Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This has been made legit.



Article already explains that it already breaks child porn law in the UK.

That inversion thing is complete nonsense. Another reason to despair at humanity, when such things are spread.

In the end, this comes down to- tough. Security concerns trump privacy in this area. If you don't like it, don't use air travel. This isn't your own home, it is a service that is at reasonable risk for such measures to be needed. It is ridiculous for such prudishness to put lives at risk. I don't want to be blown up because someone else didn't like an absuirdly abstracted image of them appearing for a couple of seconds on a monitor.

The legal thing can easily be got around; exemptions already exist to that law for dealing with crime. It is patently absurd for necessary security laws (and if anoyine starts yelling out Big Bother comparisons at this point, they need mental help) to be blocked by privacy issues and you will always see such issues bypassed.

Im not concerned about the privacy of adults. Personally I would like to discuss the indecent images of children.

If these scanners give inverted images that expose childrens' genitalia, it would go against a law here, would'nt it?

If I'm not mistaken in England it's the law. You don't get scan....you don't get on the plane. We should do the same. Safety over privacy...take the former if you want terrorist out.

I really fail to see why this scanner is even necessary.


In fact, it would encourage explosives to be put into the butthole.

How many people have smuggled porcelain guns on a plane and then shot up the place? None. Not saying it couldn't happen.

But, that's not really what this is about. It's about catching terrorists. They would need to be looking for explosives...which would also catch things like bullets. They already have "sniffer" machines that can detect explosives. They should have developed that technology more and used that.

But what do I know? I'm only approaching this as logically as possible. Most likely what happened here: the company lobbied the shit out of a some politicians and really sold their product as good. If anyone doesn't believe that, they are fools. That's exactly how these products get pushed out: lobbying and selling a politician on it.


Metal detectors? Check.

Ballistic compound "sniffers"? Check.

X-Ray machines that look through your stuff? Check.



Nothing else is needed...cept a larger number of definitions for the ballistics compound sniffer. Sticking it in your butthole shouldn't get past the sniffer, but it would easily get passed the "I see your junk" scanner.


I'm all for additional security. My personal comfort be damned. If it means my wife and kids and the dude next to me is much safer because of a little loss of privacy, so be it. However, I'm not for impracticality or wasted money.


That's $1 billion wasted on something lobbied to a politician, again. ****in' America.

I have no qualms about anyone at airport security getting a face full of my penis. Everyone should. It should be the law...and now it is.

Oh, the old porcelain gun thing- would this be a porcelain gun that also has a porcelain trigger mechanism, porcelain springs and porcelain bullets? Honestly, these things just take a bit of common sense. Metal detectors find porcelain guns because they all have metal components.

But the point is simply that this kind of thing WOULD catch the methods that terrorists use. SImple as that. It is genuine and worthwhile security being added on the advice of experts in the area and it is being done in far more places than just America. This is useful and the general opinion is that it works. The ONLY objection has been this bullshit privacy/children thing. Assiigning all this to corporate lobbying is about as far from being a logical assessment as it is possible to be.

And btw- no, the 'indecent images of children' thing is just crap. No more indecent than an x-ray. Again, security concerns trump privacy, and as I said, the loophole in that law for fighting crime is already there. It is already in law that there is no indecent image violation committed if the process is necessary for detecting or preventing crime. It just needs tweaking.

Originally posted by jaden101
I have no qualms about anyone at airport security getting a face full of my penis. Everyone should. It should be the law...and now it is.

What, are you packing a Scottish quarter pounder or something?

Daudemon I would drop the Porcelain Gun theory with a more possible theory for a deadlier weapon.....Anthrax Powder.

Chemicals like that are very hard to get past sniffers in a practiclaly usable form- liquid ones work better, hence the modern days security issues with bringing any liquid on board.

And as I just noted, the porcelain guns thing is garbage that people just didn't think enough about.

Yeah, the porcelain thingy just doesn't add up. All that money to make one when all you need is to break a porcelain dish and voila! A sharp edge object that could be use as a weapon.

I'm no expert but in the case of Anthrax powder or some sort of dangerous chemical the goal would be to spread it..so most likely release it inside the airport would be more successful.

Here in Canada we have a choice of the scanner or the pat down/human searching you.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Yeah, the porcelain thingy just doesn't add up. All that money to make one when all you need is to break a porcelain dish and voila! A sharp edge object that could be use as a weapon.

I'm no expert but in the case of Anthrax powder or some sort of dangerous chemical the goal would be to spread it..so most likely release it inside the airport would be more successful.

Morbid as this is, the thing is that that type of thing doesn't provide enough of a body count. Even that sarin attack on the Tokyo underground- about as good a ground as you can get with a truly lethal substance- 'only' killed a dozen.

Terrorists (of this ilk) think in terms of body count. That is why a plane is a good target- if you can do the small amount needed to bring the plane down, you have the count you want.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Daudemon I would drop the Porcelain Gun theory with a more possible theory for a deadlier weapon.....Anthrax Powder.

They already have an extensive bio-warfare detection system in the US postal system. Anthrax's days are pretty much done in the USPS.

The body scanner wouldn't do jack to detect anthrax in your ass...which only furthers my point of the almost complete uselessness of the body scanner. And, someone said that a "porcelain" gun wouldn't exist. Yet, we have knives made of ceramics harder than steel (but chip when used wrong.) They have some ceremics that are even resistant to shear stress. A quick trip to a university library would result in all the knowledge needed to manufacture a weapn WITHOUT metal in it.

We need things like compound detection with false-positive reduction.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh, the old porcelain gun thing- would this be a porcelain gun that also has a porcelain trigger mechanism, porcelain springs and porcelain bullets? Honestly, these things just take a bit of common sense. Metal detectors find porcelain guns because they all have metal components.

But the point is simply that this kind of thing WOULD catch the methods that terrorists use. SImple as that. It is genuine and worthwhile security being added on the advice of experts in the area and it is being done in far more places than just America. This is useful and the general opinion is that it works. The ONLY objection has been this bullshit privacy/children thing. Assiigning all this to corporate lobbying is about as far from being a logical assessment as it is possible to be.

And btw- no, the 'indecent images of children' thing is just crap. No more indecent than an x-ray. Again, security concerns trump privacy, and as I said, the loophole in that law for fighting crime is already there. It is already in law that there is no indecent image violation committed if the process is necessary for detecting or preventing crime. It just needs tweaking.


Holy shit, I didn't even notice this.

A ceremic/porcelain gun can easily be made without metal springs. Plastic springs can work just fine...a "no spring" hammer system would work just fine, as well.

I agree with the other two ponts, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What, are you packing a Scottish quarter pounder or something?

Nope...I just don't care who sees it. No point in being ashamed...Someone's always gonna have a bigger one and someone's always gonna have a smaller one...Big deal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Morbid as this is, the thing is that that type of thing doesn't provide enough of a body count. Even that sarin attack on the Tokyo underground- about as good a ground as you can get with a truly lethal substance- 'only' killed a dozen.

Terrorists (of this ilk) think in terms of body count. That is why a plane is a good target- if you can do the small amount needed to bring the plane down, you have the count you want.


Body count for a terrorist isn't always the agenda...to prove they can be a threat is a more an agenda.

Going back to the porcelain gun theory...that may not be so far fetch now that I think of it...in the film (yes, I'm aware it's only film) eXistenZ the main character made a gun (no gunpowder) that shoots teeth and could penetrate very easily....now this isn't to imply some clever terrorist will plot such a plan...but the chances of a non-metal ballistics objects as weapons that can kill are out there. So increasing AND improving security is always essential.




Last minute edit for this post. I didn't notice your editing prior to my post....disregard.

Originally posted by jaden101
Nope...I just don't care who sees it. No point in being ashamed...Someone's always gonna have a bigger one and someone's always gonna have a smaller one...Big deal.

OR "small deal."


I really don't care about my schlong being seen due to the need of security. I don't want money and time wasted, however, on something that does little to nothing to increase real security.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Body count for a terrorist isn't always the agenda...to prove they can be a threat is a more an agenda.

Going back to the porcelain theory...that may not be so far fetch now that I think of it...in the film (yes, I'm aware it's only film) eXistenZ the main character made a gun (no gunpowder) that shoots teeth and could penetrate very easily....now this isn't to imply some clever terrorist will plot such a plan...but the chances of ballistics objects as weapons that can kill are out there. So increasing AND improving security is always essential.

That's my theory, as well. With enough time and research, one could redesign the entire gun setup and use materials that would get past the scanner. We aren't talking about impossible chemistry, either. Some of these materials can be made by undergrad chem students.

Still, there's the whole "stick it in the butt or swallow" problem.

Would they see if i wrote "phags" in pen on my leg?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Would they see if i wrote "phags" in pen on my leg?

That's a great idea. Someone should invent a fabric/paint that shows on the scanner. Then you can make underwear that says "F*ck you!" in a place were the scanner can see it clearly.

This is a rare occasion where I actually agree with Anne Coulter on something. These things are just security theater. Also, I still want someone to explain to me how exactly anyone can sneak anything other than a postage stamp in their foreskin.

Originally posted by GCG
Im not concerned about the privacy of adults. Personally I would like to discuss the indecent images of children.

If these scanners give inverted images that expose childrens' genitalia, it would go against a law here, would'nt it?


That's what I was wondering. Some of my friends seem to think that it shouldn't be looked at any differently than going to the doctor. The people see thousands a day, how is yours special.

But I think it's wrong, for the children anyways

why.

how are the kids going to be affected at al if airport security sees their barely developed privates? i dont think theyll give a shit to be honest.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why.

how are the kids going to be affected at al if airport security sees their barely developed privates? i dont think theyll give a shit to be honest.

Sexual Predators and what not.

Like I said, most say it wont be any different than the doctors seeing you.

The whole thing weirds me out though.

i dont really see how a sexual predator would matter. i mean the only people seeing the images are security guards... so if one of them is a sexual predator hes going to leave his post follow the kid and his family onto the plane or something?

it does seem kind of wierd but no harm can come from it...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i dont really see how a sexual predator would matter. i mean the only people seeing the images are security guards... so if one of them is a sexual predator hes going to leave his post follow the kid and his family onto the plane or something?

it does seem kind of wierd but no harm can come from it...

What is going to happen to the image file? If it's on a screen, then it can be saved to a hard drive. Are these images not going to be saved?

are the regular x-ray-esque images on the computers at airport security saved?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
are the regular x-ray-esque images on the computers at airport security saved?

I don't know. However, I was traveling up to Seattle one years, and I forgot to put a small jeweler screwdriver (I used to tighten my glasses) into my check in luggage. They did not catch it when I was getting on the plane, but when I got into Seattle they pulled me aside and wanted to look in my bags. If they didn't save the x-ray image, then how did they catch it after I got on the plane?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. However, I was traveling up to Seattle one years, and I forgot to put a small jeweler screwdriver (I used to tighten my glasses) into my check in luggage. They did not catch it when I was getting on the plane, but when I got into Seattle they pulled me aside and wanted to look in my bags. If they didn't save the x-ray image, then how did they catch it after I got on the plane?

I believe that they are saved, atleast for an X amount of time. Just incase such a thing happens.

Originally posted by chiaki
I believe that they are saved, atleast for an X amount of time. Just incase such a thing happens.

If the body scanner images are saved, then it's just a matter of money, before images get out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the body scanner images are saved, then it's just a matter of money, before images get out.

I'm sure the market for false color pictures of children is a small one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure the market for false color pictures of children is a small one.

I wouldn't know, but I would guess the other way.

The TSA was busted some years ago for not conducting background checks on their employees (resulting in a shit ton of baggage theft). Considering the recent sex slavery story with the TSA employee, lack of background checking, etc. you are waaaaay more likely to encounter a sex offender in an airport.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Safety over privacy...take the former if you want terrorist out.

The Ministry of Peace approves of this message.

If you want to be safe from everything? Kill yourself.

Me personally? I'd rather die a free man than live as an ward of the state's yet permeable straightjacket of security.

If you want to FEEL safe (again, check out the definition of Security Theater), protect yourself from terrorists by letting people who may seriously want to rob and rape you look at you and your family naked.

This sounds like the invention we've all been waiting for. If it speeds up the process of boarding an airplane.I'm All for it.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This sounds like the invention we've all been waiting for. If it speeds up the process of boarding an airplane.I'm All for it. "Step aside sir. I'm going to have to take your wife and daughter into the back room for some special screening. The medic near your concourse can stitch them up."

The problem with this is that airport security isn't hampered by lack of technology, but by basic human psychology.

Look at 9-11. As one of the teams checked in at the airport, one of their names turned up on a "do not fly" list. To avoid looking racist, the clerk let the men board the plane without doing the check they were supposed to.

Additionally, groups constatly are able to slip devices clearly labeled "Bomb" through airports.

More tech isn't a solution for this type of problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yet, we have knives made of ceramics harder than steel (but chip when used wrong.) They have some ceremics that are even resistant to shear stress.

polymers, not ceramics. The Glock is made of plastic, not of clay

not to mention, ceramic knives show up on x ray, and the glock has enough metal pieces to be detected. This doesn't address the fact that any amunition would be detectable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's my theory, as well. With enough time and research, one could redesign the entire gun setup and use materials that would get past the scanner. We aren't talking about impossible chemistry, either. Some of these materials can be made by undergrad chem students.

At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.

Originally posted by inimalist
At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.

Given time and knowledge of how a sensor works you can always find a way to subvert it. I doubt that will ever be untrue.

There are still a lot of problems with doing that. First is time and money, an "invisible" weapon will have to be made of materials that typically aren't used so you wont find the parts available for purchase. Second is that it only works once because heightened alertness results in more thorough checking, a perfect design might work once every few months. Finally there is the problem of making sure it works the first time.

Honestly there's no point in trying to make one. Body count is nice but terror and inconvenience are so much easier to do which is probably the exact reason that attacks are done the way they are. It's scary and disruptive. Killing a lot more people is proportionally easier, like buying in bulk, but doesn't have the same effect.

It's of course silly to say that security trumps privacy every time. There's always a weighing of security, privacy and convenience in those cases. I am not sure if the value of those scanners outdoes the inconvenience, especially since they are apparently beatable rather easy, and terrorists tend to be nothing if not determined. A lot of the rules related to airport security do seem knee-jerky though and should probably be evaluated again.

Really, though, the biggest douchery of all those, are express lines for 1st Class Flyers. It's just wrong.

Originally posted by Ordo


If you want to be safe from everything? Kill yourself.



I would rather Kill Everything.



I'm a survivor.

I can't wait to finally have a legal reason to show airport staff my wiener.

the stewardesses aren't the ones running the scanners.

Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines.

Originally posted by Blinky
Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines. I know, right? I'm more worried about this giant eagle:

rx1ksnYiRS8&feature=related

But then again, why worry about terrorists when we have people like this around?

FVms5xxwpEE&feature=related

Great, the government sunk to a new low by making X-Rays so powerful, security can see what you hide behind your trousers. I swear, the government worrying about terrorists is like an everyday house woman worrying about her house getting dirty, they worry way too freaking much and should be smacked so they can regain their sanity. The security staff (who I may add are technically strangers) are legalized to look at everyone's (even childrens) genitalia? The government is stupid.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I swear, the government worrying about terrorists is like an everyday house woman worrying about her house getting dirty, they worry way too freaking much and should be smacked so they can regain their sanity.

Originally posted by Blinky
Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines. Because they'd rather feel secure despite people being able to sneak things in their body cavities and they're apparently not at all afraid of being raped by TSA workers because a hired sex offender in a uniform espouses confidence.

Well we can expect to see a rise in cancer cases when these things are in every airport, lets play the cancer lottery. Sucks for the people who travel on a regular basis, being hit with a full body x-ray every month will guarantee problems for them in the future.

Originally posted by Magee
Well we can expect to see a rise in cancer cases when these things are in every airport, lets play the cancer lottery. Sucks for the people who travel on a regular basis, being hit with a full body x-ray every month will guarantee problems for them in the future. If you're a frequent flier, you're already exposed to excess radiation from, you know, flying.

My safety concern while flying isn't terrorists. It's the rich airline executives not paying their pilots or staff and cutting back on maintenance to the point that planes are crashing and a recent study found a shocking amount of planes that flew last year were not safe and should never have been flying. Not to mention being left on the tarmac for 8 hours while they dick around and don't let you off the plane or having TSA workers steal my bags.

No, the real terrorist I'm worried about actually make up the majority of terrorists in America. Some of them are the nation's wealthiest people and terrorize us financially while the others work on the local level and have swastika tattoos and beat the crap out of people and shoot abortion providers and blow up federal buildings and get arrested for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that they were buying off of sympathetic people in the military. What demographic group is this? Oh yeah, white Christian males.

Originally posted by inimalist
polymers, not ceramics. The Glock is made of plastic, not of clay

not to mention, ceramic knives show up on x ray, and the glock has enough metal pieces to be detected. This doesn't address the fact that any amunition would be detectable.

That Glock you are referring to is fictional, from a film. I'm referring to the "one-shot-only" guns from the USSR that were rumored to have been smuggled/used for assasination jobs.

The portion of my post you quoted was referring to the improvements in ceremics since that time (what...20-30 years later?)



Originally posted by inimalist
At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.

Which is why I said this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
A quick trip to a university library would result in all the knowledge needed to manufacture a weapn WITHOUT metal in it.

Currently, the ceremic knives are made with metal in them so that they show up on X-ray scanners at airports.

Also, you don't plan for only the known in security: you have to account for the unknown. This is why I've been "preachin'" better or more efficient "sniffer" technologies.

And, the body scanner would work to pick up these hiddens "invisible to x-rays..for the most part" weapons. Which is why I got onto this dicussion. I was talking about the unlikelyhood of someone actually possessing such an item. Ushgarak furthered that point by saying that they are more interested in body count. So a gun invisible to X-ray would not be the first choice of a terrorist. It would result in a very low body count and, therefore, result in a rather useless terror attempt. (And just as Ush stated, I don't mean to be so frank/morbid about this.)

My thing was wondering why we are investing in a "solution" that doesn't really address things as well as technologies already being used.

Originally posted by dadudemon



Ushgarak furthered that point by saying that they are more interested in body count. So a gun invisible to X-ray would not be the first choice of a terrorist. It would result in a very low body count and, therefore, result in a rather useless terror attempt. (And just as Ush stated, I don't mean to be so frank/morbid about this.)



Why would it result in a low body count? The point of the gun wouldn't be to kill people. It would be to get control of the plane in order to crash it. No hijacker is ever going to get away with taking over a plane using box cutters and fake bombs again. A gun might still pose enough of a fear inducement in passengers that they don't challenge the hijackers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Currently, the ceremic knives are made with metal in them so that they show up on X-ray scanners at airports.

Surely you mean metal detectors. Strong ceramics would be dense enough to block X-rays.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That Glock you are referring to is fictional, from a film.

no. The first glock, the 17, had many plastic parts, which slowed its adoption because people were skeptical of it. Modern models are still made with many polymer parts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm referring to the "one-shot-only" guns from the USSR that were rumored to have been smuggled/used for assasination jobs.

ceramic guns were prototyped by both America and the USSR during the cold war. There is no reason to believe any of these were more successful than their psychic spies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The portion of my post you quoted was referring to the improvements in ceremics since that time (what...20-30 years later?)

yes, the vast improvements in a 10 thousand year old technology. Not to be glib, but I don't think clay is really a good option. If we are talking about potential weapons made by huge nations to avoid airport scanners, a polymer or carbon nano-tube option would be way better in the modern world.

Originally posted by jaden101
Why would it result in a low body count?

How many shots would get off before the Marshall would gun him down? He can't carry very many bullets on his person. Lights out, show's over, etc.

The person next to him/her would also notice him loading a gun...

bla bla bla


There's a bunch of reason's you don't use a small gun as a terror weapon. It's unlikely that someone would even get any sort of gun on a plane...or even think about it (as others have pointed out, as there's much "better" ways of terror out there.)

Originally posted by jaden101
The point of the gun wouldn't be to kill people. It would be to get control of the plane in order to crash it. No hijacker is ever going to get away with taking over a plane using box cutters and fake bombs again. A gun might still pose enough of a fear inducement in passengers that they don't challenge the hijackers.

I would think that the people of the plane would freak the eff out and literally tear that guy apart. Then, the people that died from gunshots would be hailed as heroes by the media, bla bla bla. It might actually do worse for the terrorists than better.

But what if those crafty terrorists snuck in a 16th century key gun like the one shown on Pawn Stars? They could do some serious damage with a concealed weapon that requires you to light a fuse and fires a low velocity projectile 90 seconds after you pull the trigger!

Originally posted by dadudemon
They already have an extensive bio-warfare detection system in the US postal system. Anthrax's days are pretty much done in the USPS.

The one that takes over an hour to work?

I used to work in one of the USPS plants. The billion dollar machine takes an hour and a half to identify anything. By that time, the letter has passed through hands of about a hundred people, never mind the people on the docks that would have handled the letter before it went through the machine.

It was a running joke at safety meetings.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I would think that the people of the plane would freak the eff out and literally tear that guy apart. Then, the people that died from gunshots would be hailed as heroes by the media, bla bla bla. It might actually do worse for the terrorists than better.

I don't think they would. The best that people did when the guy tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day was tackle him AFTER he already failed to detonate a bomb and set himself on fire.

As much as people would like to think they'd be brave when a gun is stuck in their face....they wouldn't.

Granted that in a hijacking attempt post 9/11 there would be a higher chance of people acting because they'd immediately think it's better to do something if you're going to die anyway.

As for the air marshal point...Other countries have planes...Other countries don't have air marshals or even an equivalent. Terrorists do attack other countries.

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think they would. The best that people did when the guy tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day was tackle him AFTER he already failed to detonate a bomb and set himself on fire.

As much as people would like to think they'd be brave when a gun is stuck in their face....they wouldn't.

Granted that in a hijacking attempt post 9/11 there would be a higher chance of people acting because they'd immediately think it's better to do something if you're going to die anyway.

As for the air marshal point...Other countries have planes...Other countries don't have air marshals or even an equivalent. Terrorists do attack other countries.

I concur. What saved those passengers, in the end, is him failing to detonate the bomb, not their supposed prevention.

Originally posted by GCG
This has been made legit.



Article already explains that it already breaks child porn law in the UK.

WTF is wrong with these people, the security measures in El Al are top notch, be cheaper to hire the Jews to implement what they're already doing.

Just more bureaucracy and wasting of taxpayer money.

I'm all for total recall scanners, man. I mean, damn...,at this point the gomment doesn't even know whats going on. They just know that shit is about to hit the fan within the next couple months.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I'm all for total recall scanners, man. I mean, damn...,at this point the gomment doesn't even know whats going on. They just know that shit is about to hit the fan within the next couple months.

They do?

Originally posted by Robtard
They do?

they've been saying it since 9-11

if they just keep it up they are bound to be right

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think they would. The best that people did when the guy tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day was tackle him AFTER he already failed to detonate a bomb and set himself on fire.

But I don't remember reading anywhere that he screamed, yelled, or drew attention to himself. It seemed like he was trying to do it quickly. So, when they figured out what was going on, they stepped up in similar fashion to what I described in what you quoted.

Originally posted by jaden101
As much as people would like to think they'd be brave when a gun is stuck in their face....they wouldn't.

I call B.S. I submit to the court my good buddy, Jaden101. He beat two idiots, at the same time, senseless, that had pulled knives on him. He claims to generally be laid back and not a hothead.

Originally posted by jaden101
Granted that in a hijacking attempt post 9/11 there would be a higher chance of people acting because they'd immediately think it's better to do something if you're going to die anyway.

Boom.

Originally posted by jaden101
As for the air marshal point...Other countries have planes...Other countries don't have air marshals or even an equivalent. Terrorists do attack other countries.

So why wouldn't the terrorist wait until he was at the airport where's there's more victims instead of doing it on th plane? (Cause if they tried anything whle still in the air, he would never land...either the passengers would take care of him or the plane would be shot down.)

I'm Scottish...We beat terrorists while they're on fire and attacking police officers...







Now you're just giving terrorists ideas...Hijack planes and then wait for them to get shot down...Does the same job as trying to blow it up.

Originally posted by Autokrat
The one that takes over an hour to work?

I used to work in one of the USPS plants. The billion dollar machine takes an hour and a half to identify anything. By that time, the letter has passed through hands of about a hundred people, never mind the people on the docks that would have handled the letter before it went through the machine.

It was a running joke at safety meetings.

That was close to about 6 years ago. You had one of the original 16, I assume.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm Scottish...We beat terrorists while they're on fire and attacking police officers...

Should've known.

Originally posted by jaden101
Now you're just giving terrorists ideas...Hijack planes and then wait for them to get shot down...Does the same job as trying to blow it up.

As much as I hate murdering religious fanatics, I highly doubt that this is an original idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon




As much as I hate murdering religious fanatics, I highly doubt that this is an original idea.

You hate doing that?...I love it. It's great. Speaking of which...I'm sure the Pope is visiting Scotland soon...I have much prep work to do.

Originally posted by jaden101
You hate doing that?...I love it. It's great. Speaking of which...I'm sure the Pope is visiting Scotland soon...I have much prep work to do.

I wonder how I could have used punctuation to make that better?

Maybe added quotation marks around "murdering religious fanatics" or even hypenated those three words?

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF is wrong with these people, the security measures in El Al are top notch, be cheaper to hire the Jews to implement what they're already doing.

Just more bureaucracy and wasting of taxpayer money. El Al is nationalized and because they are nationalized, they can do things like pay everyone decently and have safety for their passengers and equipment. They also focus less on security gadgets and theater and more on observing behavior and interviewing people. They're not going to harass the Muslim-looking guy, they're going to harass the jittery guy who keeps glancing over at his briefcase and start subtly sweating when asked where he was going. They haven't had a terrorist attack on an airline since the 70's. The solution for cost control, security, comfort, safety and wages is clearly to nationalize the airlines, putting them under the control of several local government transit authorities, and getting rid of the TSA completely and replacing them with well trained active duty personnel from the reserves or national guard. It wouldn't violate Posse Comitatus because there are many places in the airport that are seen as a gray area between national and international boundaries (customs, for example). Obviously the capitalist system isn't working for airlines since all they do is make things less safe, less comfortable, pay less and less, and then get bailed out by our tax dollars every year anyway.
Also, we need bullet trains. Trains are cool.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
gadgets and theater and more on observing behavior and interviewing people.

I heard in December that all airport staff will be trained in suspicious behaviour spotting including caretakers.

And by ''heard'' I mean I read it on some kind of notice at JFK.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I heard in December that all airport staff will be trained in suspicious behaviour spotting including caretakers.

And by ''heard'' I mean I read it on some kind of notice at JFK. Does that mean that they'll be doing what El Al does and start talking to everyone boarding a plane when they buy their tickets and engaging random people in casual conversation for no apparent reason as part of their investigation? Also, would you trust the TSA to do this competently since a lot of them are pretty much literally random guys hired without a background check and only rudimentary training?

Conspiracy theory forum is south of here.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Does that mean that they'll be doing what El Al does and start talking to everyone boarding a plane when they buy their tickets and engaging random people in casual conversation for no apparent reason as part of their investigation? Also, would you trust the TSA to do this competently since a lot of them are pretty much literally random guys hired without a background check and only rudimentary training?

I have no idea what they meant or will do. You'll have to ask someone who actually works there, or has idea about American transportation agency.
I believe they meant they will train people to spot people looking dodgy and report to the authorities (?) for further observation and/or interview.
The reason notice was there, displayable to us, was probably because they want passenger cooperation too.
In fact, there might have been something there about passenger cooperation too...could have been. Don't quote me on that.

I didn't read what lil said...but whatever it was....I agree.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have no idea what they meant or will do. You'll have to ask someone who actually works there, or has idea about American transportation agency.
I believe they meant they will train people to spot people looking dodgy and report to the authorities (?) for further observation and/or interview.
The reason notice was there, displayable to us, was probably because they want passenger cooperation too.
In fact, there might have been something there about passenger cooperation too...could have been. Don't quote me on that. I always look dodgy on a lay over until I get a shot of something in me. You do get that nervous terrorist aura around you after you've been sitting for five hours while having Jabba The Hutt fall asleep and fart all over you while some old lady who looks like the Crypt Keeper won't stop jabbering about how society has gone down the tubes since gays were given the right to live. Maximum jitters typically occur when the can of Canada Dry ginger ale I drank expands from the pressure change during the dissent and a mad dash to the bathroom ensues at the airport.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was close to about 6 years ago. You had one of the original 16, I assume.

I was working during 2008, they might have never upgraded. The plant was closing down soon anyways.

Still, it was kind of nerve wracking.

In any case every time you get a package in the mail that isn't damaged or broken, you should thank god.

No one in the plant gave a crap about the actual integrity of the five million pieces of mail we received each day.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I always look dodgy on a lay over until I get a shot of something in me. You do get that nervous terrorist aura around you after you've been sitting for five hours while having Jabba The Hutt fall asleep and fart all over you while some old lady who looks like the Crypt Keeper won't stop jabbering about how society has gone down the tubes since gays were given the right to live. Maximum jitters typically occur when the can of Canada Dry ginger ale I drank expands from the pressure change during the dissent and a mad dash to the bathroom ensues at the airport.

That's funny, because that particular day there was ridiculous amount of people waiting at border control. And I had been waiting an hour in a queue and I had to pee so bad, so I was hopping from one leg to another, looking periodically at the queue and when it will move forward.

I'm surprised noone arrested me, especially since 12 days before that the underwear bomber went on a plane from Amsteram. From Delta plane, which is part of Air France, which was the plane I came with.

And then looking at the notice like that you make an effort not to look terrorist, which in all probability makes you look more suspicious.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's funny, because that particular day there was ridiculous amount of people waiting at border control. And I had been waiting an hour in a queue and I had to pee so bad, so I was hopping from one leg to another, looking periodically at the queue and when it will move forward.

I'm surprised noone arrested me, especially since 12 days before that the underwear bomber went on a plane from Amsteram. From Delta plane, which is part of Air France, which was the plane I came with.

And then looking at the notice like that you make an effort not to look terrorist, which in all probability makes you look more suspicious. Worse is back in the days they actually served meals on flights. Lucky me, I was on an 8 hour flight from San Juan to Denver with a short layover in Florida. It was enchilada day. So imagine the runs on an airplane, and then what happens when you start to descend and the pressure increases thank god that was 4 years pre-9/11 or I would've shat the concourse.

Originally posted by inimalist
no. The first glock, the 17, had many plastic parts, which slowed its adoption because people were skeptical of it. Modern models are still made with many polymer parts.

If that was really what you meant, then why mention "glock" to begin with? Simple, you were thinking of the imaginary Glock 7.


Here's why:

Why did you quote the following post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
They already have an extensive bio-warfare detection system in the US postal system. Anthrax's days are pretty much done in the USPS.

The body scanner wouldn't do jack to detect anthrax in your ass...which only furthers my point of the almost complete uselessness of the body scanner. And, someone said that a "porcelain" gun wouldn't exist. Yet, we have knives made of ceramics harder than steel (but chip when used wrong.) They have some ceremics that are even resistant to shear stress. A quick trip to a university library would result in all the knowledge needed to manufacture a weapn WITHOUT metal in it.

We need things like compound detection with false-positive reduction.

That post quite obviously refers to the entire gun being made from materials other than metal.

You also said this:

Originally posted by inimalist
and the glock has enough metal pieces to be detected.

Now why would you need to bring up the fact that some pieces are metal if we are both talking about a gun that's supposed to be almost completely a ceremic?

In other words, you were referring to the fictiona Glock, tried to back-track, and it doesn't fit well. The fact that your reply was almost completely irrelevant to what we are discussing makes it quite obviously, a strawman.

inimalist: 5
dadudemon: 5


Originally posted by inimalist
ceramic guns were prototyped by both America and the USSR during the cold war. There is no reason to believe any of these were more successful than their psychic spies.

Lulz.



Originally posted by inimalist
yes, the vast improvements in a 10 thousand year old technology. Not to be glib, but I don't think clay is really a good option. If we are talking about potential weapons made by huge nations to avoid airport scanners, a polymer or carbon nano-tube option would be way better in the modern world.

You don't have to worry about being glib, as I was just as snotty right back, earlier in this post.

The idea was NOT to get hung up on ceramic guns. The idea was to talk about using these new airport scanners. I was mocking the use of them and I listed a mocking example of a porcelain gun.

How I ended up on the defensive end of me originally mocking the idea of having to scan the bodies for items that would not set off the metal detector, I have no idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that was really what you meant, then why mention "glock" to begin with? Simple, you were thinking of the imaginary Glock 7.


Here's why:

Why did you quote the following post:



That post quite obviously refers to the entire gun being made from materials other than metal.

You also said this:



Now why would you need to bring up the fact that some pieces are metal if we are both talking about a gun that's supposed to be almost completely a ceremic?

In other words, you were referring to the fictiona Glock, tried to back-track, and it doesn't fit well. The fact that your reply was almost completely irrelevant to what we are discussing makes it quite obviously, a strawman.

inimalist: 5
dadudemon: 5

I have no idea what this is about

I have never, nor would I ever claim that a Glock could or would pass through a metal detector, nor would I claim one was constructed entirely of plastic. If you took that from what I said, my bad.

Rest assured, I am not saying a glock could get through a scanner.

A glockenspeil?