ECCOnoob Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 For the last friggin time.... Where do I say that I think scanners provide better security than traditional methods!! I haven't. As a matter I fact I have no idea and dont really give a toss whether they do or not!!!! I just find them quicker and a whole lot easier to deal with than queuing up, removing belts, shoes, emptying pockets and being frisked by some security guard. All I care about is getting from check in to gate as quickly and as smoothly as possible. I have no objection to the government/airport authority/joe bloggs trialing out anything that may speed up that process. That's all these scanners are - a trial period. Nothing has been set in stone yet. Not every airport in the world has them and not every airport in the world makes you use them. Its a TRIAL. Understand now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Language! Where do I say that I think scanners provide better security than traditional methods!! I didn't say that you did. You said that you understood the need for security, and I asked you how these scanners would have prevented the recent terrorists attacks. Or are you now saying that you don't understand the need for security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 For the last friggin time.... Where do I say that I think scanners provide better security than traditional methods!! I haven't. As a matter I fact I have no idea and dont really give a toss whether they do or not!!!! I just find them quicker and a whole lot easier to deal with than queuing up, removing belts, shoes, emptying pockets and being frisked by some security guard. All I care about is getting from check in to gate as quickly and as smoothly as possible. I have no objection to the government/airport authority/joe bloggs trialing out anything that may speed up that process. That's all these scanners are - a trial period. Nothing has been set in stone yet. Not every airport in the world has them and not every airport in the world makes you use them. Its a TRIAL. Understand now? I had to do all of the above (aside from being patted down) in addition to going through the scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I had to do all of the above (aside from being patted down) in addition to going through the scanner. Women..never satisfied. Sorry, just had a Frank moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 For the last friggin time.... Where do I say that I think scanners provide better security than traditional methods!! I haven't. As a matter I fact I have no idea and dont really give a toss whether they do or not!!!! I just find them quicker and a whole lot easier to deal with than queuing up, removing belts, shoes, emptying pockets and being frisked by some security guard. All I care about is getting from check in to gate as quickly and as smoothly as possible. I have no objection to the government/airport authority/joe bloggs trialing out anything that may speed up that process. That's all these scanners are - a trial period. Nothing has been set in stone yet. Not every airport in the world has them and not every airport in the world makes you use them. Its a TRIAL. Understand now? When did you last travel through Manchester Airport? I get the impression you've never been through one of these scanners as you still have to queue up, empty pockets, remove belts and jackets, remove laptops from their bags, remove shoes if asked and can be frisked down. I travel through Manchester every month and the last two times I've had to go through the scanners and I don't like it. I'd rather be patted down. They don't speed anything up, they slow it down. The scanners won't prevent the next airline bomb which will most likely be internally concealed and so be invisible to the scanners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 When did you last travel through Manchester Airport? I get the impression you've never been through one of these scanners as you still have to queue up, empty pockets, remove belts and jackets, remove laptops from their bags, remove shoes if asked and can be frisked down. I travel through Manchester every month and the last two times I've had to go through the scanners and I don't like it. I'd rather be patted down. They don't speed anything up, they slow it down. The scanners won't prevent the next airline bomb which will most likely be internally concealed and so be invisible to the scanners. It was the same last year when I went through. Instead of standing in a long zigzagging queue, now you walk through glass funnels that make you feel even more like an animal about to be turned into someone else's dinner. If after this years travels through Manchester airport we are forced through them again, we wont be travelling through there again in 2013, that's for sure. ECCOnoob obviously hasn't been through them and is just spouting dross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It seems even the Americans have now started to question the dreaded scanners with one guy showing how he was able to smuggle just about anything past these scanners. Watch the video here: More reports on the subject: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/08/blogger-shows-world-how-to-sneak-anything-past-tsas-nude-body-scanners/ There is an interesting quote from Rafi Sela who ran security at one of the most secure airports in the world said he "overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to take down a Boeing 747" and this is why they do not use them. It seems all the arguments for their use have been contradicted, even Econoobs claim the scanners are "quicker and a whole lot easier to deal with than queuing up", but as those of us who have been through them can claim, they do not speed the queues up at all. But if you dont want to believe me, there is this report: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/airport-body-scanners-lengthen-queues-as-many-trigger-alarms-20120304-1uban.html about how Airport body scanners lengthen queues as many trigger alarms. I suppose the only question remaining should be, who authorised these scanners to be purchased and if they are, why are they still in their job,. because i'm willing to bet there has been a heck of a lot of tax payers money changing hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I've never been searched before going on a plane, you used to just have to empty your pockets & walk through a metal detector, it was quite fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICKY BLAKE Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 it only shows your private parts as outlines no nipples exposed or large breasts or what is under underwear it will show grenades and hand guns , the operators of the equipment appear brain dead! as this must be a really boring badly paid job in terminal 2 manchester they do a lot of shouting at the passengers I noticed! why that is necessary when the bloke down the loudspeaker is instructing you with virtually the same message I do not think the queue will move any quicker if it stops one bomb or Hijacker then we should be thankful until they wotk out avoidance measures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Which is worse: A bomb going off at 36,000' and killing 250 people, or a bomb going off in a crowded airport security line, killing a thousand and maiming another thousand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.