Deltic 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? How are they transporting this theoretical bomb? In a wheel-barrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I have just been through Manchester airport and you pass through the normal scanner first if that is ok there isn’t a problem, if like me it beeps you then have to stand in front of the full scanner with your hands above your head. Someone then gets a red or green light on a monitor ( luckily mine was green) I don’t know what happens if you get a red alert at this stage, there is no body images for anyone to see at this stage although someone somewhere must be viewing a image and giving the red or green lights to the operator. The moral of the story is put everything in those trays before you go through the first scanner then you shouldn’t get pulled aside to go through the full body scanner. If its red you get the full rectal search, just ask security. I missed it too however the metal holding my lower leg together kept setting off the beeps, they were happy as was I when they scanned my leg closer and saw all the screws and bolts holding everything in place. I think that day the sensors were a little too sensitve:gag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman 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. A lots changed since 1953.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman 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? To the airline losing a plane is losing 250 million pounds thats the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 How are they transporting this theoretical bomb? In a wheel-barrow? Maybe not a bomb, maybe just sarin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A lots changed since 1953.... It is 10 years since I last caught a plane, but back then it was fast, empty your pockets, put your bag on the xray, walk under the metal detector, then pick up your stuff. There wasn't any being felt up or perved over by security staff unless you made the metal detector beep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite 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? Didn't 5000 die in the WTC attacks? Planes can crash into things too if they're hijacked by suicide bombers. I think they used to concentrate on the checked in luggage rather than the passengers before that, as there weren't many (any?) suicide attacks on planes before that. A long security line, or any large gathering of people is a possible target for suicide attack, but it's unlikely to cause as much death & damage as bringing a plane down in a populated area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Apparently Manchester Airport no longer use these naked scanners due to a Euro Diktat. Well this is one Euro Diktat I`m more than happy with ! I had to laugh at this extract from the linked Guardian article, a quote "from Mancheter Airport" : Manchester airport said only 23 of the millions of passengers who have travelled through its security in the past three years have refused to use the scanners. Some of the refusals were on health grounds, while others were for cultural reasons Yes, the reason so few people refused to use the scanners (I certainly would have done) wasn`t anything to do with being happy about it, it was more to do with being denied boarding the plane if you didn`t ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Didn't 5000 die in the WTC attacks? Planes can crash into things too if they're hijacked by suicide bombers. I know this is an old comment but, there were no bombs on the WTC planes. They hijacked them with box cutters and told the passengers they where going to be safe, then flew the planes into the buildings. Hence the ban on any knives etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Apparently Manchester Airport no longer use these naked scanners due to a Euro Diktat. Well this is one Euro Diktat I`m more than happy with ! I had to laugh at this extract from the linked Guardian article, a quote "from Mancheter Airport" : They are being pulled from US airports as well. Although they claim it's not because of privacy issues: It seems that when TSA screeners are shown finely rendered images of air passengers' nude bodies, rather than simple outlines, they tend to linger on each image, which slows the lines down. But of course they weren't perv scanners in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.