Has airport security worked?
Thread Starter
Has airport security worked?
In light of tube bombings has the increase in airport security since 911 actually worked to deter such an act taking place in the air?
The perpetrators, lets say a couple of asian lads with northern accents; football fans jumping on a flight at Luton to see England play, would they have made it on board with pre 911 levels of security?
Mickjoebill
The perpetrators, lets say a couple of asian lads with northern accents; football fans jumping on a flight at Luton to see England play, would they have made it on board with pre 911 levels of security?
Mickjoebill
Thread Starter
There has been considerable slamming of the efficency, usefullness, quality of operatives ect of airside security on this forum.
But it appears for all its faults to have worked, not withstanding it has moved the horror to other forms of transport.
Mickjoebill
But it appears for all its faults to have worked, not withstanding it has moved the horror to other forms of transport.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly,
It just like car theft. It is not that difficult to steal your alarm-equipped car.
But why bother, I'll take the neigbour non-equipped one, just because it is easier. not because it is impossible.....
It just like car theft. It is not that difficult to steal your alarm-equipped car.
But why bother, I'll take the neigbour non-equipped one, just because it is easier. not because it is impossible.....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the theme was Rumours and News, not Pathetic Questions by Racist Morons...?
Last edited by King Pong; 13th Jul 2005 at 14:52.
Thread Starter
Why is this thread still here? I thought that the theme was Rumours and News, not Pathetic Questions by Racist Morons...?
I imagine the moderators will move it if it was deemed racist.
The rest of your post says more about you than the original poster.
Mickjoebill
Guest
Posts: n/a
If there was ever a topic posted on this forum that could be described as "fishing for information" ... then this is it.
No information (no matter how insignificant) should be given publicly on this forum about security ...
Loose lips and all that ...
No information (no matter how insignificant) should be given publicly on this forum about security ...
Loose lips and all that ...
Thread Starter
If there was ever a topic posted on this forum that could be described as "fishing for information" ... then this is it.
This success is worth noting! in particular here as it has been a heartfelt topic.
No fishing intended!
MJB
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brigg
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This does make an interesting point.
Do we need airport style security at all forms of public transport; every bus stop, train station, coach stop, underground halt the cost is incredible. Is it necessary. It could be. But is this a paranoid atttitude, surely. Surely???!!??. Is this the life that we will now have to endure forever, possibly.
Many years ago someone made the statement "...the enemy within..."?! It now appears we have '...the enemy within...' and the strike may not be through the air... but anywhere.
I still remember standing in a queue at LHR and this guy in front (British-Jewish) said "this is all because of 9/11, Tel Aviv, no problems," to which I retorted,"OK, so all British Bobbies can shoot on sight", no comment followed.
Not wishing to cause offence to anyone but the UK has gone through this before, but our memories are short. Not too long ago the IRA were blowing up the baltic Exchange, Manchester, Enniskillene, Brighton, Caterham... the list is endless, is it just we cannot identify the attacker now?
At least with Airport security all are treated the same or spontaneously, it is all random, so I understand? I have bleeped through the 'hoop' and have no metal on me at all, so...?
Do we need airport style security at all forms of public transport; every bus stop, train station, coach stop, underground halt the cost is incredible. Is it necessary. It could be. But is this a paranoid atttitude, surely. Surely???!!??. Is this the life that we will now have to endure forever, possibly.
Many years ago someone made the statement "...the enemy within..."?! It now appears we have '...the enemy within...' and the strike may not be through the air... but anywhere.
I still remember standing in a queue at LHR and this guy in front (British-Jewish) said "this is all because of 9/11, Tel Aviv, no problems," to which I retorted,"OK, so all British Bobbies can shoot on sight", no comment followed.
Not wishing to cause offence to anyone but the UK has gone through this before, but our memories are short. Not too long ago the IRA were blowing up the baltic Exchange, Manchester, Enniskillene, Brighton, Caterham... the list is endless, is it just we cannot identify the attacker now?
At least with Airport security all are treated the same or spontaneously, it is all random, so I understand? I have bleeped through the 'hoop' and have no metal on me at all, so...?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mickeyjoebill, prior to 9-11, the chance of them boarding four different flights and successfully blowing tnemselves up in the air would be pretty high. Even after 9-11, as Russia found out, such terrorism can succeed, particularly when screening is poor or compromised.
These days, terrorists would rate the chance of successfully hijacking a plane as extremely low, while the risk of apprehension beforehand is rather high. So they migrate to easier targets.
On a somewhat related note, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is abandoning the stay in your seat rule for flights arriving and departing Washington's Ronald Reagan National Airport. (The rule required passengers to stay seated for the first 30 minutes of any flight departing KDCA, and the last 30 minutes of any arriving flight . If somebody got out of their seat, then the plane could be diverted to an alternate airport. And on flights between National and LaGuardia, passengers were required to remain in their seats the entire flight.)
This rule was among the most stupid ever imposed, as passengers flying into nearby Dulles or Baltimore Washington International airports were under no similar restrictions, nor were passengers on planes overflying the area required to take their seats when the airplane was in the vicinity of Washington DC.
These days, terrorists would rate the chance of successfully hijacking a plane as extremely low, while the risk of apprehension beforehand is rather high. So they migrate to easier targets.
On a somewhat related note, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is abandoning the stay in your seat rule for flights arriving and departing Washington's Ronald Reagan National Airport. (The rule required passengers to stay seated for the first 30 minutes of any flight departing KDCA, and the last 30 minutes of any arriving flight . If somebody got out of their seat, then the plane could be diverted to an alternate airport. And on flights between National and LaGuardia, passengers were required to remain in their seats the entire flight.)
This rule was among the most stupid ever imposed, as passengers flying into nearby Dulles or Baltimore Washington International airports were under no similar restrictions, nor were passengers on planes overflying the area required to take their seats when the airplane was in the vicinity of Washington DC.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport security has nothing to do with making flying safer and all to do with empire building.
Look at the screeners as they do their job; devoted to their particular point in the assembly line, they never look up or anticipate a terrorist in the line coming at them, and there is no armed response available to handle a terrorist even if they were to catch one (they have never caught one, and never will, but that is not the point of course). If there was a suicide bomber in the line and he "beeped", what would the security people do about it? With the press of other passengers, even a SWAT team would be hard pressed to deal with him, without killing everyone else in the room, even assuming the terrorist did not set off his bomb immediately. Utter stupidity and a complete waste of time. How anyone with a brain even as big as my dwarf hampster's can tolerate this farce I don't know.
More proof of the stupidity of the whole thing is the US sending F16s after Cessna 150s. What are they going to do if they catch one? Shoot it down? Imagine the collateral damage on the ground! Despite the fact that a light airplane has never been used in a terrorist attack and even if it was to be so used, it would be almost completely ineffective? All they can do is kill innocent passengers and crew, which is also their intention if an airliner gets hijacked.
The only reason flying is safer now is that we, the crews, know what we are up against and we, the crews, assisted by the cabin crew and the passengers, will prevent any future 9/11s. We do not need airport security in any form, but will accept it as it was before 9/11 (and remember there was no failure in airport security then, neither would the present airport security stop a similar attack). It took the FAA over two years to revise their "cooperate" strategy, which was a major reason that the 9/11 terrorists were successful, so don't count on anyone else's help. With F16s on each wing, everyone's hand will be against us.
Look at the screeners as they do their job; devoted to their particular point in the assembly line, they never look up or anticipate a terrorist in the line coming at them, and there is no armed response available to handle a terrorist even if they were to catch one (they have never caught one, and never will, but that is not the point of course). If there was a suicide bomber in the line and he "beeped", what would the security people do about it? With the press of other passengers, even a SWAT team would be hard pressed to deal with him, without killing everyone else in the room, even assuming the terrorist did not set off his bomb immediately. Utter stupidity and a complete waste of time. How anyone with a brain even as big as my dwarf hampster's can tolerate this farce I don't know.
More proof of the stupidity of the whole thing is the US sending F16s after Cessna 150s. What are they going to do if they catch one? Shoot it down? Imagine the collateral damage on the ground! Despite the fact that a light airplane has never been used in a terrorist attack and even if it was to be so used, it would be almost completely ineffective? All they can do is kill innocent passengers and crew, which is also their intention if an airliner gets hijacked.
The only reason flying is safer now is that we, the crews, know what we are up against and we, the crews, assisted by the cabin crew and the passengers, will prevent any future 9/11s. We do not need airport security in any form, but will accept it as it was before 9/11 (and remember there was no failure in airport security then, neither would the present airport security stop a similar attack). It took the FAA over two years to revise their "cooperate" strategy, which was a major reason that the 9/11 terrorists were successful, so don't count on anyone else's help. With F16s on each wing, everyone's hand will be against us.
"More proof of the stupidity of the whole thing is the US sending F16s after Cessna 150s. What are they going to do if they catch one? Shoot it down? Imagine the collateral damage on the ground! Despite the fact that a light airplane has never been used in a terrorist attack and even if it was to be so used, it would be almost completely ineffective?"
A Cessna filled with sarin wouldn't be effective? A cessna flown in to a crowd in a concert wouldn't be effective? A cessna filled with a hundred pounds of HE flown into a building wouldn't be effective? The explosives that killed all those in the double decker in London was by accounts carried in a back pack sized item. You don't have to kill thousands to be an effective terrorist, just enough to hold the attention of the public and press.
I'd rather not be around to find out if your beliefs in the stupidity of a C152 being deadly have any merit.
A Cessna filled with sarin wouldn't be effective? A cessna flown in to a crowd in a concert wouldn't be effective? A cessna filled with a hundred pounds of HE flown into a building wouldn't be effective? The explosives that killed all those in the double decker in London was by accounts carried in a back pack sized item. You don't have to kill thousands to be an effective terrorist, just enough to hold the attention of the public and press.
I'd rather not be around to find out if your beliefs in the stupidity of a C152 being deadly have any merit.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point of this thread perhaps:
Would a criminal records check (CRC) prevent the London murderers getting airport passes and committing acts of terrorism in or around an airport environment?
Is it correct that when a CRC is carried out on an individual, it is only for a UK criminal record?
Would I be correct in assuming that if an individual had not been resident in the UK for long, but was a UK passport holder, that a CRC can only go back as far back as the individuals length of residency in the UK?
Would a criminal records check (CRC) prevent the London murderers getting airport passes and committing acts of terrorism in or around an airport environment?
Is it correct that when a CRC is carried out on an individual, it is only for a UK criminal record?
Would I be correct in assuming that if an individual had not been resident in the UK for long, but was a UK passport holder, that a CRC can only go back as far back as the individuals length of residency in the UK?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A light airplane is the last vehicle that would be used for any of those purposes mentioned, because of the lack of payload, lack of accuracy in delivering it, easy detection by the authorities and the high chance of failure. How many light airplanes have been used by terrorists? None. The only comparable case was the Cessna 172 in Florida and all that poor soul managed was to burn out one office in one building.
Lincoln said you can't fool all of the people all of the time but when it comes to "security" I guess he was wrong.
Lincoln said you can't fool all of the people all of the time but when it comes to "security" I guess he was wrong.