with airliners has been overshadowed in your mind by "world Net Daily" (whatever that is!).

That's fine. I guess World net daily is more reliable than me.

Maybe I should quote NTSB reports on how small things have brought down airliners? Hairpin cracks in engine components? The wrong type of lubrication?

IF a gunshot were to puncture a plane...it COULD take it down. We are not talking about decompression.

But you can quote WORLD NET DAILY all you want!

Forgive for me for not knowing your life story, I'll just go back to picking my nose.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 02:00 AM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


Can a bullet bring down an airliner?
Chances of gunfire decompressing cabin 'virtually nil'
Don't you people watch Mythbusters?

great show btw
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 08:15 AM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Any superpower would have the potential to engender resentment simply because it does in fact possess more power than any other country. However, whether or not that potential is realized is contingent on the intentions, actions, and attitutude of each specific superpower. And in this case, the U.S. has engendered resentment by continually sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, see it cause more bad than good more often than not, and failing to learn anything from those situtaitons. Vietnam. Cosovo. Iraq. Etc. Our government, way before GWB AND during GWB, has a history of interfering in things that are none of their business, and that engenders resentment.

But to answer your question, I would say it's a little of both.


Was American intervention in Europe during World War II 'sticking its nose where it doesn't belong' too?

Was protecting Western Europe from communism wrong?

How would the Arab world look today if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue from Kuwait? Would it be better than it is today?

Those idiots trying to make terror attacks currently don't care about a region like Cosovo and its people at all. And military intervention in Cosovo wasn't just an American decision. The European Community had discussed this over and over countless times, while people were being massacred in Cosovo. The EC couldn't agree on it and didn't really have the military firepower to go forward with it. That's why the U.S. got involved.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 09:56 AM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Don't you people watch Mythbusters?

great show btw
haha. I thought the same thing.

I also remembered that Aloha Air flight that somehow managed to fly and land with sections of its roof and sides missing.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 11:09 AM   #239
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:45 AM
from an article I just read on cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...lot/index.html

"According to homeland security, requiring passengers to taste beverages as a security measure might not be a deterrent because many dangerous compounds, such as nitroglycerin, are harmless in small doses."

So technically if someone wanted to hide something in breast milk or formula..I'm sure the terrorists alteady know that, and much more.

By Brian Bergstein, Associated Press | August 12, 2006

While the process isn't perfect, scanning machines do exist to detect liquid explosives like the ones purportedly at the heart of the terrorist plot broken up this week.

But don't expect the machines to be rushed into airports soon. Cost and logistical issues present challenges for these devices.

Consider work that's been done at Rapiscan Systems, part of OSI Systems Inc.

Rapiscan is developing four kinds of devices -- some based on technologies more than 10 years old -- that can detect liquid or gel-based explosives. Two that would work on carry-on bags already have been tested by the Transportation Security Administration and ``could be deployed this afternoon," said Peter Kant, the company's vice president for government affairs.

But none are being used in the United States. Some are in place overseas, though Kant said those aren't in airports.

One big reason is that it is not easy to integrate the explosive-detecting machines, some of which can cost $250,000, into existing security checkpoints. Because each briefcase, purse or other carry-on bag has to be put in a special drawer for analysis, using the detectors could significantly bog down passenger screening.

Homeland security analyst Brian Ruttenbur of Morgan Keegan Co. also points out that the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms.

For those reasons, and because there still has not been a successful attack using liquid explosives, Ruttenbur believes the Transportation Security Administration won't be pressed to overhaul the current screening regimen.

That would mean a continued reliance on systems not designed to stop liquid explosives. Metal detectors figure to remain the primary method, with the main secondary screening coming from ``puffer" technology that blows air on people and sniffs the particles that emerge for suspicious matter.

For a machine to detect explosives in liquid or solid form, it bombards an object with energy, such as radio waves or neutrons, and in seconds measures the reaction, a response that differs depending on the material's chemical properties. Software in the machine is programmed to alert screeners if it detects chemical signatures known to match those of dangerous materials.

A key question is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.

Some common ingredients in liquid explosives can be programmed into the detector. But Kant, at Rapiscan, said he would not discuss the vulnerabilities of that approach. ``Whether it detects the components of explosives and which ones, there's no way I'm putting that in print," he said.

Sean Moore, vice president of sales at a rival maker of explosive-detection systems, HiEnergy Technologies Inc., said future screening machines could be linked so that they might let a person through with one kind of liquid but stop another traveler carrying another type of liquid that reacts explosively with what the previous person was carrying.

That scenario, however, remains hypothetical. Not only are security checkpoints not networked, but HiEnergy has not sold a single device for U S airports. Its main project so far involves field tests on unattended packages in Philadelphia with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

A totally different kind of scanning technology that already has begun to emerge, backscatter screening, has no automated ability to detect explosives. But its backers say it nonetheless could go a long way to halting plots like the one apparently thwarted this week.

Backscatter screening is much like traditional X-rays, except that the system sends more, but weaker, X-rays at an object. It can't penetrate skin, but it can reveal items under someone's clothes -- such as a hidden bottle of liquid.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 10:49 PM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:15 AM
I was thinking about other tactics and places terrorist could hide liquids. Why not under a false skin in plastic pouches? Our current security scans are looking for metal not hidden items on a person. Barring a physical search, it would probably go unseen. What if they inserted objects anally? What if they hid things inside a prosthetic limb if a person had one? What about hidden inside a hairpiece? There are so many ways which can fool our present systems. Although, technology is coming like in the above article which could prevent such attempts however the costs associated could make flying an extremely exclusive privilege.

If authorities discover plots which possibly use these methods, are we to expect anal cavity searches or will they force people who have prosthetic limbs or even wheelchairs to undergo scans? Such methods sound outrageous but I could see them considering it. Barring complete scans like in the article above, there are still holes in the security system.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com