• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TSA scanners and Islam

Does anyone think that flying in a jetliner is an "essential liberty?"

<snippety>

Am I the only one who thinks these scanners are no big deal and will have no problem them?

I completely am with you here.

Air travel is not 'a basic right'. The rules can be anything they want them to be, and then it is your own choice whether to take the car or a boat instead.

Becaue of my looks and the fact that my carry-on luggage contains more electronics (including 3 laptops, 2 camera's, a couple of smartphones and other assorted wires, gadgets etc) than an average hardware store, I routinely get pulled out of the queue and get checked thorougly.

I just learned to live with that, up to the point that I am quite efficient in assisting the TSA personnel in unpacking and rummaging through my stuff.
 
I'm talking about the freedom to travel from state to state, from nation to nation, from continent to continent, without being forced to submit to what amounts to sexual assault as a condition of being allowed to so travel.

Sexual assault? Don't be ridiculous.
 
Your baggage is already virtually searched. Do you object to that too? What constitutes "unreasonable"?

And it is hardly a strip search - it is not as though they can see body outlines or wobbly bits - it is just an idealised outline of a human body.

As I already mentioned jokingly, I have no problem with someone else seeing me naked.

So what? If the employee feels the need to masturbate on those images, well, another soul made happy by just me existing.

And if those images become public? Well, I have seen them, and I do not think that 'TSA scanner pr0n' will become quite a hit...
 
It's not "no big deal", it's just unlikely to lead to the aircraft breaking up. It will still cause depressurization, and if nothing is done immediately to address the situation, everyone on board will die.

The extent to which hull failure can cause an explosive decompression really isn't something that can be adequately predicted.

I think the point that I Ratant was making is that a bullet hole in the fusilage will not induce explosive decompression. Decompression over a lot of time, perhaps, if the compressors that normally manage cabin pressure can't cope with it. People have gotten the impression from disaster movies that a small hole is going to cause a huge whirlwind to go through the craft and force everything to be extruded through the hole, including bodies, but the fact is that air has inertia and resists compression so the violence and speed is just not there. Venting air in the shuttle from the lock when astronauts exit out to the cargo bay takes rather more time than one might think because air doesn't vent to vacuum very quickly through small holes.
 
Last edited:
The destruction of a pressurized airplane takes a large defect in the structure.
A single bullet can't do that.
The DeHavilland Comet that brought structural failure in flight to prominence had improperly shaped opening for the windows, which as the fuselage was pressurized and depressurized during a flight permitted cracks to develop in the aluminum skin of the fuselage. When the cracks became large enough, the structure couldn't contain the pressurization, and the fuselage split open.
When that cause was determined, all subsequent airplane structures are subjected to the pressurization/depressurization cycle before any of that design plane will fly.
For the Comet, the window openings were changed to elliptical, from rectangular, to lessen the stress in the skin at the openings.
We put our test specimen in a large water tank at Palmdale, with the bubbles from any leaks pointing to suspect points in the structure. None were found during the testing cycle.
The 737 that lost the upper half of the forward fuselage had a similar situtation to the Comet, the pressurization/depressurization cycles of a normal flight cycle eventually worked the rivets in the external reinforcing strap at the forward end of the fuselage shell so the internal pressure forced the underlying skin to push the strap off and release the entire forward fuselage shell.
I was commuting weekly in 737s at that time, and noted the instant appearance of -new- and larger rivets in that strap when boarding the plane.
 
Last edited:
I believe I have not been sold on this technology being reasonable. There is no such thing as guaranteed safety. I am wary on forcing the airlines to use this technology when it is questionable if it can even catch the type of chemical explosives that are a rare occurance when it otherwise appears that a strengthening of data collection and sharing could do so.

I'm wondering how this all works. Are they really X-raying everyone?
 
Does anyone think Ben Franklin was actually advocating lawless anarchy with that quote?

Does anyone think that flying in a jetliner is an "essential liberty?"

Does anyone who thinks it is also advocate doing away with drivers licenses as infringing on their "liberty?"

Am I the only one who thinks these scanners are no big deal and will have no problem them?

Has the whole world just up and gone completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane?
Well, no, I think that most of us are saying the same as you.
 
As I already mentioned jokingly, I have no problem with someone else seeing me naked.

So what? If the employee feels the need to masturbate on those images, well, another soul made happy by just me existing.

And if those images become public? Well, I have seen them, and I do not think that 'TSA scanner pr0n' will become quite a hit...
Well I have no problem with that either - but I can respect the view of someone who does have a problem.

But the fact is that these scanners don't show you naked - they just show a sort of cartoonish outline, which is not based on your outline.
 
But the fact is that these scanners don't show you naked - they just show a sort of cartoonish outline, which is not based on your outline.

Which actually should make most of the women happy...

"Look honey! See I am a 36!"
 
I am "poking" somewhat, but in all seriousness ... what people seem to fail to realize is that an airplane is essentially a flying missile. The airplane itself is a weapon. A person hijacking a bus or a car can do a lot of damage ... as can someone on a subway train, etc. But 9/11 did change certain dynamics of travel, turning an airplane into a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

<lots of other good stuff snipped away>

Well, while i basically agree with your points, i think that what is going on nowdays, in terms of "security", is just silly.

Yes, planes can be turned into weapons. In fact, pretty much everything can be turned into a weapon. But does that really justify these extensive measures? Do people really have to accept such intrusions into their privacy?

I'm pretty sure that i get into really hot waters with the following, but i hope that people will try to fully understand what i am saying next.

Yes, 9/11 was extremely tragical. No doubt about that. Many people died for no real reason at all.

However, many people die every years due to traffic accidents. They die because doctors or surgeons make mistakes. Many people get stabbed to death by other people using ordinary knifes. Many people die because they live an unhealthy life.

Should we now go ahead and impose very strict regulations if someone wants to drive a car? Or wants to use a knife? If we impose the use of airbags onto people, why not impose the requirement to live a healthy life as well?

Fact is, far more people have died in the last 10 years (and in the 10 years before 9/11) than at 9/11 itself. Don't get me wrong, every loss of a living person is a tragedy for all involved. But i think that that the sense of proportion is pretty much lost since 9/11.

We simply can not control all the people. We can try to impose more and more restrictions, but the effect would be just that those who want to do harm, will find more and more ways to circumvent these restrictions.

A democratic society has to live with these things, as hard as it may seems at a glance. But there is just no way around it. No one will ever get 100% security. No society will ever have 100% law abiding people.

On the other hand, all these "anti terror laws" and procedures put the people into constant fear of possible attacks. Wherever you go, or if you want to travel, you are reminded of that fear. It pushed and and pushed. The society changes towards one that fears all and everyone that may look/behave suspiciously in the slightest. Even if, as in most cases, there is no reason to think something bad about that person. A state of constant, exaggerated fear can and will change the people living in/under it.

Again, please don't get me wrong. In no way i want to downplay 9/11. But it still is a very rare event. People die due to other means way more often. More people die due to regular airplane crashes than due to terrorists using airplanes as weapons.

Really, security and safety is a good thing. But it has limits. Panicking around and putting people in constant fear does not help at all. In fact, i would go so far and say that these terrorists achieved one of their goals: Putting people into fear.

I really hope that you all will understand my point of view here. I think we simply have to live with the fact that really, really bad things can and will happen, no matter what. But the bad actions of a few should never result in such drastic changes in a society's behaviour. At least not if such a society suffers from far more losses due to things they legally allow. And no, that does not mean to disallow the otherwise allowed things.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Well, while i basically agree with your points, i think that what is going on nowdays, in terms of "security", is just silly.

Yes, planes can be turned into weapons. In fact, pretty much everything can be turned into a weapon. But does that really justify these extensive measures? Do people really have to accept such intrusions into their privacy?
Nearly 3000 people dead in one attack. Yeah, I think that justifies it. I really don't have a problem with these sort of measures if it helps prevent that happening again.
 
Nearly 3000 people dead in one attack. Yeah, I think that justifies it. I really don't have a problem with these sort of measures if it helps prevent that happening again.

[A mod may split this into some extra thread, like "Are the anti-terror measurements really justified"]

Well, the problem is that it can't prevent that from happening again. And it is not just the airport controls that happened since then.

I don't know how it is in the US or in other countries. But here in Germany, a lot of things have changed since that. For example, if you want to transfer money to a bank account, and you go >5000 Euros, you have to fill out forms. Because of anti-terror laws. If you want to cash in money to transfer to an account, you have to give your personal data, address etc.

In the EU we need to store all connection-data for at least 6 months. That is, who surfed to what web-site, who called whom, etc. All in the name of anti-terror stuff. And it didn't happen here. But we have to implement that stuff anyways.

Yes, 3000+ people are a lot. Every single one of them is one too much. But for comparison, in Germany alone we had ~4080 dead people due to street traffic alone [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrstod#Dimensionen
And Germany is a little country, with quite some more restrictive laws when it comes to driver licenses than the US. But still that number is higher than the number of people died at 9/11.

And that is just for 2009. And only the people died in traffic accidents.

By your logic we should ban cars altogether.

I don't think that the 9/11 attacks justify all that anti-terror stuff going on nowdays. All these measures are way out of proportion.

But then, this is just my opinion. And i am one of the people who is annoyed by all that. I'm not willing to accept all these intrusions into my privacy just because of a single, albeit sad, attack.

And even more, i am sick of hearing that "but it is to fight terrorism" excuse for whatever sick laws they want to implement. Society has far bigger and more persistent problems to solve. Giving a few nutjobs the power to put us all in constant fear just can't be right. But that is what is happening right now, since years.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Don't forget that the people who conducted that attack are prepared and willing to die. They are suicidal. There is absolutely nothing that you can do to stop someone from doing that. You may scan for stuff (s)he wears at his/her body. But then they will swallow the explosives to counter that detection. Really, there is nothing you can do stop someone who wants to do an terror attack while killing him/herself in doing so.

Edit 2: Oh, and here in Germany we are now getting electronic ID cards, all in the name of anti-terrorism. Not to mention that our (already obligatory) ID's are one of the hardest to fake anyways. And not to mention that very, very few faked German ID's have shown up so far. But they want us to have them. Costing us enormous amounts of money, for basically no security gain at all. Because it does not help against getting someone else to apply to get the ID in your name. Oh, and of course they like to enforce the use of that electronic ID in many circumstances. They even want you to have eMail's using that electronic ID, they call it DE-Mail here. Sure, it's all a "dream" as for now, but they want to do it. All in the name of anti-terror. But effectively being nothing more than spying on the own people. I thought that with the reunion of Germany the east had come to the west. But as it happens, i'm inclined to think it was the other way round. Thinking of the STASI and such....
 
Last edited:
Well, besides from a strange wish to run stark-naked around airport security, I also have another quirk when traveling;

Getting forbidden stuff on the plane.

In the last 2 years, I have never once been on a flight without:
- My swiss army knife
- At least one lighter (I am a heavy smoker and after 10 to 15 hour flights I *need* my poison)
- 3 bottles of 150ml of alcohol handwash
- Assorted batteries and wires which I know how to short for enough heat to start a fire.

It has become a game to me, and my record stands at 24 lighters through US security.

How?

Not going to tell in details yet, as I am recording it for posterity.

But the main trick is that machines are but machines and they work as expected.

It is the human operators that can be fooled and in the US are often even helpfull in tricking themselves.

Sleight of hand sometimes comes into play, or even the 'hide in plain sight'.

And of course good old social engineering.

And if I can do it on the spur of the moment, so can anyone who wants to do bad after some planning.

If you do not want this to happen, why even have the whole step-by-step 'increase' of security.

There is only one safe way:

* Have *all* luggage checked in.
* Have people change their clothes into a prisoner-like coverall and some slippers.
* Immediately separate the people into specific flights and not let them out of your sight for a minute (I think I can craft weapons/shanks from what is *after* the security check, even the stuff just after the boarding pass check).
* Do not serve 1st class food with metal knives and forks (as if a terrorist could not afford that).

Basically this is all half-assed, no matter how *strict* they will get.
 
You can look at my penis all you want, just let me on the ******* plane!

As for keeping Muslims off planes by mandating body scans, it reminds me of the scheme to prevent suicide bombings on public transport in Israel by installing bags of pork lard in the vehicles. For some reason, the plan was never implemented.
 
And if I can do it on the spur of the moment, so can anyone who wants to do bad after some planning.

If you do not want this to happen, why even have the whole step-by-step 'increase' of security.

There is only one safe way:

* Have *all* luggage checked in.
* Have people change their clothes into a prisoner-like coverall and some slippers.
* Immediately separate the people into specific flights and not let them out of your sight for a minute (I think I can craft weapons/shanks from what is *after* the security check, even the stuff just after the boarding pass check).
* Do not serve 1st class food with metal knives and forks (as if a terrorist could not afford that).

Basically this is all half-assed, no matter how *strict* they will get.

Yes, that is (one part of) the point. There is no absolute security, and there never can be.

Sorry that i, as a damn kraut ;), have only links in German at hand. But take a look here. Skip the first 17 minutes.

Physicist Werner Gruber just carries parts to cause massive havoc to plane on his body (he uses thermite), undetected by that kind of scanner.

As you said, machines are just machines. Knowing what they do, and how, enables you to circumvent them. And if someone really wants to, they do it. After all, they are already willing to blow up themselves.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Nice to see someone else from this little part of the world here on the JREF forums.

Greetings,

Chris

Born near Frankfurt, raised near Alkmaar in the Netherlands.

But my mom and the german half of our family never stopped talking Hessisch to us :)

You hail from the Ruhr Area, so why aren't you into the Fashing yet? :D
 

Back
Top Bottom