Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 28 Dec 2009 17:30 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:07:39 -0500) it happened PeterD > <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in <m97ij5d0fm7fh4j8tj74mbave2lapks226(a)4ax.com>: >> But if we go back to the original point, that a bullet hole will cause >> a plane to explode because it is pressurized, > > I do not think tha tever was the original point. > Not even in Goldfinger. Myth Busters tried it. A bullet hole will not cause structural failure in an airliner. Nor will anyone get sucked out through a small window. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Martin Brown on 28 Dec 2009 17:36 John Larkin wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html > > So a guy tried to detonate a bomb during the last hour of a flight. > The TSA morons thus conclude that all terrorists detonate their bombs > in the last hour, so make it illegal to get out of your seat during > those 60 minutes. They are clearly assuming that the bombers are > dumber than they are; I have my doubts. This guy appeared to have been quite bright and from a good family if his educational record and background checks are to be believed. But he obviously didn't tick the boxes on the US Visa application marked "do you intend to overthrow the government of the USA or assassinate the President?". It is a standing joke in the ROW that only an American would be dumb enough to tick those boxes. It is rumoured that Oscar Wilde wrote in earlier days "Sole purpose of visit" in answer to this question. AFAIK no US president has been killed by a foreigner to date. http://www.cvni.net/radio/e2k/e2k025/e2k25news.html (under Visa Waiver Program) It is an insane question since there are two possible outcomes to an attempted coup. Either the coup succeeds and the question is irrelevant or it fails and the perp gets another 5 years for not answering a Visa question added to his 200 year or death sentence to run concurrently. So clearly despite him being on a UK no-fly terrorist watch list the US authorities were quite happy to let him fly to the USA. > The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, > on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I > suppose searching people who look like they might be terrorists would > be "profiling" or "invasion or privacy" or something. What I find more amazing is that he went through Amsterdam Schiphol - there are full bodyscan booths on most UK flights and I assume on US ones too so it is amazing he got through. Having said that they are nowhere near as sharp as London Heathrow. US carriers have insane levels of personal details they demand ages in advance so there are serious questions to be asked about why the dozy bastards did not notice him. But I could not get a credit card through at Schiphol, so body moulded PETN seems highly unlikely to get through iff he went through the right scanners. And someone on a terrorist watch list should be getting *very* well checked. There is a clear systematic failing somewhere that needs sorting out for all our sakes. > > They did give my 90-year old father a full, very rude pull-aside > screening because he had a one-way ticket out of Louisiana after > Katrina. I once got super-harassed and triple searched because my > ticket had a "payment basis" of "A", and nobody knew what "A" meant. I > think it meant American Express. One way tickets are always suspicious. You said you wanted profiling. > > (If they search you three times, they seem to be assuming that the > first two searches were incompetant.) If you carry unusual things in handluggage, or travel strange itineraries these days you will flag up as suspicious. > > Idiots. Always fighting the last battle. Pretty much. The authorities have to be on their guard all the time - as the IRA famously said "we only have to get lucky once". And they damn nearly did with the highly sophisticated Brighton conference bombing. The most important thing to find out now is did he go through the right sort of body scanner and if not why not? Schiphol had the right kit and operators trained to use it so why didn't they see the problem before he left the ground? Regards, Martin Brown
From: Jan Panteltje on 28 Dec 2009 17:45 On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:30:29 +0000) it happened Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in <7psps4F37nU1(a)mid.individual.net>: >Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:07:39 -0500) it happened PeterD >> <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in <m97ij5d0fm7fh4j8tj74mbave2lapks226(a)4ax.com>: >>> But if we go back to the original point, that a bullet hole will cause >>> a plane to explode because it is pressurized, >> >> I do not think tha tever was the original point. >> Not even in Goldfinger. > >Myth Busters tried it. >A bullet hole will not cause structural failure in an airliner. >Nor will anyone get sucked out through a small window. Goldfinger was big and fat, so it was a big window, else he would not have fit through it. :-)
From: Jim Yanik on 28 Dec 2009 17:57 PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in news:gj7ij51vmnse9ntkse2e33hk5383hfooko(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:07:16 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> > wrote: > >>PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in >>news:5mchj511rd1qmeoerbjn3rqsig41av2reh(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> Consider this, both Ried <sp?> and this latest lunatic failed >>> completely--one would think they'd get the message: "I don't want you >>> blowing up or killing innocent people..." -- God. >>> >> >>THEY failed,but the next guy may not. >>They DID succeed in getting their bombs on board,and "detonating" them. >> >>LUCKILY,their bombs didn't work. Just good LUCK. >> >>But searching old ladies and making everyone go thru lengthy lines is >>ridiculous;they need to PROFILE and closely search the most likely >>suspects. > > WHat is worrysome is that there are few if any ways to 'test' for > explosives such as this... > > Personaly I think that we should all be required to fly in the nude, Personally,I don't think you thought at all on that one. > with NO carryon baggage allowed. That would resolve so many things, > eliminate virtualliy all risks... A simple metal detector for internal > metal would suffice. > > Next we'll be seeing bombs either swallowed or surgically implanted. I'd rather they PROFILED passengers first. It works for Israel and El Al Airlines. Of course,THEY take it seriously. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 28 Dec 2009 18:04
PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in news:m97ij5d0fm7fh4j8tj74mbave2lapks226(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:08:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:29:12 -0500) it happened PeterD >><peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in >><2kchj5ptl0si10folbr9k0stm04bo9him2(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:53:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:55:24 -0600) it happened Jim >>>>Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote in >>>><Xns9CEED514B6872jyaniklocalnetcom(a)216.168.3.44>: >>>> >>>>>I prefer Archie Bunker's solution; >>>>>hand out handguns to everyone aboard;when the bad guys stand up and >>>>>attack,everyone else draws and shoots them full of holes. >>>> >>>> >>>>I am not sure how well a plane would take some stray bullets... >>>>remember the movie 'Goldfinger'? >>> >>>They do just fine... Don't confuse movies with real life. Many planes >>>have been 'shot full of holes' and none have crashed from >>>decompression... >> >>Actually, come to think of it, there have been several fatal crashes >>due to decompression. One big one was IIRC a DC10 that had the cargo >>door pop out, the pressure difference broke the floor, ripped the >>control cables routed in that floor, and it crashed. A MAJOR structural malfunction. > > Yes, but that was not a bullet hole. I guess I wasn't as clear as I > should have been. > >>There also was not so long ago a small private jet, it depressurised, >>the crew got unconscious, it kept flying on auto pilot until it ran >>out of fuel and crashed. > > The golfer, forget his name... Something went terribly wrong, but the > plane didn't suffer catestrophic damage until it fell victim to the > effects of gravity... Payne Stewart. the oxygen supply failed,the pilot and passengers suffered anoxia and were rendered unconscious. > >>Then a year or 2 ago a Greek plane decompressed and crashed with all >>passengers aboard. WHY did it "decompress"? not from any bullet holes. >>I am sure there are zillion more cases. you really haven't CITED any. You use the term "decompress" pretty easily,though. > > Again, the plane was basically flyable, but the crew was not! > > But if we go back to the original point, that a bullet hole will cause > a plane to explode because it is pressurized, I think we can safely > dismiss that is very, very unlikely, based on previous experience with > bullet hole riddled aircraft. You would have to hit something vital to > the functioning of the aircraft, such as a non-redundant power source. > And non-redundant, critical things on aircrafts are not common. > > But... > > It sure looks good in the movies!!! <g> -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |