 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
FenlandSkier, LHR is nowhere full - although the BAA have recently added a few meteres to your T1 journey to the gate _ in order that you have to pass the (new) shopping outlets - Luton pax will also note the same thing has recently happened to them ... Improvements ? No.. Greed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
AxsMan, Easyjet have got it the wrong way around. Flights INTO the UK have STANDARD check in - i.e. Sophie came in from Geneva on BA on Friday 25th with her normal case (55 x 45 x 25cm? or so) and contents including makeup, liquids, gels, and pastes.
The whole thing is an industrial-military-complex scam to frighten the locals and help justify the actions of the true axis of evil (Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld & Co).
Repeat. There is no straightforward way for any proto-terrorist to carry separate liquids on board and make a bomb in the bathroom.
An interesting take on it. here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| Repeat. There is no straightforward way for any proto-terrorist to carry separate liquids on board and make a bomb in the bathroom |
On the other hand, it remains possible to take a pre-made liquid explosive device on board, and simply add the detonation facilities (eg Philippine Airlines Flight 434). This will be the case until airport authorities install comprehensive bomb sniffing machines similar to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, Potentially true, but that incident wasn't quite as dramatic as the terrorist slime intended was is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'm not sure I'd describe the detonation of a nitroglycerine bomb in mid-flight, and the murder of "just" one person as anything other than dramatic. Have we become so de-sensitised to terror that anything less than the downing of an entire fleet is not something to be feared? Just because an event doesn't turn out to be a terrorist "spectacular" doesn't mean that steps shouldn't be taken to minimise it being repeated in the future, surely?
In the current security climate I would guess that even an event of the scale of Flight 434 would cause the immediate shutdown of transatlantic flights for a period of time, terrible security delays at all airports with god-knows what restrictions, a longer-term decline in traffic and untold fear amongst passengers. As someone who flies about a dozen times a year, I'd like the relevant authorities to try to stop small scale and large scale terrorist attacks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rob@rar.org.uk, I certainly did not intend to minimise the events on flight 343.
Nor, in general, the actual threat from misguided idiots who have and will continue to cause tragic and senseless loss of life and limb.
However, as the intention was ultimately to cause the loss of an airliner, it still raises the question as to whether a bomb can be carried onboard in chemical component form. From what I can gather, it can't.
As someone who flies about 80-100 (not one-up-man-ship, simply a statement) times a year, my gripe is solely with an a paranoid and unwarranted reaction by the UK authorities that is unlikely to have any real effect beyond inconveniencing thousands of innocent travellers.
Or, the threat involved is not the one that is being revealed. In both cases the UK authorities are deceiving the public. And BAA are simply doing an appalling job of handling the situation.
I too would like the authorities to continuously do their best to thwart any scale of attacks, but I would prefer them to focus on the ones that are actually feasible and real...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, I agree with you 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, thank you.
Report from Sophie at LHR this evening - a very empty bank holiday airport. No issues, no problems. Wait for Monday night!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
David Murdoch, I see we frequent similar websites for our 'education'!
... the scary thing about that report was the substance that was highlighted at the end, which if you did some reading about, you discover the minute quantities required making it almost impossible to detect and the large scale damage it could do!
At that point cynacism does unfortunately kick in and wonder how much of the curent security arrangements are merely a security PR stunt given the other threats they couldn't even start to detect and guard against ...
Given the feasibility of this particular plot and the overall reaction I would say that this result was more of a 'victory' for the terrorists than the potential their plot ever held for them ...
Most significant is that (some of  ) the would be plotters are no longer roaming free to hatch something that may have worked ... the added security in place almost insignificant in comparison ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check in security has always been more of a PR exercise than competent security. The metal detectors will not detect titanium nor ceramics, both of which can be made into very functional knives - confiscating nail scissors does seem a bit daft in comparison. Anyway if a terrorist produced a knife during a flight I would expect the other passengers to do their best to kill him in light of our current knowledge of terrorist intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
john wells, hello Mr Wells, not seen you for a while! Exactly...
agavin, I found that part scary, but then, "bizarre coincidence of mercury poisoning" hardly makes headlines for either terrorists or journalists...does it??
Which raises, and I apologise for being just a tad flippant - who really are the terrorists? The ones claiming allegiance to "Al Quaeda"? or those on the payroll of the "Daily Mail" (et al.)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
