Airport security - the right way?

WildCat said:
Nothing.

Or you could smuggle explosives in your mouth, up your rectum or vagina, if you're fat you could conceal explosives in your folds of fat or between your butt cheeks. The new machines will detect none of this. The new machines also probably won't detect powder or liquid explosives.

But hey, why should that deter anyone from having to submit a nude pic to a stranger or have your genitals and/or breasts groped by one in order to fly?
Click to expand...

This is my point. The full-body scanner and the full-body pat-down don't really make us any safer. It's mainly for show. There are a myriad of ways the terrorists could smuggle explosives on the plane that this process would not detect. In fact, I believe the most recent, the exploding underwear, liquids and shoes, would not have been caught with either of these technologies.

I travel a lot for business and don't want to be subjected to either.
 
Villains steal the government office. To expand their power they created false flag terror attack. (such like OKC bombing, 911 attack) They got what they want with the passing through of Patriot Act.

Rogues bully people with their power. They peep, eavesdrop, track people. They search, arrest and murder people.

To achieve this they developed the false flag terror attack to intimidate the public. Take the advantage of public's panic to squeeze more money and power from them.

Villains have no other abilities but to persecute people. To show they are super than ordinary people they developed "security rule" to insult, humiliate people by "see through" and pat down your body. The ruling class want to create a humble and obeydient majority. Those incompetent people won't add any treasure to the society but enjoy the "security jobs" supported by the taxed money.

Step by step, it becomes a totalitarian country.

FBI was warned of Mumbai plotter's terrorism ties
By Sebastian Rotella
ProPublica
10/15/2010
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39692758/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
http://www.hindustantimes.com/FBI-knew-Headley-had-LeT-links-in-2005/Article1-613662.aspx
From Oswald to Sirhan to Ray to McVeigh; from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in ‘93 to their being blown up on 9-11; from Atta to Headley, it is the same story: double agents, patsies and false flags, treachery and treason in the American “intelligence community.” As Robert Kennedy came to see, the real Enemy Within. Before his own murder he revealed, “I asked (CIA director) McCone if they had killed my brother.”
http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=109129

FBI informant identified as in charge of Mumbai terrorist attacks
another FBI informant named Headley identified as mastermind behind Mumbai Terror event. Sound familiar?
Ancient FBI Crime family history
1993 1st World Trade Center bombing
Mastermind: Amed Salem
FBI informant: yes
FBI agent/handlers of Salem: FBI agents Anticev and Floyd

Oklahoma City bombing
Mastermind: Timothy McVeigh
FBI informant: yes
FBI agent/handler FBI agent Larry Potts

FBI knew Headley had LeT links in 2005


FBI knew Headley had LeT links in 2005
Yashwant Raj, Hindustan Times
Washington, October 16, 2010
see link for full story
http://www.hindustantimes.com/FBI-knew-Headley-had-LeT-links-in-2005/Article1-613662.aspx
Click to expand...
All roads lead to Rome. All plots lead to US intelligence.

From Oswald to Sirhan to Ray to McVeigh; from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in ‘93 to their being blown up on 9-11; from Atta to Headley, it is the same story: double agents, patsies and false flags, treachery and treason in the American “intelligence community.” As Robert Kennedy came to see, the real Enemy Within. Before his own murder he revealed, “I asked (CIA director) McCone if they had killed my brother.”
http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=109129
Click to expand...
 
richardm said:
But the bit you quoted indicates clearly that you can ask if the search is because of a suspicious hijab (!). If they say "Yes" then they can only search the Hijab, leaving the rest of you unsearched. If they say "No" then they can search the rest of you.

Assuming it is true, does nothing about that strike you as odd?

Surely if you're searching someone because there is something suspicious about them then you want to do a reasonable job. If you're searching someone because they've been selected randomly, then you still want to do a reasonable job. Why the special limitations here?
Click to expand...

I think of it like a person with a cast. They may wand search or inspect the cast even if the metal detector doesn't beep based solely on the possible masking by the cast.

They may also wand search or inspect the whole person if they are randomly chosen.

The cast gives them an additional means of further inspection, it doesn't limit them.
 
kathaksung said:
Villains steal the government office. To expand their power they created false flag terror attack. (such like OKC bombing, 911 attack) They got what they want with the passing through of Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

9/11 Conspiracy Theories is thataway --------->

This is the grown-up section.
 
http://www.newser.com/story/105750/tsa-takes-nail-clippers-from-gun-toting-soldier.html

TSA Takes Nail Clippers From Gun-Toting Soldier

Nov 19, 2010

Another day, another tale of the seeming absurdity of airport security. This one comes from a soldier coming home from Afghanistan on a military charter plane. The troops aboard the plane all went through security at Baghram Air Field, the soldier says in an email to RedState, passing through full-body scanners and having their bags inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Yet when the plane stopped in Indianapolis to let 100 National Guard members off, the TSA insisted on re-searching all the passengers. … snip …

“All of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols,” though they weren’t loaded, and everyone had already been searched for ammo. Yet when the TSA found nail clippers on one of the soldiers, they insisted on confiscating them. “You can’t take those on the plane,” the TSA official said. “They can be used as a weapon.”
Click to expand...

Feeling safer, folks? :rolleyes:
 
Since these screenings are fairly obviously not about security, I only see 3 options.

1: Govt/TSA is in bed with the manufacturers of the scanners.

2: Americans are being tested to see how much "big brother" we'll put up with. If nude photos and groping are allowed to slide it's a green-light for the nanny-staters to escalate to god-knows-what.

3: Both of the above.
 
Fishstick said:
I just prefer actually citing the CAIR website rather than a derived article. The conclusion or what you think of it is up to you :)
Click to expand...

What's your conclusion? You're the one that said "nuance helps". How does your more nuanced citation inform what you think of it? Indeed, in what way, exactly, does your citation differ in substance from the derived article?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think of it like a person with a cast. They may wand search or inspect the cast even if the metal detector doesn't beep based solely on the possible masking by the cast.

They may also wand search or inspect the whole person if they are randomly chosen.

The cast gives them an additional means of further inspection, it doesn't limit them.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, yes, it does limit them.

If I mask something elsewhere on my body, and also wear a cast, and they inspect the cast for signs of masking, but do not inspect other parts of my body for signs of masking, then I can guarantee safe passage for contraband, simply by triggering "additional means of further inspection", and insisting they be limited to specific areas (which is, apparently, something I'm entitled to do).

To me, the only responsible policy when confronted with a cast, or a hijab, or any other indication of masking, is to conduct a further inspection of the entire person, not just the one obviously-masked area.
 
I call BS on, "The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

I realize they ask other questions at various times, like your origin, destination and who packed your bags, but this strikes me as a carefully crafted myth to discourage attempted terror attacks.

Nobody's that good at detecting other people's future behavior. It's like serial killer profiling or the polygraph.

And I bet they are successful at nailing a lot of false positives.
 
Fishstick, Stegnosaur, Sezme and Dr. Keith: Congratulations, you have just made this thread very, very interesting for NSA and Homeland Security. Have fun!

P.S. And just by mentioning those two by name, I've increased interestingness(!) by two notches. Go Echelon and NSA!
 
clown said:
Fishstick, Stegnosaur, Sezme and Dr. Keith: Congratulations, you have just made this thread very, very interesting for NSA and Homeland Security. Have fun!

P.S. And just by mentioning those two by name, I've increased interestingness(!) by two notches. Go Echelon and NSA!
Click to expand...

Quite honestly I'd be pretty scared if those two organisations had not thought of the points raised by those posters already.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Nobody's that good at detecting other people's future behavior.
Click to expand...
It's not meant to predict future behavior. It is meant to detect current suspicious behavior, which is not a paranormal power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom