Terrorists on Airplanes
I’ve been listening to the news today about the latest terrorist plot. They want to try to blow up several airplanes as they fly from Europe to the U.S. It’s amazing how the airline industry as well as the U.S. government is going to huge lengths to try to foil their plot. They are not allowing anyone to carry any liquids onboard at all. I find it very amusing.
I’m still of the mindset that we are approaching the airport security thing all backwards. Why do we spend so much time making sure no one can carry any weapons or anything that could be a makeshift weapon onto the plane? Personally I think we should arm all of the passengers. Just ask everyone as they get on the plane if they have a firearm. If they don’t have one of their own, provide one for them if they want one. I can just imagine the scene as a would be terrorist stands up to hijack the plane and quickly turns into Swiss cheese.
Now I realize this would not help with the threat of a bomb on the plane, but no terrorist would be able to take a plane and fly it into a tall building. They would be hard pressed to hijack a flight and keep control of it. This would also make airport security a lot easier to deal with.
I’ve seen reports of systems that can detect the slightest amounts of different explosive compounds. If we were to screen all the baggage and passengers through a system that could detect microscopic amounts of every known explosive compound on the planet, we could catch any bomb they try to bring onboard.
So let me theorize further. If we can screen all of the baggage and passengers with this system, we would no longer have to worry about explosives getting on an airplane. All that leaves is the potential for a group of terrorists taking over the plane by force. With my previous idea these terrorist would face a plane full of angry passengers with weapons of their own. The small group of terrorists would be shortly overpowered, killed, or otherwise neutralized.
Their only option now would be to buy out every seat on the plane so there are no other passengers to contend with. Of course we all know that wouldn’t be suspicious at all.
Ken Wendland 
Zorro said,
August 10, 2006 at 10:20 pm
apparently they were applying that no liquid thing to the pilots and stewardes’s and the stewardes’s protested because they weren’t going to go without their makeup for three or four days and the airlines ended up letting them take it with them.
Mom said,
August 11, 2006 at 8:53 am
I am going to think about the possibility that idea brings up. It sure would solve the terrorists problem in hi-jacking planes. Very intesting idea Ken.
Viper said,
August 11, 2006 at 5:57 pm
All day today I thought about the logistics around keeping track of those loaner weapons. When the passengers are asked, “Do you have a firearm?”, if not “Would you like one?”, if so then record that persons name and see proof of their name with the photo ID they are required to have to board the plane. You then forward that information on to the people on the other end of that flight. They collect the loner firearms from these passengers and record that it was turned in.
Let’s say that you have a larger amount of these loaner guns going from one location to another than are being carried by the passengers back. I figured out how to balance that out. You have planes going back to these locations all the time, so have a system notify the gate personel that they need to put five extra, or ten extra guns in a storage box on the plane for the other airport. That way you can balance the inventory.
I personally think this would work well. You ask people if they have a gun. If they don’t have one you offer the option of having one. They have the option to say no if they would prefer not to carry one. I see no problem with this at all.
megan said,
August 13, 2006 at 2:20 pm
if they are really that worried about it would it not be easier for them to just say you can not take anything on the airplan???? i mean really it is inconvient yes but it would be better than all this stuff we are going through to sort through what it okay and what is not
Zorro said,
August 13, 2006 at 6:43 pm
the problem with not taking anything on the plane is #1 entertainment… what are you going to do for the period of time on the plane? I carry my ipod and a good book. #2 the airlines are notoriously ineficient with luggage and I like to be prepared for when that happens… I wouldn’t want to have to go and buy stuff that I already own but that is sitting on a plane still on its way to my destination. #3 communication… I use my cell phone to call people when I am actually leaving the airport so that they don’t have to wait at the airport because of a delayed flight… I also like to call when I land so that I am able to find them once I get to the destination.
As to a better system… idk… but they are going overboard on some things… like not allowing a pilot to take his contact fluid with him on his flight… you know the one he is flying, the one that he could ram into the ground if he so wanted. Yeah…. messy
megan said,
August 13, 2006 at 9:57 pm
all very good points.. but i do see in the near future that this will be the outcome. that if it keeps going in the direction that its going then this will have to be the out come… or else you will have to be at the airport 4 hours early simply to get through security. Just with the conversations i have had with my dad and such i believe that this will be an inevidible decision for the airlines… and while i agree with you and the points you made.. if it will help to make things more secure and make people feell better about getting back onto planes which in turn will help people to start useing them again then i’m all for it. People have just now begun to start really using plans again and airlines have just recently begun to recoil from the damage of 9/11 and now look what has happened. after all the people that have already lost jobs and the trouble people are having to go through now just to get on the airplans.. i am for anything that will make people feel safe to fly… if thats the way.. do it
rogue said,
August 15, 2006 at 8:46 am
Arming all the passengers would effectively end air transportation in our country. I hope you are joking. I just flew with 30 students. Honestly, would you want to be on a flight with Chris morgan holding a loaded gun. He is 18!
We have the solution to the problem but for what ever reason we refuse to profile based on race! I saw the list of the 21 terrorists. They were ALL ARAB! If we profile racially and take the extreme position that people from the middle eastern countries that have been linked to terrorism can NOT fly then we would have solved the problem. I personally would like us to deport a couple thousand (million?) people.
amazinzay said,
August 15, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I think that Megan’s idea would work only if the airlines would provide entertainment, higher end airplanes have video screens in the seats, and movies you can watch. If all airlines did this and did not allow carry on’s unless absoulutely necesary, for instance: a mother may take a diaper bag but it must be Thoroughly searched first.
Viper said,
August 15, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Actually I’m not joking about arming all of the passengers. You can give them firearms with rubber bullets in them. They hurt like hell, knock you on your butt, but they don’t kill you.
Couple arming the passengers with what Phil Valentine calls “Criminal Profileing” and we would have a solution.
There is a differance with racial profiling and criminal profiling. With racial profiling you are looking at a specific race with no clear crime having been committed. Like pulling over a young black male in a Mercedes because you think it must be stolen. That’s wrong. We should not do that.
Criminal profiling is a little differant in that there has been a crime committed. 9/11 was a crime and they are commiting more crimes every day with bombings and IED’s and what not. We see a trend in these crimes where they are all committed by young Arab men between the ages of 17 and 40.
So criminal profiling is pulling aside someone that fits the profile of the criminals that are commiting the crimes and asking them some questions, and searching them a little better.
Mongoose said,
August 27, 2006 at 12:53 am
Ok, you are all totally missing one very important point…putting loaded weapons into everyone’s hands is absolutely stupid! Do you really think a weapon could be discharged by a frightened person and not depressurize the cabin?! Not to mention the fact they would be offering weapons to potential terrorists. I mean for crying out loud the terrorists wouldn’t need to bring weapons on the plane because they would know they would be freely provided with one!
Viper said,
August 27, 2006 at 7:01 am
Depressurize the Cabin
This is a common myth. One that has been addressed by the guys at MythBusters. You can check out their story here.
This is what they had to say about it.
Explosive Decompression:
This test was intended to prove or disprove the myth that a hole in an aircraft during flight will suck everything in the aircraft outside, like in many action movies.
They tested this myth using 4 different methods. Gunshot though window, gunshot through fuselage, small explosive to blow out the window, and large explosive. (Which blew up nearly the entire aircraft)
The Mythbusters first started by finding an old plane in an aircraft graveyard. They then completely sealed up the aircraft, rigged up a remote-control gun, and then pressurized the inside of the aircraft to the equivalent of the pressure while flying. Buster, the crash test dummy, was in the seat beside the window to be shot.
A hole in the window did not cause anything to even move, nor did a hole in the fuselage. A small explosion meant to take the entire window out caused a seat cover to get sucked out the window. The large explosion ripped off the entire roof of the aircraft as well as a portion of the side. Buster remained in his seat, despite a lot of debris laying on top of him.
This myth was busted – you cannot be sucked out of a small hole of an aircraft while flying.
Offering Weapons to Potential Terrorists
I’m not really worried about if the terrorists get these weapons as well. If we’re handing out hanguns that fire rubber non lethal bullets, they can’t kill anyone, so what’s the danger.
Let’s say Mr. Towelhead stands up, shouts “For Allah”, and is making his way towards the cockpit. It doesn’t matter if he has one of these guns if there are 150+ other people onboard with identical weapons. Even if Mr. Towelhead has five friends, 6 on 144+ is pretty hard to win against. Some of those passengers are going to know how to use those weapons well. You’re right that some of them will not.
I will not pretend to believe that this is a perfect solution, but I do not believe that I missed any points, or that it is a stupid idea. Terrorist know they can hijack an airplane because nobody on the plane has any weapons to defend themselves. It has been proven time and time again that when you create a weapons free zone, Columbine, the only people with the weapons are the bad guys. They don’t follow the rules, that’s why they’re bad guys.
The Wild West only lasted ten years or so because all of the bad guys died, because all of the good guys shot them. The mafia and the mob have ruled and still have a presance in American cities after 40 years because the American public can not fight back. They have much nicer guns because they don’t have to follow any of those silly gun control laws.
Let law abiding Americans fight back. Let them carry their own weapons onboard the planes, or offer nonlethal options at the gate. Make the terrorists have to second guess if they can take over a plane with 150+ angry passengers.