![]() ![]() |
|   |
October 07, 2003i spyI want some sane, rational person to explain in simple words exactly what I'm missing from this story. I'm a smart guy, but I don't get it. The federal government is looking into putting video cameras on commercial flights so people on the ground could monitor pilots and passengers and get an early warning of hijackings or other trouble on board. That's just fucking wonderful. The government can put spy cameras on commercial aircraft now. Other than watching stuff that government has no business seeing, what good would these cameras do? But advocates for air passengers say cameras would make air travel safer by preventing terrorism and hijackings. Lucy, 'splain to me how that's gonna work. 'Splain to me how that spy in the sky would have done any good whatsoever on 9/11 if they had been mounted in the cockpits of the planes that hit the World Trade Center. If you can 'splain that to me, I MIGHT come to believe that this is a really good idea instead of perfect example bureaucratic masturbation. I MIGHT, but I doubt it. I'm a country boy. I know bullshit when I see it.
Comments
Fighter planes would of been dispatched to shoot them down...or whatever the hell military terms they use? Notify the air marshall on board that there is trouble in row 50? Somebody is taking a bomb out of their underwire bra in the john? Eject their seat? Just some random stupid thoughts. Posted by: Dawn on October 7, 2003 08:06 PMAll that this will do is inable a Network feed of a Highjacking.The more people that get to see a act of terror the better for the terroist.Thats where my Tax money went this year.What did the government do with yours?Lets try to look like we are doing something,it doesn't matter if it does any good it looks like we are doing somethingStupid Government tricks! Posted by: Airboss on October 7, 2003 08:16 PMWould they sell the rights to the Playboy channel? You know, so people could see who actually joined the Mile High Club. Posted by: drc on October 7, 2003 08:27 PMCan you post the link to this article? I have a friend at Boeing. Thank you Posted by: SASSY on October 7, 2003 09:38 PMSeven cameras on one airliner, multiply that by the thousand plus planes in the air over the USA at any on time. Who the hell can watch that many images? How many people do you have to hire? No doubt the whole operation will be understaffed and it's not likely anyone would see the one image that showed a disturbance. Looks like an exercise in futility to me (and a whole waste of money). Posted by: Bob on October 7, 2003 10:45 PMFirst comment got it right-- So we can shoot the bloody thing down. It took quite a while for the 9/11 planes to get into the area, and we didn't even know what the hell was going on until the second plane hit. After that, it was largely too late to do anything about the threat. Had there been more planes, we would have been hit much harder. However, had they known what the hell was going on when the planes were still several hundred miles away, we could have gotten planes into the air a lot faster. Things are different now, yes, but the fact remains that cameras of that nature can probably do more good than not. I still have mixed feelings about it, though. Required firearms training and weapons for pilots would go a whole lot farther. Don't use a toothpick when you need a cutting torch. Posted by: Mr. Lion on October 8, 2003 03:21 AMI guess I'll never get to the mile high club now! Posted by: ken on October 8, 2003 06:47 AMI've been aware of this project for over a year. We had an opportunity to bid on it, but our platform isn't really right for it. I believe Dawn and Mr. Lion got it right. The advantage of this system is knowing when we have to bring a plane down. The biggest gain would be for commanders having confidence in the decision to down an aircraft. It's not really being touted as such, but that's the cold hard truth. As for limiting your entrance to the mile high club, I don't think so. The cameras aren't being put in the lavatories, and even those in the cabin will be observed by exception. Posted by: Dishman on October 8, 2003 11:59 AMOh sure, cause we know it would be silly to think that terrorists would cut the wires to cameras or destroy the cameras completely once they hijacked the planes. What good does a disconnected/destroyed camera do? If its only purpose is to notify us of a hijacking, then it's a little redundant and pretty much pointless. Posted by: acassa on October 8, 2003 01:12 PMHow cute this idea is. We can watch the confusion and terror in the plane cabin when the first SIdewinder flies up the engine exhaust and denotates. Live! In color! I will NEVER believe the TSA is serious about preventing hijackings until every pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer on every flight is armed. When any Concealed Carry permittee is allowed to bring his weapon on board, I may start to think they mean business. Until then, they're pissing in the wind. Posted by: Gene K on October 8, 2003 03:05 PMDoes White-Out show up at airport screenings? I believe that I could take out observation cameras with one tiny bottle. Just paint the lens. Posted by: Acidman on October 8, 2003 05:24 PM
The planes going from Boston to NYC were not in the air long enough for any military planes to have been scrambled; that would have worked only if the mil. planes had been fying escort from the time of take-off. Cool article!!! Posted by: polifoniczne dzwonki on April 2, 2004 04:21 AMCool article!!! mężczyznami dziewczyny układanki dzwonki dzwonki polifoniczne nokia Cool article!!! Posted by: dzwonki polifoniczne on April 13, 2004 01:30 AMCool article!!! Posted by: dzwonki polifoniczne nokia on April 15, 2004 06:02 AMCool article!!! Posted by: działki mieszkania mieszkanie on April 15, 2004 10:50 AMAirline Tickets Hmmmmm interesting !!! Posted by: nieruchomosci on May 23, 2004 01:54 PMCool Stuff !!! Posted by: tapety on May 24, 2004 10:53 PMPost a comment
|
|
All content © Rob Smith
|