Someone needs to sue the TSA

[BellaBellucci]

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Refuse the X-Ray Porn Scanner and these are the consequences. Note the ironically creepy announcements in the background: 'airport security is everyone's responsibility' (or something along those lines).

This guy was a prophet:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Technology/images/george-orwell.jpg

Amen.

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

The only folks who should be screened are those on TSA's 'watch list'. EVERYONE does not need to be screened, IMO.

[BellaBellucci]

The only folks who should be screened are those on TSA's 'watch list'. EVERYONE does not need to be screened, IMO.

Are you kidding? The watch list is a bigger joke than the scanners. Nobody knows who is on it, how they got there, or how they can get removed.

NOBODY needs to be screened that thoroughly. I'd rather take my chances in the event of a terror attack than submit to the Ameristapo. The bottom line is that terrorists don't kill people to victimize them, they do it to victimize everyone else by scaring them with a 'you could be next' mentality. That mentality gives rise to these types of tactics. Translation? The terrorists have already won.

I for one am more afraid of the federal government than any terrorist. Truth.

~BB~

[Iori]

...........

[BellaBellucci]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_ security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano unveiled the system at JFK recently and (surprise, surprise) did not volunteer herself for the demonstration.

Although, in her defense, she probably didn't want anyone to know that she has a penis.

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

Bella, you only say that because you don't probably know anyone who works for the Federal government. There are major security holes in U.S. commercial air flight, and to imply who cares if the occasional plane or two blows up every once in a while just so you can maintain your 'privacy' is not a rational response, IMO.

If you travel to Israel, expect to be thoroughly 'screened' and interrogated before being allowed to board or leave the country.
The problem with the current screening in the U.S. is that it doesn't need to be so anatomically precise in order to detect if someone is smuggling banned items.

For the most part, those watch lists are compiled by various intelligence agencies and reference high value individuals. Sure, sometimes a random passenger's name cross-references with a suspected enemy agent on the TSA 'watch list', but it's not a common occurrence.

The more planes that are blown up over American airspace by terrorists, the more draconian the response will be from the public and the government.

Better to take a little bitter pill now, than be forced to carry a bio-metric RFID I.D. card in the future that tracks you from the minute you walk out of your front door.

[JoePitt]

The bottom line is that terrorists don't kill people to victimize them, they do it to victimize everyone else by scaring them with a 'you could be next' mentality.

The terrorists have already won.

Those darn terrorists are on an incredible winning streak. I don't think they've lost a game since the Vietnam war. They must have won about 20 times since then.

Also, I think I would much rather have a stranger look at my junk than dieing in a fireball @ 30000 feet. Embarrassment ends, death does not.

[BellaBellucci]

and to imply who cares if the occasional plane or two blows up every once in a while just so you can maintain your 'privacy' is not a rational response, IMO.

Thanks Dubya. I didn't imply anything. I outright said it. I'm sorry, but that line of thinking (and the subsequent 'irrational' response intended to discredit not just the idea but the person who has it) is just a talking point. Have any planes been hijacked in the U.S. since 9/11? Did we have body scanners? Aren't cockpits locked now? Aren't there Sky Marshalls on flights? What was wrong with the old screening process considering these changes?


If you travel to Israel, expect to be thoroughly 'screened' and interrogated before being allowed to board or leave the country. The problem with the current screening in the U.S. is that it doesn't need to be so anatomically precise in order to detect if someone is smuggling banned items.

Israel is that way because they're a lightning rod for terrorism. Ironically, our close ties with them are precisely what makes us a target as well, but don't get it twisted: we're but a secondary target.

And the problem with the scanners is not just privacy but health. Personally, I don't want to be exposed to radiation every time I fly. Hell, I don't even like X-Rays at the doctor's office, but like you said, it's the precision that's the issue on the privacy front. My question is: if they say you can opt out of the scanner, why do they have to check your genitals and why do they have to make a scene and threats of lawsuits if you choose that option? They never did that before. They only do it now because the machine justifies using humans as a proxy for the same level of scrutiny.


For the most part, those watch lists are compiled by various intelligence agencies and reference high value individuals. Sure, sometimes a random passenger's name cross-references with a suspected enemy agent on the TSA 'watch list', but it's not a common occurrence.

Not common, but unfairly enforced.

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2010/01/14/meet-the-8-year-old-on-a-tsa-watch-list/


The more planes that are blown up over American airspace by terrorists, the more draconian the response will be from the public and the government.

Better to take a little bitter pill now, than be forced to carry a bio-metric RFID I.D. card in the future that tracks you from the minute you walk out of your front door.

When was the last plane blown up over American airspace? Oh, that's right - almost TEN YEARS AGO! That means that the screening process implemented after 9/11 served its purpose well. There's no safety justification for this un-called-for and seemingly random increase in security.

Oh, and the RFID? It's already in your passport, so yeah. They tried to put it in new licenses but most of the states rejected the requirements. I'm also hearing rumblings about CA licenses already being issued at the federal level. So much for state's rights.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Those darn terrorists are on an incredible winning streak. I don't think they've lost a game since the Vietnam war. They must have won about 20 times since then.

Also, I think I would much rather have a stranger look at my junk than dieing in a fireball @ 30000 feet. Embarrassment ends, death does not.

Ever hear of the law of averages?

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/odds_of_dying_in_terrorist_attack_on_airline_1_in_ 25_million_struck_by_lightning_1_in_500000.php

Maybe I should buy you a rubber suit to protect you from those lightning attacks. They're hell bent on killing you because they hate your way of life.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/180134265_a72e429be5_m.jpg

~BB~

[Jericho]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Wasn't it one of you lot who said this?
Guess times change :shrug

[south ov da border]

I get the "you've been selected for a random screening" everytime I go on a flight. I get tired of it...

[lisaparadise]

The only folks who should be screened are those on TSA's 'watch list'. EVERYONE does not need to be screened, IMO.everybody with darker skin then me should be scanned period.

[giovanni_hotel]

everybody with darker skin then me should be scanned period.
I have significantly darker skin than you and have done the drill at an airport.
Shit is a hassle, but what are you gonna do??

And Bella, you do know that a terrorist plot was recently uncovered, originating from Yemen, where terrorists were attempting to send explosives in cargo planes hidden in computer printer toner cartridges??

Just because 9/11 happened 10 years ago, let's not pretend Islamic psychos aren't plotting daily on how to punch the United States in the nose.
The first World Trade Center attack happened in 1993, and those fuccers waited NINE YEARS until they finally hatched a plan capable of bringing those buildings down.

You may not be at war with Al Qaeda, Bella, but I promise you those nut-jobs are STILL fiending on how to simultaneously blow up multiple airplanes.

[BellaBellucci]

I have significantly darker skin than you and have done the drill at an airport.
Shit is a hassle, but what are you gonna do??

And Bella, you do know that a terrorist plot was recently uncovered, originating from Yemen, where terrorists were attempting to send explosives in cargo planes hidden in computer printer toner cartridges??

Just because 9/11 happened 10 years ago, let's not pretend Islamic psychos aren't plotting daily on how to punch the United States in the nose.
The first World Trade Center attack happened in 1993, and those fuccers waited NINE YEARS until they finally hatched a plan capable of bringing those buildings down.

You may not be at war with Al Qaeda, Bella, but I promise you those nut-jobs are STILL fiending on how to simultaneously blow up multiple airplanes.

I think you're just scurrrrred! :whistle:

Oh, and do tell how subjecting passengers to a full body search is going to find explosives in cargo?! As you already pointed out, cargo is our 'weakest link, Goodbye!' :lol:

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

Remember that Nigerian student a few months ago who tried to smuggle explosives in his underwear on a airline from the UK to the U.S.??
There is a middle ground between paranoia and willful blindness.

Bella I bet the next time a building blows up or a jet airliner explodes in a fireball, you'll be one of the first people out here railing against the incompetence of the federal government and wondering why they didn't protect us, the bitch about why we're invading another Middle Eastern country.

[NYBURBS]

Bella, you only say that because you don't probably know anyone who works for the Federal government. There are major security holes in U.S. commercial air flight, and to imply who cares if the occasional plane or two blows up every once in a while just so you can maintain your 'privacy' is not a rational response, IMO.

If you travel to Israel, expect to be thoroughly 'screened' and interrogated before being allowed to board or leave the country.
The problem with the current screening in the U.S. is that it doesn't need to be so anatomically precise in order to detect if someone is smuggling banned items.

For the most part, those watch lists are compiled by various intelligence agencies and reference high value individuals. Sure, sometimes a random passenger's name cross-references with a suspected enemy agent on the TSA 'watch list', but it's not a common occurrence.

The more planes that are blown up over American airspace by terrorists, the more draconian the response will be from the public and the government.

Better to take a little bitter pill now, than be forced to carry a bio-metric RFID I.D. card in the future that tracks you from the minute you walk out of your front door.

There are major security holes in just about every part of society, but the point is that unless you want to live in a totalitarian state then you need to just deal with it. Ending up on a watch list that prevents you from traveling by air, without so much as a hearing before hand, and then having no real way to get off of it, is a blatant violation of due process imo. Of course that has never stopped the government before.

Invasive body scans, excessive pat downs, secret "enemy" lists, etc are all signs of deterioration into a police state. Justifications could be found for any number of heavy handed tactics, but that does not mean that we should want to live in a society that employs those practices.

[giovanni_hotel]

Better the government overreacts now than allow the country to get hit again and some cowboy/momma grizzly in the WH starts lobbing ICBMs at the Middle East.

In lieu of the latter case, I'm perfectly willing to endure the inconvenience of a pat-down or an airport screen to prevent this government from starting WWIII.

[BellaBellucci]

Remember that Nigerian student a few months ago who tried to smuggle explosives in his underwear on a airline from the UK to the U.S.??
There is a middle ground between paranoia and willful blindness.

Bella I bet the next time a building blows up or a jet airliner explodes in a fireball, you'll be one of the first people out here railing against the incompetence of the federal government and wondering why they didn't protect us, the bitch about why we're invading another Middle Eastern country.

That's not fair. First of all, I've already said on this thread that I'll take my chances. I really couldn't say it unequivocally enough. And did you read the second link I posted? It says that you have a 1 in 25 million chance of being a victim of a terror attack but a 1 in 500,000 chance of being struck by lightning, hence the rubber suit pic in that post.

Furthermore, they terrorize us because we invade their countries. Do you not read your history? It's an endless cycle that perpetuates the need for our crippling defense budget and greatly pleases the overlords of the military-industrial complex.

Are you kidding me? You can do better. I have faith in you. :geek: :lol:

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Better the government overreacts now than allow the country to get hit again and some cowboy/momma grizzly in the WH starts lobbing ICBMs at the Middle East.

In lieu of the latter case, I'm perfectly willing to endure the inconvenience of a pat-down or an airport screen to prevent this government from starting WWIII.

Point scored. Palin's an idiot. :Bowdown:

~BB~

[JoePitt]

Wasn't it one of you lot who said this?
Guess times change :shrug

So not going through an airport scanner is an "Essential Liberty"? I don't think it even comes close to being that.

[NYBURBS]

So not going through an airport scanner is an "Essential Liberty"? I don't think it even comes close to being that.

Idk, if a suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a city block should the police be allowed to forever thereafter perform an invasive frisk of your person or put you through a scanner before you're allowed to walk down the street? Hell, it's just that right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects and someone thought it essential enough to stick in an amendment.

I'm not saying that there can't be any level of security at an airport, but there has to be a balance that is proportionate to the risk. There are thousands of flights a day that come and go through our airports, and how many incidents were there before these scanners were installed? Some people live in perpetual fear and would push us toward a police state in order to try and alleviate their fears.

[phobun]

This thread is missing something...

Hmmm.... what could that be...?

OH! YES!

[NYBURBS]

This thread is missing something...

Hmmm.... what could that be...?

OH! YES!

Honestly, that got me to laugh, so thanks Phobun lol

[Jericho]

So not going through an airport scanner is an "Essential Liberty"? I don't think it even comes close to being that.

Well done, Whoosh, but, what next?

When the scanners and the pat downs don't work and there's another atrocity (as there will be - shit has an ugly habit of happening), what next?

Stripped naked and chemically induced comas before you're allowed to be wheeled on board?

[FREEFALLL666]

OK we can turn these down, only when you sit next to Mr Explosive Knickers and Mrs Explosive TwoSet..

[Caff_Racer]

Don't get me started on airport security... :soapbox It's all a load of bollocks! The bottom line is that you can implement all the security checks you want (let's say checking people's socks because some wacko gets on a plane and starts saying that he has explosive socks...), but if a terrorist organisation really want to get a bomb on a plane, they can and they will, unfortunately.

[bat1]

Don't get me started on airport security... :soapbox It's all a load of bollocks! The bottom line is that you can implement all the security checks you want (let's say checking people's socks because some wacko gets on a plane and starts saying that he has explosive socks...), but if a terrorist organisation really want to get a bomb on a plane, they can and they will, unfortunately.


Less then half of all cargo is X-rayed:hide-1:

[TSMichelleAustin]

This is so fucking dumb... you already have to get to airport two hours early to go through security, with this are we going to have to come five hours early just to get to our plane on time? And damn those lines are going to be a mess, they already are. I have been put to side because my sex on id didnt match my look! That shit is crap! But anyways, i started taking train it maybe longer to get to your destination but its relaxing, better seats and more leg room and you dont have the hassle of the TSA! UGH! Oh and you dont have to pay for your luggage, and bring as much as u want too! LOL!

[bte]

Been hearing a lot of backlash on the new TSA security such as the pat-downs and full body scans. I can see why people are mad, but its there to protect the people. I would rather feel uncomfortable (or slightly aroused depending on the situation) than to have to fend off some crazy Jihad muthafuka with a box cutter and a bomb attached to his testicles.

[TSMichelleAustin]

Been hearing a lot of backlash on the new TSA security such as the pat-downs and full body scans. I can see why people are mad, but its there to protect the people. I would rather feel uncomfortable (or slightly aroused depending on the situation) than to have to fend off some crazy Jihad muthafuka with a box cutter and a bomb attached to his testicles.

But Bella has a point has anyone taken down a plane since 9/11 no... so why make it even more strict then what it is??? Its doing good now. 2nd if its my time to go then its my time to go! Its just as easy for that plane to go down cuz of technically difficulties, so its always a risk. If we always go out in fear how can we live? I'll stick to the trains for now! LOL!

[bte]

But Bella has a point has anyone taken down a plane since 9/11 no... so why make it even more strict then what it is??? Its doing good now. 2nd if its my time to go then its my time to go! Its just as easy for that plane to go down cuz of technically difficulties, so its always a risk. If we always go out in fear how can we live? I'll stick to the trains for now! LOL!

No planes has been taken down since 9/11, but there are have been failed attempts. Although when the failed attempts happened, it wasn't because the airport stopped them, but because the devices they had were faulty.

[giovanni_hotel]

It's not about ONE person losing their life. A single plane taken down by Islamic extremists is viewed by the U.S. government as an attack by a foreign enemy, which automatically demands a military response.

If you don't wanna wear a seat belt or skip a flu shot in the winter, who cares?? Uncle Sam isn't going to vaporize a U.S. city if some random dies.

But if the U.S. feels they've been hit again by Al Qaeda in any significant way that results in a high body count, shit is on. As in, some Islamic country is erased from the map. Next stop, WWIII.
Some of you are really self-centered and narrow minded when it comes to this security bullshit in order to get on an airplane.
It's not about you dying, or the airlines, or increased security.
Enhanced security is about preventing another attack aboard an airliner so that the U.S. military isn't given an excuse to lob nukes into the Middle East.

[TSMichelleAustin]

Like i said I am happy with my trains!

[TSMichelleAustin]

btw Giovanni i still like u if we disagree! U got ur shout out in other thread i guess u havent seen! LOL! But know this your right, but i feel differently. We are all entitled to that. I rather not live my life in fear! So with that being said I am through with this subject!

[giovanni_hotel]

btw Giovanni i still like u if we disagree! U got ur shout out in other thread i guess u havent seen! LOL! But know this your right, but i feel differently. We are all entitled to that. I rather not live my life in fear! So with that being said I am through with this subject!

Thanx Michelle!! All luv, never mad at ya!!lol

I guess I'm saying what Bella did in a different way; I don't trust my government to do the right thing after a terrorist attack, like not start another war in the Middle East.

[DaveinBoston]

All the people complaining about being 'screened' in this way is such an 'invasion' of your privacy... sorry but flying on an airplane is not a 'right'. It's a privalege. You have many other means of transportation that you can take at your disposal. Trains, boats, buses, cars.

If that inconveniences you, too bad- so sad. May be you could ask the people who died on 9-11 if they'd would subject themselves to better security checks like we have today rather than smash into the side of the World Trade Center going 400 mile per hour on a bright sunny morning. Im pretty sure all the father/motherless kids would agree too.

Personally, I'd rather have a camera jammed up my ass that one time a year that I fly than a firey death.... just use plenty of lube.

They should make a new airline.... call it "Free for All".... you can take your chances on this airline... no security checks... no xray... no nothing... just walk in, board and call it a day. No 'invasion' of your or anyone else privacy. You and all the other complainers can feel comfortable that no one saw your junk on an xray picture. Good luck getting a pilot... but have fun anyway... and if you dont mind.... name me as your beneficary on your will please!

[scroller]

Certainly agree with Bella. It's a scam.
- The scanners are a selling-to-the-government scam that don't help security. The head of Israeli security, for example, said as much.
- The increasingly aggressive pat-downs are in no way helping security, they're purely an intimidation device to get more people to comply with the scanners. TSA workers have said so.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, indeed. Bunch of sheep, really.

[bte]

All the people complaining about being 'screened' in this way is such an 'invasion' of your privacy... sorry but flying on an airplane is not a 'right'. It's a privalege. You have many other means of transportation that you can take at your disposal. Trains, boats, buses, cars.

If that inconveniences you, too bad- so sad. May be you could ask the people who died on 9-11 if they'd would subject themselves to better security checks like we have today rather than smash into the side of the World Trade Center going 400 mile per hour on a bright sunny morning. Im pretty sure all the father/motherless kids would agree too.

Personally, I'd rather have a camera jammed up my ass that one time a year that I fly than a firey death.... just use plenty of lube.

They should make a new airline.... call it "Free for All".... you can take your chances on this airline... no security checks... no xray... no nothing... just walk in, board and call it a day. No 'invasion' of your or anyone else privacy. You and all the other complainers can feel comfortable that no one saw your junk on an xray picture. Good luck getting a pilot... but have fun anyway... and if you dont mind.... name me as your beneficary on your will please!

Good point...

[NYBURBS]

All the people complaining about being 'screened' in this way is such an 'invasion' of your privacy... sorry but flying on an airplane is not a 'right'. It's a privalege. You have many other means of transportation that you can take at your disposal. Trains, boats, buses, cars.


Yea, I've heard that argument before. Driving a vehicle isn't a right either under the law, it's a privilege that the government is free to remove from you for any number of reasons. To be quite honest, that argument gets old after a while. If walking to where ever you want to go is the only "right" you have then you're pretty much left to the whims of bureaucrats.

If something is only a privilege then is there a line that you would draw over what the government could demand of you in order to exercise that privilege? Would mandatory cavity searches be OK? Having your biometrics cataloged? DNA samples before being allowed to board? RFID chips being installed in your ID or even in your body?

[scroller]

They should make a new airline.... call it "Free for All".... you can take your chances on this airline... no security checks... no xray... no nothing... just walk in, board and call it a day. No 'invasion' of your or anyone else privacy. You and all the other complainers can feel comfortable that no one saw your junk on an xray picture. Good luck getting a pilot...

Here's the President of the US Airline Pilots Association on this issue:


Let's be perfectly clear: the TSA procedures we have outlined above are blatantly unacceptable as a long-term solution. Although an immediate solution cannot be guaranteed, I can promise you that your union will not rest until all U.S. airline pilots have a way to reach their workplace ... the aircraft ... without submitting ourselves to the will of a TSO behind closed doors.

This situation has already produced a sexual molestation in alarmingly short order. Left unchecked, there's simply no way to predict how far the TSA will overreach in searching and frisking pilots who are, ironically, mere minutes from being in the flight deck.

As we all know, it makes no difference what a pilot has on his or her person or in their luggage, because they have control of the aircraft throughout the entire flight. The eyewash being dribbled by the TSA in this instance is embarrassingly devoid of common sense, and we will not stand for it.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/tsa-screener-terrorizes-3-year-old-girl

[african1]

This is what they can see. The image can be easily inverted. Also all images are saved for evidence (and or training purposes).

[Caff_Racer]

Here's the President of the US Airline Pilots Association on this issue:



http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/tsa-screener-terrorizes-3-year-old-girl

Bloody hell! If I was a father and a screener molested my kid like that, said screener would be a dead screener. It's that simple. NOBODY is going to grope any underage kin of mine and expect to get away with it, even for so-called "security purposes".

[african1]

Remember that Nigerian student a few months ago who tried to smuggle explosives in his underwear on a airline from the UK to the U.S.??
There is a middle ground between paranoia and willful blindness.

Bella I bet the next time a building blows up or a jet airliner explodes in a fireball, you'll be one of the first people out here railing against the incompetence of the federal government and wondering why they didn't protect us, the bitch about why we're invading another Middle Eastern country.

Hey giovanni, I want you to see a video about that so-called Nigerian guy.
Michael Chertoff's firm, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, is representing the makers of these very expensive body scanners. They were trying to push for their use since 2008 to no avail. People wouldn't let it happen. Then what do you do to make shit happen in america. Terrorist attack. Since the Christmas day attempt, it became a matter of policy to use these equipments. They are even training the kids to get used to them, because mark my words: they will be everywhere as a replacement to metal detectors.

Notice how they make it such an unpleasant and embarrassing experience for those who refuse to go through the body scanners by groping them and humiliating them in public.
Now watch the videos.

[african1]

BTW, did you know the Nigerian guy boarded the plane with NO passport?
On an International FLIGHT to USA in an after 9/11 climate!!!!!

[joeym75ld]

If you don't want to be scanned or frisked, there are lots more choices for you:
Automobile
Train
Walking
Horse + Buggy
etc.

Bunch of fucking whiny babies. If you don't like it don't fly. Don't compormise the safety of others (like me and my family) because you'll be inconvenienced, you selfish bastards.

[BellaBellucci]

Great discussion guys. It's a good thing to talk about these things, even if we conclude that all is good, matters this important should be viewed from every angle before that conclusion is made. Don't believe the hype: it's healthy to be skeptical of government.

~BB~

[african1]

YouTube - BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtK7FFDukQ&feature=related)

[african1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FBCHKu2KU
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FBCHKu2KU)

[african1]

Every TSA employee will know who the Trannies are?

When you hear them say: "Hey look, that guy has boobs"

It's a sad world.

[Jericho]

I'd never actually looked at the lyrics before.
Interesting.


The Star Spangled Banner

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In fully glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[lisaparadise]

No planes has been taken down since 9/11, but there are have been failed attempts. Although when the failed attempts happened, it wasn't because the airport stopped them, but because the devices they had were faulty.im guessing you guys are forgetting what could have happened last christmas in detroit? the fact is the united states dropped the ball when it came to racial profiling and this is what happens because the good people have to sacafice.ya got the colombians selling drugs to mexico and mexico bringing it across the border and even worse you have muslim extremist trying to kill the entire western world because these fucks have nothing to live for my point being if we allowed racial profiling in the first place then we aka white folks wouldnt have to worry about this bullshit.

[BellaBellucci]

im guessing you guys are forgetting what could have happened last christmas in detroit? the fact is the united states dropped the ball when it came to racial profiling and this is what happens because the good people have to sacafice.ya got the colombians selling drugs to mexico and mexico bringing it across the border and even worse you have muslim extremist trying to kill the entire western world because these fucks have nothing to live for my point being if we allowed racial profiling in the first place then we aka white folks wouldnt have to worry about this bullshit.

What if they start to recruit corn-fed middle-Americans to do their bidding? What if they have already? And what about African-American Muslim converts? Do we profile them too? Racial profiling is a political mine field.

~BB~

[CaptainPlanet]

im guessing you guys are forgetting what could have happened last christmas in detroit? the fact is the united states dropped the ball when it came to racial profiling and this is what happens because the good people have to sacafice.ya got the colombians selling drugs to mexico and mexico bringing it across the border and even worse you have muslim extremist trying to kill the entire western world because these fucks have nothing to live for my point being if we allowed racial profiling in the first place then we aka white folks wouldnt have to worry about this bullshit.

As soon as that happens, "White Muslim Extremist" Will emerge! Don't think they already exist? Then your just naive. Racial profiling only causes more harm.

[lisaparadise]

What if they start to recruit corn-fed middle-Americans to do their bidding? What if they have already? And what about African-American Muslim converts? Do we profile them too? Racial profiling is a political mine field.

~BB~yes but it works

[lisaparadise]

As soon as that happens, "White Muslim Extremist" Will emerge! Don't think they already exist? Then your just naive. Racial profiling only causes more harm.trust me we already do it every day and you know it,tell me you dont take a double check when you see a muslim on the same plane as you?

[BellaBellucci]

yes but it works

Maybe for now, but in the long run? They'll just recruit outside of their usual circles.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Maybe for now, but in the long run? They'll just recruit outside of their usual circles.

~BB~im sure they already do i mean look at all the crazies who believe in god?anybody can be brainwashed 99 per cent of the world trust there lives to jesus how freakin crazy is that?

[BellaBellucci]

im sure they already do i mean look at all the crazies who believe in god?anybody can be brainwashed 99 per cent of the world trust there lives to jesus how freakin crazy is that?

Can't argue with that logic.

~BB~

[BLKGSXR]

Smh,why must the person be "Muslim" I see this being thrown instead of saying you will see the terrorist extremists...You will find the idiots in every race/religion/ethnicity...that being said Islam is a Peaceful religion its the dumbasses who are brainwashed who give it a bad name.

[lisaparadise]

Smh,why must the person be "Muslim" I see this being thrown instead of saying you will see the terrorist extremists...You will find the idiots in every race/religion/ethnicity...that being said Islam is a Peaceful religion its the dumbasses who are brainwashed who give it a bad name.peacefull nation?are you that fucked?bann this cunt

[african1]

Racial profiling won't matter because in few years whites will be a minority...sadly :(

[lisaparadise]

You are starting to sound like that white chick who was crying during one of McCain's townhall meetings screaming: I want my "white" America back...So you too u want your white America back. Tell that to the Indians bro. You ain't getting it back. sorry. :mrgreen:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-11-2009/reform-madness---white-minority?xrs=share_copyim not your bro nigger so fuck off its not about black and white its about everyelse who isnt white that create this garbage latinos arabs in particular we dont give a rats ass about blacks being terrerist you guys are way too busy shooting each other on a daily basis and ya ll still got the nerve to call each other brothers how tragic.

[CaptainPlanet]

im not your bro nigger so fuck off its not about black and white its about everyelse who isnt white that create this garbage latinos arabs in particular we dont give a rats ass about blacks being terrerist you guys are way too busy shooting each other on a daily basis and ya ll still got the nerve to call each other brothers how tragic.

Are you serious? I hope ISLAM FINDS YOU! You weak pathetic excuse for a human being, die in a hole somewhere.

Racism in the 21st century.:fu:

[BLKGSXR]

peacefull nation?are you that fucked?bann this cunt
Im arab, im Egyptian, I am also christian. But I still know the difference between a person who wishes evil upon others and one who does not, that being said I have a few muslim friends who are the nicest people I have ever met, they might not be arab but they are people and just because myself and them dont see eye-to-eye with your ideal does not make them "Terrorists".

[lisaparadise]

Are you serious? I hope ISLAM FINDS YOU! You weak pathetic excuse for a human being, die in a hole somewhere.

Racism in the 21st century.:fu:fuck you you packi piece of shit

[BellaBellucci]

I got your terrorists right here... and they're white.

http://lerevdr.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bush_cheney_naked.jpg

http://leighhouse.typepad.com/blog/images/bush_cheney_04.jpg

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Im arab, im Egyptian, I am also christian. But I still know the difference between a person who wishes evil upon others and one who does not, that being said I have a few muslim friends who are the nicest people I have ever met, they might not be arab but they are people and just because myself and them dont see eye-to-eye with your ideal does not make them "Terrorists".of course theres good in every race but its no secret that your people harbour terrerists period.

[lisaparadise]

I got your terrorists right here... and they're white.

http://lerevdr.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bush_cheney_naked.jpg

http://leighhouse.typepad.com/blog/images/bush_cheney_04.jpg

~BB~there far from terrerist it wasnt U.S. that terrerises other countries remember yes they went into irac on the notion that there were wmd but they got what was coming to them and the rest of the world is better off with saddam not in it.

[BLKGSXR]

of course theres good in every race but its no secret that your people harbour terrerists period.
My people??? Im American born and RAISED! in Sunny MotherfuckingCalifornia!
My people are my friends who I see on a weekly basis....
Lisa I am extremely sorry for you that you see the world in this view Bigotry is a hell of a thing.
Hopefully you stop making yourself look like an ass and learn how to have a conversation "debate" civilized without the use of derogatory terms.:geek::yingyang:

[african1]

of course theres good in every race but its no secret that your people harbour terrerists period.

Hey Lisa, btw, we like 'em those white girls. :mrgreen:

[lisaparadise]

there you go...there lies the essence of your intelligence and core beliefs: Racism, bigotry, hatred, shallowness, hypocrisy, sexual frustration and narrow-mindedness.

But don't worry Bro, even though you will be (surely) come a minority, we will protect you. :mrgreen:lol dude dont disrespect me and dont blame whites because you people breed lke wildfire not giving a shit that your kids will grow up with nothing.

[BellaBellucci]

there far from terrerist it wasnt U.S. that terrerises other countries remember yes they went into irac on the notion that there were wmd but they got what was coming to them and the rest of the world is better off with saddam not in it.

Really? You think it was worth the price? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree completely. And if you recall, we installed Hussein in the first place to keep an eye on the Iranians for us and we all know how that turned out. We made our bed sloppily and then patted ourselves on the back when we went for a roll in the sheets again years later. Good for us!

Oh, and who was head of the CIA then? That's right: Bush 41.

~BB~

[african1]

I discern that lisaparadise is not a native English speaker.

[african1]

Hence not Americans, hence the outrageous attitude towards racism.
In America you can't speak like that lady. I know you guys spew your hatred against foreigners in public arenas and football stadiums, but not here son.

[lisaparadise]

My people??? Im American born and RAISED! in Sunny MotherfuckingCalifornia!
My people are my friends who I see on a weekly basis....
Lisa I am extremely sorry for you that you see the world in this view Bigotry is a hell of a thing.
Hopefully you stop making yourself look like an ass and learn how to have a conversation "debate" civilized without the use of derogatory terms.:geek::yingyang:you choose whatever side you wish but dont tell me who the terrerist are because the rest of the world knows exactly who they are.im not a biggot nor a racist i am however a person who believes the only way to world peace is to send a nuke into the entire middle east and ge it over with.

[BellaBellucci]

you choose whatever side you wish but dont tell me who the terrerist are because the rest of the world knows exactly who they are.im not a biggot nor a racist i am however a person who believes the only way to world peace is to send a nuke into the entire middle east and ge it over with.

Whoa! Hold on there girl. Let me paraphrase: you want peace through nuclear destruction.

Maybe we should just send them some full body scanners instead. Let's see how their fragile attitude towards sex and 'morality' is challenged then! :lol:

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Hence not Americans, hence the outrageous attitude towards racism.
In America you can't speak like that lady. I know you guys spew your hatred against foreigners in public arenas and football stadiums, but not here son.your a nut dont you have to load a gun or something?

[BLKGSXR]

]im not your bro nigger so fuck off[/B] its not about black and white its about everyelse who isnt white that create this garbage latinos arabs in particular we dont give a rats ass about blacks being terrerist you guys are way too busy shooting each other on a daily basis and ya ll still got the nerve to call each other brothers how tragic.


fuck you you packi piece of shit


lol dude dont disrespect me and dont blame whites because you people breed lke wildfire not giving a shit that your kids will grow up with nothing.
how dare you say dont disrespect me when you Blatantly disrespect others in turn.

[lisaparadise]

Whoa! Hold on there girl. Maybe we should just send them some full body scanners instead. Let's see how their fragile attitude towards sex and 'morality' is challenged then! :lol:

~BB~nuke the fucks were in a war wheres thers no way out period

[lisaparadise]

how dare you say dont disrespect me when you Blatantly disrespect others in turn.read again asshole

[BLKGSXR]

you choose whatever side you wish but dont tell me who the terrerist are because the rest of the world knows exactly who they are.im not a biggot nor a racist i am however a person who believes the only way to world peace is to send a nuke into the entire middle east and ge it over with.what about North Korea-North vietnam yes we still dont have good relations with those 2 asian/pacific Island countries...should we bomb ASIA? should we just bomb the world and cause WW3? you are a bigot its a sad truth but the worst part of it all you are very uneducated.

[BellaBellucci]

nuke the fucks were in a war wheres thers no way out period

We're in a 'War on Drugs,' too. Do you advocate putting drug users to death? How do you figure that nuking civilians makes us any better than the terrorists? In my estimation, it's the exact same thing.

~BB~

[dgs925]

peacefull nation?are you that fucked?bann this cunt


im not your bro nigger so fuck off .....


fuck you you packi piece of shit


......you people breed lke wildfire not giving a shit that your kids will grow up with nothing.......


......im not a biggot nor a racist......


nuke the fucks were in a war wheres thers no way out period



WOW, that is pretty blatant right there. I don't even need to make a comment here, you've shown your true colors. (I threw in the last quote because it is such a failure of communication, wtf is she even saying there?)

[african1]

Get off the water Lisa:

[lisaparadise]

what about North Korea-North vietnam yes we still dont have good relations with those 2 asian/pacific Island countries...should we bomb ASIA? should we just bomb the world and cause WW3? you are a bigot its a sad truth but the worst part of it all you are very uneducated.last i check no asian country has made threats to america and canada comparing your homeland to theres is night and day

[african1]

your a nut dont you have to load a gun or something?

This is not even a below-average response. (ie DD IQ)
Come on you can do better Louisa.:geek:

[lisaparadise]

WOW, that is pretty blatant right there. I don't even need to make a comment here, you've shown your true colors. (I threw in the last quote because it is such a failure of communication, wtf is she even saying there?)i dont mask how i feel about terrerist just to be popular on a chat board slick i tell it as i see it period if ya dont like the truth dont read it.

[BellaBellucci]

last i check no asian country has made threats to america and canada comparing your homeland to theres is night and day

'America and Canada?' Notice how quickly you put your country in the same sentence with ours when it comes to foreign policy? I love you but you have to admit that your country has been sucking off of our teat for generations and your comment indicates that you even feel an entitlement to defense by the United States. I don't think that's right either.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

This is not even a below-average response. (ie DD IQ)
Come on you can do better Louisa.:geek:i could do better then that but im still tryin to find a resemblance from your pix lol

[african1]

last i check no asian country has made threats to america and canada comparing your homeland to theres is night and day

I don't know if you are a lady, but if you are, I would seduce you and fuck the shit out of you. Once you get some good pounding, the tension will be released, your stress relieved and you will be the sweet white girl you truly are.

[african1]

WOW, that is pretty blatant right there. I don't even need to make a comment here, you've shown your true colors. (I threw in the last quote because it is such a failure of communication, wtf is she even saying there?)

You're right bro. didn't even notice that...HAHAHA

[BLKGSXR]

Lisa you dont remember this... YouTube - North Korea Threatens to Wipe the U.S off the face of the earth - U.S Response 2009 July - Mrxb0x (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ASdsBLm3E)

[lisaparadise]

'America and Canada?' Notice how quickly you put your country in the same sentence with ours when it comes to foreign policy? I love you but you have to admit that your country has been sucking off of our teat for generations and your comment indicates that you even feel an entitlement to defense by the United States. I don't think that's right either.

~BB~canada is way more advanced then the usa period remeber you fucks tried to take us over once and we kicked your asses back home when laura secord got wind of it our soldiers stopped you and we listen to american propaganda daily and we sit back and laugh our asses off at how truly stupid americans are.

[BellaBellucci]

Look, maybe it's time to get this thread back on topic, huh?

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tsa-cavity-search-poster.jpg

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

canada is way more advanced then the usa period remeber you fucks tried to take us over once and we kicked your asses back home when laura secord got wind of it our soldiers stopped you and we listen to american propaganda daily and we sit back and laugh our asses off at how truly stupid americans are.

YouTube - South Park The Movie - Blame Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAYMJnO9LBQ)

Kidding! :lol:

~BB~

[african1]

canada is way more advanced then the usa period remeber you fucks tried to take us over once and we kicked your asses back home when laura secord got wind of it our soldiers stopped you and we listen to american propaganda daily and we sit back and laugh our asses off at how truly stupid americans are.

vaux mieux parler en Francais, car ton anglais, et bien, c'est nul...voila cherie.

[dgs925]

Look, maybe it's time to get this thread back on topic, huh?

~BB~


Sorry, bella, but the topic of this thread has changed to "LisaParadise is an ignorant racist bitch!"

[lisaparadise]

Lisa you dont remember this... YouTube - North Korea Threatens to Wipe the U.S off the face of the earth - U.S Response 2009 July - Mrxb0x (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ASdsBLm3E)yes i watched that actually and in no way do i think north korea is a threat to the western world hes pissed because the states wanna control his country and hes saying fuck you we will do what we want

[Caff_Racer]

Now I know why I like travelling on my motorbike: so that I can break all the speed limits and traffic laws in Europe and make insulting gestures and death threats to traffic police officers! YEEEAHHHH!!!! :rock2:rock2:rock2 FUCK THE POLICE!!!! :fu::fu::fu:

[african1]

BLAME CANADA...BLAME CANADA...LOL
They're not even a real country anyway...hahaha...just kidding

[BellaBellucci]

Sorry, bella, but the topic of this thread has changed to "LisaParadise is an ignorant racist bitch!"

I hate finding out ugly things about otherwise beautiful people. :(

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Sorry, bella, but the topic of this thread has changed to "LisaParadise is an ignorant racist bitch!"you know what they say opinions are like assholes and in your case a big fucking asshole

[BellaBellucci]

yes i watched that actually and in no way do i think north korea is a threat to the western world hes pissed because the states wanna control his country and hes saying fuck you we will do what we want

I honestly wonder if EVERYTHING can't be explained by South Park.

YouTube - Cartman On Maury (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLVi4v7lSM)

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

I hate finding out ugly things about otherwise beautiful people. :(

~BB~if you think im ugly because my country is at war with a 3rd world country then your pretty fucking shallow period my canadians are dying left right and centre in a war that your country started and we chose sides either bring my men home or nuke the cunts

[BellaBellucci]

if you think im ugly because my country is at war with a 3rd world country then your pretty fucking shallow period my canadians are dying left right and centre in a war that your country started and we chose sides either bring my men home or nuke the cunts

OK, I didn't call you ugly, so now I have no choice but to not to talk to you until you calm down. PLEASE calm down. You're just going to fuck it up for yourself and I really don't want to see that happen.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

What a filthy mouth...I won't even stick my little toe in it, let alone my dick.listen buudy you wouldnt get near me

[african1]

Lisa, I didn't even know that you were a real TS. I apologize. I just checked your website.
I think I put you over the edge by calling you Bro. I really thought you were one of those guys that just use avatars and names of known ladies.
Sorry about this misunderstanding...truly...
So please calm down. I know you didn't mean what you said.

[lisaparadise]

OK, I didn't call you ugly, so now I have no choice but to not to talk to you until you calm down. PLEASE calm down. You're just going to fuck it up for yourself and I really don't want to see that happen.

~BB~i am calm when assholes call me names i snap back thats how i roll you guys wanna piss me off then deal with the fall out i have way too much pride to put up with any bullshit from losers who hide behind there ip addy/

[lisaparadise]

Lisa, I didn't even know that you were a real TS. I apologize. I just checked your website.
I think I put you over the edge by calling you Bro. I really thought you were one of those guys that just use avatars and names of known ladies.
Sorry about this misunderstanding...truly...
So please calm down. I know you didn't mean what you said.thanks i quess ya know now im alittle sensative lol ill try and be nice k

[BellaBellucci]

YouTube - South Park Credits Music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr8K9lUeMOA&feature=related)

~BB~

[scubaman]

Full Body Scanners (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/365686/november-15-2010/tsa-full-body-scanners---jeffrey-goldberg)

[BellaBellucci]

Full Body Scanners (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/365686/november-15-2010/tsa-full-body-scanners---jeffrey-goldberg)

Truth. :Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

~BB~

[rockabilly]

"Don't touch my junk."

[lisaparadise]

"don't touch my junk."nooooooooooooo its please touch my junk lol i just hope i dont forget to not take a cialis before my flight to jamaica

[Johnny O]

I don't see what the big deal is, just go thru the scanner and get on da plane!:hide-1:

[DaveinBoston]

Ok... lets change the word 'privalege' to the phrase "convenience afforded to you".

You are guaranteed the right to unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment... but what is considered "unreasonable" 10 years ago is far from unreasonable today.

Would you have thought a small box cutter on a plane would have been such a life-altering device 10 years ago? I can list 3000+ people who wish the airlines did.

10 years ago, no one would have dreamed that someone would pack their shoe or underwear with explosives with the intent on blowing themselves and the plane full of passenger to "Allah".

If mandatory cavity searches were the only way to guarantee my flight was safe... show me where to stand to drop my pants.

Where do you draw the line to guarantee I'm safe?

Why should I have to worry that Ahknahd Towel-head in the seat next to me with fantasies of 72 virgins waiting for him, might be wearing C-4 Fruit of the Looms... because your sensitive about a TSA working who looks at thousands of images a day is looking at your an alien-like image on a body scan machine.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HBMBWUZ920E/TN4Tk426RCI/AAAAAAAAAkA/hgwysp_fsIA/s400/airport_xray_scanner%255B1%255D.jpg

Like I said... you dont have to take a plane... and you dont have to every worry about the body scan or someone touching you during a pat down.

Pretty plain and simple logic


Yea, I've heard that argument before. Driving a vehicle isn't a right either under the law, it's a privilege that the government is free to remove from you for any number of reasons. To be quite honest, that argument gets old after a while. If walking to where ever you want to go is the only "right" you have then you're pretty much left to the whims of bureaucrats.

If something is only a privilege then is there a line that you would draw over what the government could demand of you in order to exercise that privilege? Would mandatory cavity searches be OK? Having your biometrics cataloged? DNA samples before being allowed to board? RFID chips being installed in your ID or even in your body?

[BellaBellucci]

Pretty plain and simple logic

From Reason Magazine (http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized):


Yesterday, British authorities broke up an alleged terror plot to blow up as many as ten commercial airliners as they flew to the United States. In response, the Department of Homeland Security upped the alert level on commercial flights from Britain to "red" and boosted the alert to "orange" for all other flights. In a completely unscientific poll, AOL asked subscribers: "Are you changing your travel plans because of the raised threat level?" At mid-afternoon about a quarter of the respondents had said yes. Such polls do reflect the kinds of anxieties terrorist attacks, even those that have been stymied, provoke in the public.

But how afraid should Americans be of terrorist attacks? Not very, as some quick comparisons with other risks that we regularly run in our daily lives indicate. Your odds of dying of a specific cause in any year are calculated by dividing that year's population by the number of deaths by that cause in that year. Your lifetime odds of dying of a particular cause are calculated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in that year. For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.

So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

So do these numbers comfort you? If not, that's a problem. Already, security measures—pervasive ID checkpoints, metal detectors, and phalanxes of security guards—increasingly clot the pathways of our public lives. It's easy to overreact when an atrocity takes place—to heed those who promise safety if only we will give the authorities the "tools" they want by surrendering to them some of our liberty. As President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural speech said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter—because it doesn't really matter. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

There's some logic. The fact is, you're basing your opinion on pure, unadulterated emotion, not logic. It's really just that 'plain and simple.' The real cause of passenger inconvenience is fear, not terrorism. Like I said, the terrorists have won.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Oh, and another thing: this is coming from someone who was two degrees of separation from the 9/11 hijackers. I won't go into specifics, but suffice it to say, I would, to this day, feel safe flying with the level of airport security that existed before 9/11.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

i don't see what the big deal is, just go thru the scanner and get on da plane!:hide-1:exactly if ya dont like it take the freakin bus

[BellaBellucci]

exactly if ya dont like it take the freakin bus

Then what's your take on why they go to such lengths to intimidate people into using the scanner? Or why they force them into a pat-down situation even if the decline to get on the plane? How do you account for those policies and the unacceptable behavior of TSA agents towards American citizens?

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Then what's your take on why they go to such lengths to intimidate people into using the scanner? Or why they force them into a pat-down situation even if the decline to get on the plane? How do you account for those policies and the unacceptable behavior of TSA agents towards American citizens?

~BB~nuke em all i say lol who cares id rather be safe i dont care about a scanner im glad its there,america has far too much to say about there rights its almost laughable you people bitch about everything its crazy be more like canadians we take it up the ass all the time and just say thank you

[BellaBellucci]

nuke em all i say lol who cares id rather be safe i dont care about a scanner im glad its there,america has far too much to say about there rights its almost laughable you people bitch about everything its crazy be more like canadians we take it up the ass all the time and just say thank you

Nukes? Oh, here we go again!

And just because you 'take it up the ass,' that necessitates others having to suffer the same indignities? Misery loves company? Come on babes. You know better. :lol:

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Here we go again! :lol:

~BB~im just messin withh ya beautifull now get on cam so i can play with myself

[BellaBellucci]

im just messin withh ya beautifull now get on cam so i can play with myself

I'm jumping in the shower now... I think. I tend to procrastinate. I'll be in the chat a bit later for a while before I go out.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

I'm jumping in the shower now... I think. I tend to procrastinate. I'll be in the chat a bit later for a while before I go out.

~BB~get the fuck in the shower its already past my bedtime woman

[DaveinBoston]

Define irony:

When a pornstar/adult entertainer, who makes money being nude et al... complains and argues that a body scanner that shows a blurry alien like image is invading her rights.

lol

[scubaman]

Define irony:

When a pornstar/adult entertainer, who makes money being nude et al... complains and argues that a body scanner that shows a blurry alien like image is invading her rights.

lol

They get paid to show their bodies.

[NYBURBS]

Ok... lets change the word 'privalege' to the phrase "convenience afforded to you".

You are guaranteed the right to unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment... but what is considered "unreasonable" 10 years ago is far from unreasonable today.

Would you have thought a small box cutter on a plane would have been such a life-altering device 10 years ago? I can list 3000+ people who wish the airlines did.

10 years ago, no one would have dreamed that someone would pack their shoe or underwear with explosives with the intent on blowing themselves and the plane full of passenger to "Allah".

If mandatory cavity searches were the only way to guarantee my flight was safe... show me where to stand to drop my pants.

Where do you draw the line to guarantee I'm safe?

Why should I have to worry that Ahknahd Towel-head in the seat next to me with fantasies of 72 virgins waiting for him, might be wearing C-4 Fruit of the Looms... because your sensitive about a TSA working who looks at thousands of images a day is looking at your an alien-like image on a body scan machine.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HBMBWUZ920E/TN4Tk426RCI/AAAAAAAAAkA/hgwysp_fsIA/s400/airport_xray_scanner%255B1%255D.jpg

Like I said... you dont have to take a plane... and you dont have to every worry about the body scan or someone touching you during a pat down.

Pretty plain and simple logic

Bro, I was on a plane on 9/11 and flew over NYC about 30 min before it was hit, but I still don't agree with the solutions being proposed. You're correct that there is a reasonableness standard with the 4th Amendment, but how one interprets that can lead to endless definitions. There is also a warrant requirement that literally does not have an exception built into it, but the courts have interpreted otherwise. At the end of the day though, to continue down this path is to ensure that we give up all of our privacy for a false sense of security. I could give a fuck less that someone sees my dong on a scanner image, but I'm worried that to keep pushing back the line of acceptability will be to allow the government too much of a free hand.

[DaveinBoston]

semantics... she's crying about rights being violate...

[DaveinBoston]

I dont think that it matters that you were on a plane 30 mins earlier over NYC. Does that mean your opinions carry more weight than me because I was just getting home from work when the planes hit?

I have plenty of 6 degrees of seperation alot closer than that! My Dad was on a DC flight early too...my buddy was scheduled for a meeting 9-12 on the top floors of the towers... if the terrorists waited 24 hours, my buddy would be dead... the wife of a guy that I use to work with was a member of the flight crew of Flight 11. She did a swap because her son decided to stay visiting in town a few days longer... otherwise she would be dead.

We arent pushing back the line of accountability.. safety dictates it. 10 years ago, I could bring 4.5 ounces of shampoo in my carry on. Now I can't. OMG... such a inconvenice to buy those little bottles.. and keep them all in a bag so I can take them out and show the TSA. Last trip back from FL, I forgot I had a bottle of sunblock in my carry on... guess where it ended up.. in the trash courtesy of Orlando TSA. No biggy... my bad.

I have a good friend who is a customs agent in Boston. They get hundreds of credible threats weekly that the general public have no idea about. He's always telling me about "Mr-Terrorist-watch-list-guy" who they had to deport and it happens ALL THE TIME. Not once every 6 months.... ALL THE TIME.

The general public would shit themselves if they knew the stuff that gets diverted daily that never gets reported!

And you get people that piss and moan about walking though a scanner.

I go back to.. take a bus, train, boat or car... problem solved. Why should anyones "convenience" take presidence over my safety?



Bro, I was on a plane on 9/11 and flew over NYC about 30 min before it was hit, but I still don't agree with the solutions being proposed. You're correct that there is a reasonableness standard with the 4th Amendment, but how one interprets that can lead to endless definitions. There is also a warrant requirement that literally does not have an exception built into it, but the courts have interpreted otherwise. At the end of the day though, to continue down this path is to ensure that we give up all of our privacy for a false sense of security. I could give a fuck less that someone sees my dong on a scanner image, but I'm worried that to keep pushing back the line of acceptability will be to allow the government too much of a free hand.

[african1]

I am No conspiracy Theorist but these facts are just weird.

YouTube - Anwar Al Awlaki Terrorist? Or Pentagon / CIA Asset? YOU MAKE THE CALL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm5jd-PafcA)

YouTube - Christmas bomber was my student: radical Yemen cleric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FBCHKu2KU)

YouTube - Christmas bomber was my student: radical Yemen cleric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WIqkiC5Q2s)

[DaveinBoston]

Hey Einstein,

Did you even watch all these videos before you posted them?

For starters, #3 doesnt even work... its been blocked.

Regarding #2, Argenbright was the security company that the terrorists mainly went through...getting on their flights... not Huntleigh USA like the video states. Huntleigh was only doing security for UA flight 175.

Also.. try looking up the stock for ICXT... which is supposedly a company selling scanners.. the company exists.. but no stock symbol.

And your gonna believe that the 'middle eastern man" that the people interviewed saw the head of OSI....HAHAHAHAHAHA....

Bizarre...


I am No conspiracy Theorist but these facts are just weird.

YouTube - Anwar Al Awlaki Terrorist? Or Pentagon / CIA Asset? YOU MAKE THE CALL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm5jd-PafcA)

YouTube - Christmas bomber was my student: radical Yemen cleric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FBCHKu2KU)

YouTube - Christmas bomber was my student: radical Yemen cleric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WIqkiC5Q2s)

[NYBURBS]

I dont think that it matters that you were on a plane 30 mins earlier over NYC. Does that mean your opinions carry more weight than me because I was just getting home from work when the planes hit?


It's not about adding or detracting weight from your opinion. It's simply pointing out that I've been up close and personal with the "oh shit that could have easily been me" scenario. Yet, I still don't want draconian security policies implemented in response to what happened.

[african1]

Hey Einstein,

Did you even watch all these videos before you posted them?

For starters, #3 doesnt even work... its been blocked.

Regarding #2, Argenbright was the security company that the terrorists mainly went through...getting on their flights... not Huntleigh USA like the video states. Huntleigh was only doing security for UA flight 175.

Also.. try looking up the stock for ICXT... which is supposedly a company selling scanners.. the company exists.. but no stock symbol.

And your gonna believe that the 'middle eastern man" that the people interviewed saw the head of OSI....HAHAHAHAHAHA....

Bizarre...

Since your layoff in 2008, you're the one with enough time to research all these facts.
Nevertheless, you seem to focus on just a small fact in the video and ignore the main one: how come in an after-9/11 environment, they just allow a Nigerian guy (on the terrorist watchlist) to board an International Flight with NO Passport.
Fact 2, don't ignore Chertoff's big gamble (or win) in this venture. Have you seen how he's pushing for its mainstream usage in all aspects of life!!!

The video is not supposed to be a fait accompli, rather I was more interested in the rare news broadcasts accompanying it.

[african1]

Also if the video is not working, maybe it's time to get rid of IE 5. (and 98 SE)

[scroller]

And you get people that piss and moan about walking though a scanner.

I go back to.. take a bus, train, boat or car... problem solved. Why should anyones "convenience" take presidence over my safety?

Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

[BellaBellucci]

It's not about adding or detracting weight from your opinion. It's simply pointing out that I've been up close and personal with the "oh shit that could have easily been me" scenario. Yet, I still don't want draconian security policies implemented in response to what happened.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, but yet I see DaveInBoston has completely missed the point. Hopefully you've articulated it for him better than I did.


Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

Fucking awesome! :Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

~BB~

PS: Not only do I get paid to do porn as opposed to paying someone else for the privilege, it's really not my issue here. My issue is that our rights are being constantly eroded in the name of anti-terror while the best anti-terror protection we have does not, I repeat, NOT come from the TSA, but the FBI, CIA, NSA (against which I have a similar set of issues), etc.

[joeym75ld]

Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

Where the hell did you learn about the Constitution? Show me where in the Constitution that is says you have the "right to privacy" pertaining to travel provided by a private institution. Everyone considers themselves Constitutional experts, but have likely never even read the document (probably too busy playing with your Barbies and trying on mommy's panties instead of doing your homework).

What a self-entitled, selfish, little prick you are.

Grow up, and learn that everything is not all about you and your instant gratification.

[joeym75ld]

Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

FYI, here is what the "whole point of the USA" was, according to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Essentially, the Constitution was primarily about taxation without representation. There are exactly zero refererences to a right to privacy in the original Constitution.

[lisaparadise]

FYI, here is what the "whole point of the USA" was, according to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Essentially, the Constitution was primarily about taxation without representation. There are exactly zero refererences to a right to privacy in the original Constitution.theres more nutjobs in the states then anywhere in the world period how the hell can you people think its an invasion of your civil rights knowing full well there are terrerist out there who have zero respect for human life and would like nothin more to see you all dead.so freakin what if you have to go through a body scanner it sure as hell beats blowing up in an airplane doesnt it?ask yourselfs this question whats worse you blwing up in a plane or 10 mins going through a scanner because thats what its come down to where are your civil rights then?when your remains are scatters for 100 miles over the oceon.

[joeym75ld]

Here is the 4th Amendment, which FYI, is part of the Bill of Rights. The "right to privacy" refers to illegal searches and seizures of citizens by the government.

Why, exactly, would a full body scan constitute an illegal search or seizure?
Particularly since the scan is being performed by a private institution to prevent dangerous materials from being smuggled onto their airplanes?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[joeym75ld]

theres more nutjobs in the states then anywhere in the world period how the hell can you people think its an invasion of your civil rights knowing full well there are terrerist out there who have zero respect for human life and would like nothin more to see you all dead.so freakin what if you have to go through a body scanner it sure as hell beats blowing up in an airplane doesnt it?ask yourselfs this question whats worse you blwing up in a plane or 10 mins going through a scanner because thats what its come down to where are your civil rights then?when your remains are scatters for 100 miles over the oceon.
Lisa -I'll disagree with you here: "theres more nutjobs in the states then anywhere in the world period"

I would say there are more nutjobs in Saudi Arabia alone than the entire world. Ditto for Iraq, Iran, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, etc. etc. etc. (just fill in any Muslim country). The problem is the leaders of the Muslim religion, and the way they choose to teach it.

[lisaparadise]

Lisa -I'll disagree with you here: "theres more nutjobs in the states then anywhere in the world period"

I would say there are more nutjobs in Saudi Arabia alone than the entire world. Ditto for Iraq, Iran, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, etc. etc. etc. (just fill in any Muslim country). The problem is the leaders of the Muslim religion, and the way they choose to teach it.ya i know i was reaching lol i agree with you no worries kiddo

[scroller]

Show me where in the Constitution that is says you have the "right to privacy" pertaining to travel provided by a private institution. Everyone considers themselves Constitutional experts, but have likely never even read the document (probably too busy playing with your Barbies and trying on mommy's panties instead of doing your homework).

The following are Supreme Court recognized protections, applicable generally in all circumstances (including during travel):


These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.

Privacy laws of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Scale_of_justice_2.svg" class="image" title="Scales of justice"><img alt="Scales of justice" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States)


Here is the 4th Amendment, which FYI, is part of the Bill of Rights. The "right to privacy" refers to illegal searches and seizures of citizens by the government.

Why, exactly, would a full body scan constitute an illegal search or seizure?
Particularly since the scan is being performed by a private institution to prevent dangerous materials from being smuggled onto their airplanes?

The scans are not done by a private institution. The TSA is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government.


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA was originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation but was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003. The agency is responsible for security in all modes of transportation.

Transportation Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Transportation_Security_Administration_Logo.p ng" class="image"><img alt="Transportation Security Administration Logo.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Transportation_Security_Administration_Logo.png/240px-Transportation_Security_Administration_Logo.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e6/Transportation_Security_Administration_Logo.png/240px-Transportation_Security_Administration_Logo.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration)

[joeym75ld]

The following are Supreme Court recognized protections, applicable generally in all circumstances (including during travel):



Privacy laws of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States)



The scans are not done by a private institution. The TSA is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government.



Transportation Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration)
Your reading comprehension sucks as much as your understanding of the Constitution. You said:

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

"Right to privacy" is not "Constitutionally protected", period. Read the link you provided and figure it out yourself.

The only thing this would come close to violating is the 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. As you rightly corrected me, the government is performing the scans - but in what context is it illegal to require these scans before boarding an airplane? (Certainly not under any of the privacy laws you referenced).

If an individual does not comply with the scan they would then be frisked - which is obviously more invasive of person space (what you are confusing with "a right to privacy") - but that is their choice. As is their choice to fly or to rather use other means of transportation.

Your correction that the searches are performed by the TSA, which is a governmental agency is interesting. Are all airport screeners now TSA employees? If so, do the airlines reimburse the government for the service? If not they should. Personally, I don't feel my tax dollars should be spent on airline screening - the airlines should foot that bill, even if it makes air travel extremely expensive for the traveller. It is not fair that some corporate prick that flies all over the place, then takes his family on 4 expensive vacations a year gets these services for free, while those who opt not to fly have to subsidize him.

[bte]

If you don't like pat downs or scans then take the Greyhound Bus. I took the bus once some years ago from VA to TX and it was horrible. Sitting next to someone with the BO that could revert an adult back into a fetus.

[LAGent4ts]

SUBJECT: ISRAELI AIRPORT SECURITY
The Israelis have developed and are putting the finishing touches on an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It's an armored booth you step into with your baggage that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device, including chemicals or powders that might be used in combination to create an explosive device, it detects on your person or in your bags.
After detonation, all residue and debris is sucked into a specially designed Hazmat bag and the chamber is sanitized. The entire process takes 30 seconds if no detonation occurs and just over a minute if a detonation takes place.
Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial.
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: "Attention standby passengers - we now have a seat available on flight 6709. Shalom!"

[Caff_Racer]

Just a thought here... Shouldn't this thread really be in the "Politics & Religion" section? :whistle:

Right that's all, as you were!

[joeym75ld]

SUBJECT: ISRAELI AIRPORT SECURITY
The Israelis have developed and are putting the finishing touches on an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It's an armored booth you step into with your baggage that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device, including chemicals or powders that might be used in combination to create an explosive device, it detects on your person or in your bags.
After detonation, all residue and debris is sucked into a specially designed Hazmat bag and the chamber is sanitized. The entire process takes 30 seconds if no detonation occurs and just over a minute if a detonation takes place.
Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial.
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: "Attention standby passengers - we now have a seat available on flight 6709. Shalom!"
That's awesome!

[joeym75ld]

If you don't like pat downs or scans then take the Greyhound Bus. I took the bus once some years ago from VA to TX and it was horrible. Sitting next to someone with the BO that could revert an adult back into a fetus.

Plus, maybe you'll come up with an all time great hit like "New York State of Mind" while on the bus!!!

[DaveinBoston]

All the time to research? All I did was watch your stupid video!

And since my layoff in 2008?

Who do you think you are talking to? I've never been layed off. What are you smoking?

I have no idea the circumstances involving that guy getting on the plane. Hundreds of thousands of people board planes every day. I am sure that there are mistakes made all the time and they ARENT ALL TIED to a conspiracy plot.

Chertoff ties have been exposed and its not the first time that a government official has used his/her position to make money and it wont be the last. You probably believe the the World Trade Centers were blown up with the soul purpose or attacking Iraq.

Did you even watch your videos? Why would you post a video that doesnt work? Let's not forget the video outtakes played at the beginning that are all exerpts from god knows where and you have no idea what the question was... but they try to paint a conspiracy picture.

Why would you post a video claiming all the plane involved in 9-11 fell under a Israeli owned security company when that couldnt be further from the truth?

You should research claims that you make before you make them...

and saying "Im not a conspiracy theorist" before posting dribble like you did is like saying "I'm not a racist. I just go to the KKK meetings because they have good hors d'ouvres".


Since your layoff in 2008, you're the one with enough time to research all these facts.
Nevertheless, you seem to focus on just a small fact in the video and ignore the main one: how come in an after-9/11 environment, they just allow a Nigerian guy (on the terrorist watchlist) to board an International Flight with NO Passport.
Fact 2, don't ignore Chertoff's big gamble (or win) in this venture. Have you seen how he's pushing for its mainstream usage in all aspects of life!!!

The video is not supposed to be a fait accompli, rather I was more interested in the rare news broadcasts accompanying it.

[DaveinBoston]

Im a pussy and you're complaing about walking though a scanner? Google scanner images and you can see how little detail there is... your the f-ing pussy!!!!!

Literally jamming a finger up your ass? It's not a cavity search you dickhead.

Standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years? Really? The first commericial airline flight was in 1914 and mainly consisted of mail and package flights. Passenger flights werent frequent until the 1920's. It's 2010. For starters...What's 2010-1914? Not 100 years yet is it?

But besides that... were they using standards that were even remotely similar to what was being used last year? 10 years ago? How about 30 or 40 years ago?

I dont think so...

You could smoke on an airplane 10 years ago too... how come not now? It's been a standard for 100 years right?

You get patted down walking into a rock concert and sporting event... do you cry about that and claim you're rights are being violated?

The Constitution... if you are refering to the 4th Amendmant refers to unreasonable search and seizure. If peop;e are making C-4 Fruit of the Looms... then a body scanner IS REASONABLE



Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

[DaveinBoston]

Bella, have you seen the images the scanner puts out? If you put out those quality images here or on your website, you'd be out of business. People look like aliens.

I'd love to know what YOUR SOLUTION is to enable us to have safe(r) air travel?

You and the others have failed to explain WHY you feel you should be able to just board the plane fancy free.

Years ago, they didnt even scan bags...do you think people thought scanning bags was an invasion of privacy when they started doing that?

You dont have to worry about anyone violating your right to privacy on a train, boat or car.

What do you do when you go to a concert or sporting event? Do you piss and moan about your right being violated when they pat you down?

You're the type of person who loves the freedom to complain about things but loves to complain about how that freedom is provided to you.


Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, but yet I see DaveInBoston has completely missed the point. Hopefully you've articulated it for him better than I did.



Fucking awesome! :Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

~BB~

PS: Not only do I get paid to do porn as opposed to paying someone else for the privilege, it's really not my issue here. My issue is that our rights are being constantly eroded in the name of anti-terror while the best anti-terror protection we have does not, I repeat, NOT come from the TSA, but the FBI, CIA, NSA (against which I have a similar set of issues), etc.

[DaveinBoston]

......if only!


SUBJECT: ISRAELI AIRPORT SECURITY
The Israelis have developed and are putting the finishing touches on an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It's an armored booth you step into with your baggage that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device, including chemicals or powders that might be used in combination to create an explosive device, it detects on your person or in your bags.
After detonation, all residue and debris is sucked into a specially designed Hazmat bag and the chamber is sanitized. The entire process takes 30 seconds if no detonation occurs and just over a minute if a detonation takes place.
Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial.
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: "Attention standby passengers - we now have a seat available on flight 6709. Shalom!"

[NYBURBS]

Where the hell did you learn about the Constitution? Show me where in the Constitution that is says you have the "right to privacy" pertaining to travel provided by a private institution. Everyone considers themselves Constitutional experts, but have likely never even read the document (probably too busy playing with your Barbies and trying on mommy's panties instead of doing your homework).

What a self-entitled, selfish, little prick you are.

Grow up, and learn that everything is not all about you and your instant gratification.

The word privacy is not there, it's only been interpreted as being inferred, and applied via the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. I'd say it's a fairly reasonable interpretation considering the whole "right... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sounds an awful lot like privacy. I've read the document and I've studied the case law. So unless you're running around with a Phd on the subject don't come acting like some expert either.

PS- The airline is private, but the security policy is forced on you by the government, not the airline. So try again superstar.

[DaveinBoston]

I had to look up the 9th Amendmant. I hated Constitutional Law. Oddly enough, I can see how you are trying to apply it but I dont agree.

Prior to 9-11, airlines employed private agencies for security purposes.
I worked for Argenbright prior to 9-11... doing plain clothes store security. The uniformed people they sent out to stand at the doors were terrible. It was like babysitting an 8 year old. Many weren't fluent in English and constantly walked away from their post. Personally I wouldnt have hired them to work as movie theater ushers. I can see how the 9-11 terrorists didnt have any problems boarding!

The airline is private and security is run by a government agency with the intent on stardards that can applied throughout the United States.
Do you know one private security agency that would be able to staff every airport in the country or even have an infrastucture to do so?????

You want to see lobbyists come out of the woodwork looking for that bid?And then every 5 years or so when the contract runs out and they get outbid... another security agency comes in and tries to assimilate or make new guidelines?

Wow! Can you see the nightmare with that one building????????????





The word privacy is not there, it's only been interpreted as being inferred, and applied via the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. I'd say it's a fairly reasonable interpretation considering the whole "right... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sounds an awful lot like privacy. I've read the document and I've studied the case law. So unless you're running around with a Phd on the subject don't come acting like some expert either.

PS- The airline is private, but the security policy is forced on you by the government, not the airline. So try again superstar.

[SunshyneMonroe]

this is why i want a kitty kat :)

[BellaBellucci]

You and the others have failed to explain WHY you feel you should be able to just board the plane fancy free.

I touched on this in a previous post - it's the anti-terror operations that occur before ANYONE arrives at the airport that protect us, certainly not the peons of the TSA.


What do you do when you go to a concert or sporting event? Do you piss and moan about your right being violated when they pat you down?

Again, they don't force me into a machine the irradiates my body for the sake of a virtual strip search, force me to submit to a pat-down that is even more *ahem* personal and public which is simply rationalized against the similar abilities of a machine, and/or threaten me with a $10,000 civil lawsuit if I refuse to comply, even if I leave. Again, it's not only about the scanners, but about the lengths to which they go to force people to use them. That level of intimidation and abuse of authority will always indicate that there is something wrong with the 'requests' that are being made. It just makes them all look guilty.

The same goes for the rabid defense some people here seem to have of the policy. It's one thing to say you don't mind, but quite another to think you can bully the rest of us into your paranoia under the guise of safety. It does seem to sound a lot like 'you're either with us or the terrorists,' doesn't it? I think most people these days know that the issue is much more nuanced than Bush 43 would have us believe.


You're the type of person who loves the freedom to complain about things but loves to complain about how that freedom is provided to you.

You mean how people think it's provided. I have a problem with rationalizing the formerly unthinkable destruction of our individual liberties by exploiting <insert threat of the day here> when, AGAIN, you are 25 times more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of a terror attack. Did you even watch the Colbert video?

And the 4th Amendment does in fact guarantee our right against unreasonable search and seizure. Let's not even go into the case law. Trust me, if Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines, alien outlines or not, they would have prohibited them specifically and dismissed them as demonic tools of the scared and paranoid... which they are. I mean, GODS, even the pilots union is against them and they're the most vulnerable of all of us! That's GOT to tell you something.

People blow themselves up cooking meth all the time for instance, and probably more often than they die in terror attacks (although I'd have to look that up). It's already illegal, but people do it. So do we outlaw fire now? They die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars? They die from smoking cigarettes. Do we... oh, right. I for one reject the 'need' for a nanny state to 'protect me' from myself or a few hundred guys in Afghanistan, among 6.5 billion people on the planet, who have explosive devices that a lot of times don't even work.

http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sheeple.gif?w=500

... because the government, much like your parents (when you were 5), can do no wrong.

~BB~

[NYBURBS]

The airline is private and security is run by a government agency with the intent on stardards that can applied throughout the United States.
Do you know one private security agency that would be able to staff every airport in the country or even have an infrastucture to do so?????


It's about government policy, so even if the security were private there would still be an issue about the government mandating these procedures. It doesn't really matter to me who actually employs the agents, it's the laws and policies that matter.

[bte]

Don't know if anyone posted a picture of it or not.

[bte]

Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.

[BellaBellucci]

Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.

Yay for Pr0n!!!

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

i dont get it 50 pages of stupiditty all because our governments want to keep us safe you crazzzzzy fuckers

[bte]

i dont get it 50 pages of stupiditty all because our governments want to keep us safe you crazzzzzy fuckers

Not really stupid, valid points was raised on both sides of the argument. Although I don't mind the scans and pat-downs, anytime that will keep the plane from crashing into a building is fine with me.

[lisaparadise]

Not really stupid, valid points was raised on both sides of the argument. Although I don't mind the scans and pat-downs, anytime that will keep the plane from crashing into a building is fine with me.nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

[bte]

nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

Yeah I agree with you. I can see why people are up in arms about the photos, the original photos are not bad, but once you edit it to negative, then you can pretty much make out the woman's breasts although no vaggie is visible.

[BellaBellucci]

nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

Really now? That's how you roll? You can't even respect the opposition opinion? *sigh*

You don't have to like my opinion, but I'm going to tell you: I know I don't have to fly, but if I must I will make sure I waste as much TSA manpower as possible as a show of passive resistance. They're going to have to search me three times by the time I'm done fucking with them. And yes, I will continue to complain about the policy, because believe you me, if enough people do, the policy will change.

~BB~

[SarahG]

X-ray screening does nothing to protect against explosives being smuggled onto planes using either cargo or persons' bodies.

Petn, the explosive used by the recent cargo bomb plot, the underwear bomber, and IIRC even the shoe bomber does not... I repeat does not... show up on xray in any way.

If you want to screen for Petn you need to use chemical "sniffers." You have someone walk into a chamber, seal it off, puff them with air, and then see what chemicals are detectable in the chamber.

Detonating petn pretty much needs an electrical ignition system, but any such system would be detectable with a standard metal detector. That's one of the ways the cargo plot wasn't well thought out. They were able to find a way to hide the petn by putting it in place of the ink in computer printers, but they had no way to hide their ignition system (...which consisted of a cellphone and a bunch of obviously out of place wires connecting it to the explosives).

All compulsory xraying does is increase people's risk for cancer.

...and maybe making people get a false sense of security.

[trish]

The WhiteHouse 2010 budget request for Homeland Security was $43.6 billion. Talk about a successful mission. A handful of hijacked planes brings down the two tallest skyscrapers in the the U.S., involve us in two wars that have drained our budget for nearly a decade and prompted into existence a brand new money guzzling agency with the teutonic sounding name of Homeland Security. This one-time mission inflicted a giant gash in our economy through which, a decade later, we’re bleeding a green gusher of money. Not just that, but every traveler in the world is now asked to spend two to three extra-hours in the airport, and subject themselves to electromagnetic radiation, and the bored questioning of inspectors while your carry-on is conveyed unguarded to the end of the belt where a stranger mistakes for his own and walks off toward gates unknown. I haven’t even mentioned yet the lives that have been lost and the lives that have been changed forever by the 9/11 attack and the resulting wars. That’s one hell of a payoff for a few terrorist lives lost in a “noble” quest. I’d say the terrorists won that one hands down.

Do the benefits of Homeland Security outweigh the costs? In view of the damage one successful mission can cause, I reluctantly answer yes. Do the benefits of the new scanners outweigh the personal cost to our privacy? Again, given the damage one mission can cause, and given the minimal imposition on our privacy (an anonymous person gets to see an image of our body form and some X-ray images of our carryon luggage) I’d say yes again. The only real question in my mind is the heath issue of exposure to the scanning equipment. I don’t have any really reliable information on those heath risks, but whatever they are they need to be compared to and combined with the higher risk of radiation exposure that is associated with flying at high altitudes.

[dgs925]

valid points was raised on both sides of the argument


nope your wrong


That's Lisa, always giving a very nuanced and mature argument.

[lisaparadise]

That's Lisa, always giving a very nuanced and mature argument.oh ya get angry with me see if i care

[lisaparadise]

Really now? That's how you roll? You can't even respect the opposition opinion? *sigh*

You don't have to like my opinion, but I'm going to tell you: I know I don't have to fly, but if I must I will make sure I waste as much TSA manpower as possible as a show of passive resistance. They're going to have to search me three times by the time I'm done fucking with them. And yes, I will continue to complain about the policy, because believe you me, if enough people do, the policy will change.

~BB~just because we agree to disagree i still value your opinions as everyone elses and i love you to death id just rather be safe is all.

[BellaBellucci]

just because we agree to disagree i still value your opinions as everyone elses and i love you to death id just rather be safe is all.

I can live with that. But I WILL make those TSA agents work for their money. And I intend to put the footage on Xtube because I guarantee it'll be a HAWT fucking show! :dancing:

~BB~

[thombergeron]

Unfortunately, though, the security theater provided by the TSA does nothing to keep us safe. That's why it's so galling that, in order to fly, we must sacrifice our dignity and privacy. In exchange for that sacrifice, all we get is a mirage.

Oh, and it costs a ton of money, too. TSA's budget appropriation for 2010 is $7.8 billion. Over $3 billion of that are just for the checkpoints -- passenger and baggage screening -- and $219 million just for the backscatter machines.

With regard to privacy, there is at least one lawsuit pending against the TSA seeking to block deployment of the backscatter machines. Given that a number of commenters on this board appear unaware that the 4th and 9th amendments are, in fact, part of the Constitution, I'm going to go ahead and wait to see how this one plays out in the courts. Shocking to imagine that the federal government might implement a policy that later turned out to be unconstitutional, but certainly stranger things have happened.

But ultimately, the problem is that airport screening is a bad joke. It's stupid and pointless. Everybody already knows that the scanners can't see in body cavities, so bad guys can just put stuff in their mouths or their butts. And Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic made the chilling point that if somebody has a weapon in the security checkpoint line, it's already too late. Not too many other places you can find 300-400 people all packed into a nice, tight, coiled line.

And I guess the "if you don't like it, don't fly" argument is valid, as long as you don't care about having a U.S. airline industry anymore. Below, the blue plot is the monthly total of U.S. domestic air passengers 1996-2001. The red plot is 2002-2010.

[african1]

And since my layoff in 2008?

Who do you think you are talking to? I've never been layed off. What are you smoking?





I could swear I read you saying somewhere you were living off welfare checks or food stamps or something like this...Really it's nothing to be ashamed of. Don't be :hide-1:

Regarding le mot du jour: "Hors d'ouvre" , Can you correctly pronounce it? Please not in the twisted English accent.

[DaveinBoston]

Who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

OR.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that PRIVATELY OWNED PLANE???

I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... move over... Im in line first.

I love your rationalization:

You: People blow themselves up making meth.
Me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

You: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
Me: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, Age, drinking and driving ect.... is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?


You: even the pilots union is against them
Me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with Sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.


You: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
Me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. epecially knowing that they.... with the exception of John Adams all owned slaves... many of them... while they were President of the United States. 4 of the first 5 President... OWNED SLAVES.

But in your mind... they would have outlawed x-ray machines... but to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

How about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

I could keep going with your brilliant comments but I'll let it rest there...

[lisaparadise]

who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

Or.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that privately owned plane???

I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... Move over... Im in line first.

I love your rationalization:

you: People blow themselves up making meth.
me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

you: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
me: State and federal laws limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, age, drinking and driving ect.... Is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?


you: Even the pilots union is against them
me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.


you: Jefferson, franklin, adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. Epecially knowing that they.... With the exception of john adams all owned slaves... Many of them... While they were president of the united states. 4 of the first 5 president... Owned slaves.

but in your mind... They would have outlawed x-ray machines... But to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

how about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

i could keep going with your brilliant comments but i'll let it rest there...roflmfao,good post i love it

[Instrumental]

YouTube - Enough Is Enough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw)

[DaveinBoston]

I agree with some of what he says but disagree with more of it.

He said what made us safer was putting a gun in the cockpit....putting a gun in the cockpit only keeps the plane from being taken over. It doesnt keep Richard Reid from igniting his shoes and blowing up the plane.

It doesnt keep the Christmas Kid from blowing up his Fruit of the Looms.

Why mention how many soldiers have been killed or how many people have died on our highways?

If you want to bring that up... what are you going to help that?

All you are doing it limiting what the TSA can do... what's your big solution to make the planes safer Mr Paul?


YouTube - Enough Is Enough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw)

[scroller]

...The only real question in my mind is the heath issue of exposure to the scanning equipment. I don’t have any really reliable information on those heath risks, but whatever they are they need to be compared to and combined with the higher risk of radiation exposure that is associated with flying at high altitudes.

Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.

The following (pretty funny) cartoon includes the point that the risks are about the same, so scanning can't actually be of any safety benefit. Who actually benefits (following the money) are people like Michael Chertoff, Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, among whose clients now are Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners). So the people who think this increases security have, as usual, been duped.

YouTube - TSA Enhanced Screening Procedures Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04)

[DaveinBoston]

I've watched and read different scientists talk about the low level effects of the scanner. Not one said that they were "harmful". In fact, they said that you receive more of a dosage with your cell phone.

Also, actually taking a plane trip increases the level of radiation that you are subjected to and that is now coming out as far as never having an official study done on how it effects pilots.

So before you post "cartoons" and make arguements as a statistician, get facts...




Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.

The following (pretty funny) cartoon includes the point that the risks are about the same, so scanning can't actually be of any safety benefit. Who actually benefits (following the money) are people like Michael Chertoff, Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, among whose clients now are Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners). So the people who think this increases security have, as usual, been duped.

YouTube - TSA Enhanced Screening Procedures Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04)

[trish]

Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.Hi Scroller. I see your point, which the clip also makes very amusingly. From the point of view of a single individual you have a sound argument; i.e. If the increased probability of me getting cancer isn't balanced by a decrease in the probability of me dying from a terrorist attack, then there's no point in me taking the cancer risk.
On the other hand, the risk/benefit analysis for the nation needs to consider the probable rise of economic costs due to increased cases of cancer and ask if those are balanced by a decrease in the risk of catastrophic economic loss (of the sort I outlined in my last post) due to terrorist attacks. (Here I'm being the asshole TSA agent behind the counter repeating "9/11" :) )
I have to admit, my mind is really unsettled on this issue. My inclination is to side with those protesting that the scanning and "groping" is a violation of personal privacy which should be protected by the Constitution. But I also see that after a decade the 9/11 attacks are still exacting an exorbitant cost: lives lost in the attack and the wars that followed, trillions of dollars to fight those continued wars, political upheaval at home and the attention and money spent on homeland security.
I can't decide if the enormity of those costs weighted by their probability of re-occurrence has the same order of magnitude as violating the privacy of hundreds of thousands of air-travelers everyday weighted by the probability that the violation will be effective in evading a disaster.

[giovanni_hotel]

What bothers me most about the TSA scanners is the technology was innovated by outside contractors to develop a product to sell to the Federal government, and the issue of improving airline travel safety wasn't the first priority, over even the 2nd or 3rd.

Homeland security should initially define ON THEIR OWN what are the best methods to improve airline safety and prevent future terrorist attacks, then seek private contracts, if required, to execute that mission.

Security companies should not be 'selling' a product to the U.S. government; the Feds should always be the 'buyer' based upon explicitly stated requirements.

This is the game being played by former Fed employees like Chertoff who then leave to work for private contractors; devising plans on how to fleece the U.S. taxpayer to buy something they may or may not need.

Because the U.S. government was solicited by a 'seller' and was not the active 'buyer', I question the effectiveness of these scanners long term.

Basically, we should look and see what Israel is doing to secure their commercial air travel, and copy them.

The best way to really prevent a future attack is in the early planning stages, by breaking up cells and identifying operatives, not hoping to catch someone during the final deployment of suicide bombers or explosive packages.

BTW, all foreigners and resident aliens of Middle Eastern descent or from Islamic countries traveling to and from the U.S. should be subject to enhanced security profiling and screening.

Until the Muslim world finally puts an end to religious extremism and anti-Western hatred/propaganda, they should ALL be treated as 'suspicious', IMO.

EDIT: Why does the scanning image need to be this detailed?? Americans are prudes anyway, do we really need a scan that shows a woman's areola/nipples??

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=354230&stc=1&d=1290022460

[BellaBellucci]

Who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

OR.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that PRIVATELY OWNED PLANE???

You mean a privately owned plane in a quasi-public airport where the screening is conducted by officials who are not employees of that airline or the airport at a time when air travel is already on the decline. That means that despite the industry being in trouble, the government is making it harder to fly. And really? Must I be forced back into the stone age by taking a prohibitively less convenient mode of transportation as the only alternative to participating in an Orwellian experiment? Yet cargo (again) is our weakest link. They can X-ray inanimate objects all they like but they don't; instead they electronically strip search us. Come on with that. People depend on air travel and most dangerous things that get onto a plane are in luggage or cardboard boxes.

So question: if they had a way to require you to go through a bio-metric scan every time you got behind the wheel, would your argument be that people should walk? Really? So instead of taking that energy and fighting for our rights, you expect us to just give it away to the government instead just because you choose too? Sounds pretty selfish to me. Don't even get me started on the 5th Amendment implications possible if law enforcement ever points to airline security as a precedent to determine what is a reasonable search. Pretty soon they'll be able to strip search anyone they like.

Do you also like Obamacare? TARP? Do you drive a 'Government Motors' automobile?


I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... move over... Im in line first.

I'm sorry, this may come off as personal, but I find it disgusting that anybody would submit themselves to that level or scrutiny just to lower the odds of being injured when those odds are already at 1:500,000. You have a greater chance of having an autistic child (1:150), and really, how many of those do you know well?


I love your rationalization:

You: People blow themselves up making meth.
Me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

That's exactly my point! What do full body scans have to do with lowering the chances that someone will bring a non-metallic agent that can't fit into a body cavity onto a plane when, again, if it reaches the security line it's already too late? Makes no sense, does it?

So again I ask, because people are blowing themselves up making meth, should we ban cigarette lighters? Of course not. Your argument that my argument is ridiculous... is ridiculous.


You: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
Me: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, Age, drinking and driving ect.... is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?

Oh, you mean the arbitrary speed limits that dull our driving skills? There are no speed limits in most of Europe and far fewer highway fatalities. Do you know why? Because personal responsibility makes Europeans better drivers overall. And alcohol? OMG! The effects of alcohol vary by the person. I know plenty of people who could run a Gran Prix at .08 and plenty who couldn't ride a bike at .02. I mean you're talking to a girl who comes from the only state in the country that doesn't require auto insurance. I don't agree with it, but I took advantage on occasion when I was living there. Do you think that state's roads have descended into chaos? Of course not. Extra points if you can name the state.

Furthermore, how come people are not supposed to discriminate against other people based on their experiences, but the government can discriminate against every person based on nothing other than arguable statistics. I mean, hell, if you want to go there, what's Constitutional about our drug policy? Not a DAMN thing.


You: even the pilots union is against them
Me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with Sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.

That's irrelevant. They're against the scanners for everyone, not just pilots.


You: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
Me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. epecially knowing that they.... with the exception of John Adams all owned slaves... many of them... while they were President of the United States. 4 of the first 5 President... OWNED SLAVES.

But in your mind... they would have outlawed x-ray machines... but to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

It was accepted practice at the time that we all now know is wrong. Full body scanners are accepted by many people too... see where I'm going with this? The Founders did not have the political clout to shake up the status quo enough to provide everyone with the same freedoms in their time, hence their foresight dictated that the Constitution be a sort of wish list. Even though everyone didn't have equal rights back then, they worded the Bill of Rights in such a way that eventually they would have to, and in fact we did extend those rights to everyone.

'Hypocritical?' Try 'idealistic.'


How about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

I could keep going with your brilliant comments but I'll let it rest there...

Are you kidding? These were guys who pranced around in powdered wigs, makeup, and ruffles, sometimes even on the battlefield. Again, please spare me the historical relativism. If you have such a problem with how much things have changed since the beginning of our nation, please do try your hand at re-writing the Constitution.


Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners)

And the most ironic name of a corporation in the history of history is... :lol:

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

**ALERT: Rep. Ron Paul has introduced H.R. 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act in Congress.**
Please ask your U.S. Representative to be a co-sponsor on this important legislation. As Rep. Paul says:
"My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us."

http://www.optoutday.com/

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

All you are doing it limiting what the TSA can do... what's your big solution to make the planes safer Mr Paul?

Goddamn it...


CARGO SCREENING AND INTELLIGENCE OPS!

WTF?! :lol:

~BB~

[scroller]

I've watched and read different scientists talk about the low level effects of the scanner. Not one said that they were "harmful". In fact, they said that you receive more of a dosage with your cell phone...

So before you post "cartoons" and make arguements as a statistician, get facts...

Here are facts. "Back in May, professors at the University of California, San Francisco, led by John Sedat sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration with a litany of red flags about using back-scatter X-ray with such frequency— mostly that the safety has not be independently proven."


The low-energy rays do a “Compton scatter” off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation. When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn’t shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is “likely breaking bonds,” which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.


“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” says Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine…. “No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/11/17/whats-the-real-radiation-risk-of-the-tsas-full-body-x-ray-scans/

[P.S. "arguments", not "arguements"]

[DaveinBoston]

Goddamn it...


CARGO SCREENING AND INTELLIGENCE OPS!

WTF?! :lol:

~BB~

Cargo screening and Intelligence operations have been in existence from before 9-11... people have still gotten on planes with weapons.

You next suggestion?

[BellaBellucci]

Cargo screening and Intelligence operations have been in existence from before 9-11... people have still gotten on planes with weapons.

You next suggestion?

Seriously? It's a big world with lots of terror activity going on and you can't catch everyone, not even if you body scanned every human on Earth. So again (because you're not thinking out this argument, you're feeling it), if the current special operations stop 99.9% of terrorism and the TSA stops none at all, what's the point of any of this nonsense?

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

I can post studies that say they arent harmful.... and it proves what?

If there is an safety issue regarding the use of these then I am in agreement that they shouldnt be used. Plain and simple.

Bella's logic and pissing and moaning about her civil liberties being violated is absurb at best.




Here are facts. "Back in May, professors at the University of California, San Francisco, led by John Sedat sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration with a litany of red flags about using back-scatter X-ray with such frequency— mostly that the safety has not be independently proven."





http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/11/17/whats-the-real-radiation-risk-of-the-tsas-full-body-x-ray-scans/

[P.S. "arguments", not "arguements"]

[BellaBellucci]

Bella's logic and pissing and moaning about her civil liberties being violated is absurb at best.

As usual, my arguments can't be respected because to do so might actually allow them to gain momentum. Well, if that's the case:

http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x355877474/Local-travelers-have-no-patience-for-airport-scanner-protest

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50687705-76/chaffetz-body-imaging-agents.html.csp

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/12002718487937/body-scanner-protest-could-disrupt-holiday-travel/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/01/13/german-activists-protest-body-scanners-by-stripping-down/

Shall I continue? What's absurd is your implication that I'm the only one who has a problem with all of this.

I'm going to rest my case here because your argument has lost all logical cohesion.

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

You are too funny.

Do you think that a private agency could possibly handle providing the infrastructure to maintain security at every airport in the country? Wouldnt it be great if it was a contract that went out to bid like other projects and we got a new agency each 3-5 years (the lowest bidder) and changed out the workforce.

Please tell me what private agency could actually handle a security force that size....?????????????????????????????????????????? ???

The airlines are in trouble because of the economy and cost of fuel... and the fact that a plane still has to fly if its full or has 5 people on board.

What planet are you on that you dont think air cargo doesnt get screened and/or xrayed?

You are concerned about being forced back into the stone age? Again... no one is forcing you to do anything. You have a choice...




You mean a privately owned plane in a quasi-public airport where the screening is conducted by officials who are not employees of that airline or the airport at a time when air travel is already on the decline. That means that despite the industry being in trouble, the government is making it harder to fly. And really? Must I be forced back into the stone age by taking a prohibitively less convenient mode of transportation as the only alternative to participating in an Orwellian experiment? Yet cargo (again) is our weakest link. They can X-ray inanimate objects all they like but they don't; instead they electronically strip search us. Come on with that. People depend on air travel and most dangerous things that get onto a plane are in luggage or cardboard boxes.

So question: if they had a way to require you to go through a bio-metric scan every time you got behind the wheel, would your argument be that people should walk? Really? So instead of taking that energy and fighting for our rights, you expect us to just give it away to the government instead just because you choose too? Sounds pretty selfish to me. Don't even get me started on the 5th Amendment implications possible if law enforcement ever points to airline security as a precedent to determine what is a reasonable search. Pretty soon they'll be able to strip search anyone they like.

If I had to go on a bio-metric scan to drive? Seriously... why? Is someone trying to use my car as a weapon and fly it into the side of a building? Is a passenger going to jump into my car with C-4 in their underwear? Im beginning to think you border insanity.

By the way... are you talking about the 4th Amendmant? The 5th has to do with self-incrimation.


Do you also like Obamacare? TARP? Do you drive a 'Government Motors' automobile?

I think Obama is a socialist-muslim-liar and currently our worst president to date. TARP sucks and people like Barney Frank helped cause the whole melt down. My tax money went to bail out people who took out irresponsible loans. What about my house?


I'm sorry, this may come off as personal, but I find it disgusting that anybody would submit themselves to that level or scrutiny just to lower the odds of being injured when those odds are already at 1:500,000. You have a greater chance of having an autistic child (1:150), and really, how many of those do you know well?

Wow... you are crazy. I was speaking if a proecdure lessened my chance of dying I'd do it. What on Gods green earth does me knowing a kid with Autism have to do with airline security? By the way, one of my co-workers son's has severe autism, to the point where he's been institutionalized. We have an annual fundraiser at work....


That's exactly my point! What do full body scans have to do with lowering the chances that someone will bring a non-metallic agent that can't fit into a body cavity onto a plane when, again, if it reaches the security line it's already too late? Makes no sense, does it?

If it reaches the security line.. it's too late? Really? If they catch them in line... they dont get to blow up the plane do they????? DO THEY?


So again I ask, because people are blowing themselves up making meth, should we ban cigarette lighters? Of course not. Your argument that my argument is ridiculous... is ridiculous.

HEY NUT JOB.... CIGARETTE LIGHTERS ARE BANNED ON PLANES

Oh, you mean the arbitrary speed limits that dull our driving skills? There are no speed limits in most of Europe and far fewer highway fatalities. Do you know why? Because personal responsibility makes Europeans better drivers overall. And alcohol? OMG! The effects of alcohol vary by the person. I know plenty of people who could run a Gran Prix at .08 and plenty who couldn't ride a bike at .02. I mean you're talking to a girl who comes from the only state in the country that doesn't require auto insurance. I don't agree with it, but I took advantage on occasion when I was living there. Do you think that state's roads have descended into chaos? Of course not. Extra points if you can name the state.

Oh yes.. that old chestnut.. "I drive better drunk"...HAHAHA

Personal responsibility makes European better? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In France in 2004, it was estimated that because of the cost of driving, there were 800,000 unlicensed drivers... just in FRANCE...HAHAHHA

There are speed limits in Europe Einstein.. they are just higher than here. And lets talk about the cameras on the highways in Europe that take pictures of your car when speeding and mail you a ticket... IS THAT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

You want to talk Drinking and driving in Europe?

Sweden, for example, considers a BAC of .02 as a DUI, and in Italy the state can sell your vehicle (http://www.ehow.co.uk/cars/) if you get a DUI. Most countries use a graduated BAC as punishment... the higher the BAC, the worse the punishment.

Here in the US, you get your wrist slapped.


Furthermore, how come people are not supposed to discriminate against other people based on their experiences, but the government can discriminate against every person based on nothing other than arguable statistics. I mean, hell, if you want to go there, what's Constitutional about our drug policy? Not a DAMN thing.

I have no idea what this sentence means. Discriminate against people based on experiences? HUH? Drug policies? I think you are on drugs!

That's irrelevant. They're against the scanners for everyone, not just pilots.



It was accepted practice at the time that we all now know is wrong. Full body scanners are accepted by many people too... see where I'm going with this? The Founders did not have the political clout to shake up the status quo enough to provide everyone with the same freedoms in their time, hence their foresight dictated that the Constitution be a sort of wish list. Even though everyone didn't have equal rights back then, they worded the Bill of Rights in such a way that eventually they would have to, and in fact we did extend those rights to everyone.

You made a statement saying what the founding fathers would say about scanners violating rights... well... Im going by our founding fathers believes at that day... SLAVES WERE THE WAY. THATS WHAT THEY BELIEVED. You cant pick and chose... well they were right this way.. because it would prove what you are saying but not right in other respects.

The Founding Fathers didnt have the polictical clout to provide everyone with the same freedoms? They were the ONLY POLICITICAN. If they didnt have slaves themselves your statement would carry a little more credit.


'Hypocritical?' Try 'idealistic.'



Are you kidding? These were guys who pranced around in powdered wigs, makeup, and ruffles, sometimes even on the battlefield. Again, please spare me the historical relativism. If you have such a problem with how much things have changed since the beginning of our nation, please do try your hand at re-writing the Constitution.



And the most ironic name of a corporation in the history of history is... :lol:

~BB~

Dont worry. Im not going to respond to any futher replies from you. I think whatever meds you've been on have affected your brain.

[BellaBellucci]

What planet are you on that you dont think air cargo doesnt get screened and/or xrayed?

Ok, I guess I'm not done. You have more 'absurd' arguments for me to debunk.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/1/air-cargo-screening-back-on-hills-radar/

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20101116_4059.php?oref=rss

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/110410nj1.htm

Google is your friend.


You are concerned about being forced back into the stone age? Again... no one is forcing you to do anything. You have a choice...

Sure, I have a choice: I can drive the three days next time I want to go back to Boston. Not much of a choice, is it?


If I had to go on a bio-metric scan to drive? Seriously... why? Is someone trying to use my car as a weapon and fly it into the side of a building? Is a passenger going to jump into my car with C-4 in their underwear? Im beginning to think you border insanity.

By the way... are you talking about the 4th Amendmant? The 5th has to do with self-incrimation.

Why? Well why should you have to do a scan to fly? The government obviously can make you and many others do anything it wants with only a minimal justification. For the last time, body scans provide no real security advantages. You've yet to argue that point and my comparison to driving is intended to point of the silliness of your argument.



I think Obama is a socialist-muslim-liar and currently our worst president to date. TARP sucks and people like Barney Frank helped cause the whole melt down. My tax money went to bail out people who took out irresponsible loans. What about my house?

Finally we agree on something.


Wow... you are crazy. I was speaking if a proecdure lessened my chance of dying I'd do it. What on Gods green earth does me knowing a kid with Autism have to do with airline security? By the way, one of my co-workers son's has severe autism, to the point where he's been institutionalized. We have an annual fundraiser at work....

It's about odds. So the answer to my question (how many autistic children do you know well?) is one and yet you hold a fundraiser. So statistically speaking, you'd have to know 166,667 terror victims to justify your argument on that level. (1:150 versus 1:25 million).


If it reaches the security line.. it's too late? Really? If they catch them in line... they dont get to blow up the plane do they????? DO THEY?

No, they blow up the tightly coiled security line which contains approximately the same number of people as the plane. Minus the property damage, it's the exact same outcome.


HEY NUT JOB.... CIGARETTE LIGHTERS ARE BANNED ON PLANES

I meant everywhere. I don't see anyone cooking meth on an airplane either, do you? This was an argument about overreaching, not literally about banning cigarette lighters.


There are speed limits in Europe Einstein.. they are just higher than here. And lets talk about the cameras on the highways in Europe that take pictures of your car when speeding and mail you a ticket... IS THAT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

Absolutely. As do the red light cameras we use here. Not to mention the selective enforcement and payola issues that go along with them. They don't make drivers any better. And I never said there were no speed limits. I said there were fewer speed limits. There are also more designated high speed areas than we have here.


I have no idea what this sentence means. Discriminate against people based on experiences? HUH? Drug policies? I think you are on drugs!

The point is that polite society is not supposed to be judgmental yet our government sets criminal drug policy based on weighted statistics (often based on the personal judgments of those in power) that serve the true purpose of the drug war: perpetuating the prison/industrial complex, and it's unconstitutional. The same thing goes for the scanners: the government has essentially deemed air travel unsafe without their unconstitutional practices based on statistics that are cherry picked to reflect nothing but their own interests. They used the same technique to outlaw marijuana. Scanners are the new millennium's Reefer Madness. Get it now? It's all propaganda.


The Founding Fathers didnt have the polictical clout to provide everyone with the same freedoms? They were the ONLY POLICITICAN. If they didnt have slaves themselves your statement would carry a little more credit.

Really? What about the economy of the time? So there were no landowners? What about the Crown? Just because there were so few American politicians in the newly formed government, it doesn't mean that the nation lacked other political figures, organizations, and interests.


Dont worry. Im not going to respond to any futher replies from you. I think whatever meds you've been on have affected your brain.

Attacking your opponent directly is the #1 tell-tale sign of a weak argument. Arguing with you is like taking candy from a baby, and frankly, you're starting to make me feel a little guilty about it. :geek:

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

bella your persistant ill give that that but your not gonna win this period lol you must be a republican

[BellaBellucci]

bella your persistant ill give that that but your not gonna win this period lol you must be a republican

Well there's no win or lose really. It comes down to a choice: you can be emotional about it or you can be logical. In fact, it can be directly correlated to the theism versus anti-theism debate which will continue forever. Personally, I choose to be logical but also faithful so I'm agnostic. And no I'm not a Republican; I'm a Libertarian.

For the last time, some people may not mind the scanner, but many do, and they have the right to object to a definite strip search versus a 1:25,000,000 chance of death.

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

bella your persistant ill give that that but your not gonna win this period lol you must be a republican

At some point I have to discontinue banging my head against a wall.

She is clearly thought-impared...although looking at your new pictures...and caught the video on your site... it impairs my thought process as a certain amount of blood flows away from my brain into a lower part of my body (well the bigger brain anyway...lol)
:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

[BellaBellucci]

although looking at your new pictures...and caught the video on your site... it impairs my thought process as a certain amount of blood flows away from my brain into a lower part of my body (well the bigger brain anyway...lol)
:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

I can live with that. Good debate. :Bowdown: :)

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

At some point I have to discontinue banging my head against a wall.

She is clearly thought-impared...although looking at your new pictures...and caught the video on your site... it impairs my thought process as a certain amount of blood flows away from my brain into a lower part of my body (well the bigger brain anyway...lol)
:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:yer such a perv lol i love it thank you dave

[DaveinBoston]

yer such a perv lol i love it thank you dave

That body brings it out in me :party:

[kieron]

There are major security holes in just about every part of society, but the point is that unless you want to live in a totalitarian state then you need to just deal with it. Ending up on a watch list that prevents you from traveling by air, without so much as a hearing before hand, and then having no real way to get off of it, is a blatant violation of due process imo. Of course that has never stopped the government before.

Invasive body scans, excessive pat downs, secret "enemy" lists, etc are all signs of deterioration into a police state. Justifications could be found for any number of heavy handed tactics, but that does not mean that we should want to live in a society that employs those practices.
I agree with NYBURBS comment here!

[kieron]

the NWO is coming, FAST

[BellaBellucci]

the NWO is coming, FAST

You mean these guys?

http://www.wrestlingwiththetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/nwo-001.jpg

They may look tough, but they're total pussycats. :whistle:

~BB~

[scroller]

I can post studies that say they arent harmful.... and it proves what?

Here's how this works: You post what you think is a better citation (quote, name, link/page). You don't just whine like a little bitch.

[BellaBellucci]

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/18/tsa-enhanced-pat-downs-the-screeners-point-of-view/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boardingarea/flyingwithfish+(Flying+With+Fish)&utm_content=Twitter

TSA morale is being broken down with the 'enhanced' pat downs. I'm sorry TSA agents: I know you may not be enjoying this, but neither are we, and if you're not one of us, you're one of them. If you don't like your job, then quit. When nobody wants to be a TSA agent anymore, then maybe Homeland will get the message.

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/18/tsa-enhanced-pat-downs-the-screeners-point-of-view/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boardingarea/flyingwithfish+(Flying+With+Fish)&utm_content=Twitter

TSA morale is being broken down with the 'enhanced' pat downs. I'm sorry TSA agents: I know you may not be enjoying this, but neither are we, and if you're not one of us, you're one of them. If you don't like your job, then quit. When nobody wants to be a TSA agent anymore, then maybe Homeland will get the message.

~BB~i think you should be more constructive and cam with me lol

[rockabilly]

"Go w/ the nice man Jimmy , mommy and daddy will be waiting right here."

"But i don't wanna!"

"Now Jimmy do it for your country , mommy is so patriotic that she did it 3 times."

[thombergeron]

What planet are you on that you dont think air cargo doesnt get screened and/or xrayed?

You're totally fooling yourself, dude. I ship marijuana by FedEx, UPS, USPS overnight all the time. Don't even think twice about it. The odds of my parcel being screened are infinitesimal.

They found those explosive ink cartridges through good intel. Passenger and cargo screening is pointless and stupid. The fact that it's constitutionally dubious, hugely expensive, and potentially hazardous is just gravy.

I'd like to see those studies showing these particular backscatter machines are not harmful. All of the imaging and radiation experts I've read feel that we simply don't know what the health effects are. But there's no doubt that x-rays are potentially hazardous to humans, and it would be nice to see some data one way or the other before DHS willy-nilly forces everybody into these things.

[BellaBellucci]

Has PR between the TSA and the public reached a tipping point?

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdWZDjelMl4sAQphXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWtvczV lBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGRDVfOTY-/SIG=11oltf2ug/EXP=1290460867/**http%3a//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298973

~BB~

[scroller]

And here's a little history: Germany's "Reichstag Fire Decree". On Feb-27, 1933 the headquarters of the government of Germany was burned down under suspicious circumstances. The National Socialist response the next day:


The burning of the Reichstag was intended to be the signal for a bloody uprising and civil war. Large-scale pillaging in Berlin was planned.... It has been determined that ... throughout Germany acts of terrorism were to begin against prominent individuals, against private property, against the lives and safety of the peaceful population, and general civil war was to be unleashed....In order to "secure" the people, you get the Reichstag Fire Decree passed:


Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State

1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed...In short: An apparent terrorist attack which burned down the country's most famous building. The assertion that the threat was so keen that basic constitutional freedoms had to be discarded. Of course, it was all bullshit. And that's how dictatorial powers were made available for Hitler in Germany.

Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Verboten_Zeitung_1933.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Verboten_Zeitung_1933.jpg/250px-Verboten_Zeitung_1933.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/ac/Verboten_Zeitung_1933.jpg/250px-Verboten_Zeitung_1933.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree)

[fred41]

At first I had no problem with the new scanners and the groping, but then I read this excellent article by Krauthammer and I changed my mind...it's true, we'll bend over backwards to make ridiculous searches of children and grandmothers all so we don't have to do the obvious...profile.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16650845

[lisaparadise]

At first I had no problem with the new scanners and the groping, but then I read this excellent article by Krauthammer and I changed my mind...it's true, we'll bend over backwards to make ridiculous searches of children and grandmothers all so we don't have to do the obvious...profile.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16650845i think i said that in page one didnt i

[african1]

i think i said that in page one didnt i

Profiling would fail. Believe me. Terrorists will recruit other races.
The main mistake you're making is to think you are fighting a certain people. We aren't. We are fighting an idea and ideas have no race.

This white boy is Alqaeda now

[lisaparadise]

Profiling would fail. Believe me. Terrorists will recruit other races.
The main mistake you're making is to think you are fighting a certain people. We aren't. We are fighting an idea and ideas have no race.

This white boy is Alqaeda now
well i believe in profiling period if its makes me racist then so be it i think every plane coming from an arab country should be as well as colombia mexico venezuala and so on

[fred41]

When they speak of profiling...they aren't talking about racial profiling...with profiling, it doesn't matter what race they recruit...they'll still fit the profile.

[scroller]

Business Travel Coalition chairman: *


"The deployment of full-body scanners without a formal public comment process and sufficient medical and scientific vetting is one of the worst TSA abuses of authority since its creation," stated BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell. "The overly aggressive pat-downs represent citizen-mistreatment in the extreme, especially if used as 'punishment' when passengers opt out of full-body scans," he added.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton:


Asked if she would submit to a pat-down, Clinton replied: "Not if I could avoid it, no. I mean, who would?... I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it," Clinton added. "We have to be constantly asking ourselves, 'How do we calculate the risk?' And sometimes we don't calculate it correctly," she said.


* The BTC also warned against protests on Nov-24, but whatever.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/holiday-travelers-avoid-tsa-security/story?id=12204725

[Amsterdamage]

anyone participating on Opt-out Day tomorrow? wear a kilt, the proper way :dancing:

[giovanni_hotel]

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.
The term 'intrusive' is all relative.

Whether folks want to believe it or not, there are a couple thousand religious zealots who LIVE to figure out devious ways to make Americans burn.

TSA needs a non-anatomically correct scanner, simple.

[thombergeron]

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.

The body scanners being deployed by TSA can't see beneath the skin, so currently, there is no screening procedure in place that will stop a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass from blowing up a plane.

To repeat, the passenger and cargo screening technology currently employed by TSA cannot stop a motivated individual from smuggling contraband onto an aircraft.


Whether folks want to believe it or not, there are a couple thousand religious zealots who LIVE to figure out devious ways to make Americans burn.

There are 62 million registered motor vehicles in the United States, any one of which could kill you. In 2001, religious zealots killed 2,740 Americans. In the same year, 42,116 people were killed by traffic fatalities in the U.S., equal to a 9/11 every three weeks.

For me, I totally believe and accept that there are many deeply misguided individuals in the world who yearn to kill American citizens on principle. However, the chances that I'm actually going to cross paths with one of those individuals is so remote that I don't even waste time thinking about it. I'm about 10 times more likely to drown, and I don't think about that either.

[scroller]

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.
The term 'intrusive' is all relative.


I can't wait until an attacker with internal explosives walks right through these scanners, which won't catch them at all, and detonates them on a plane. An excellent case study that the time, expense, intrusion, privacy violation, and radiation is all a big fraud.

[giovanni_hotel]

The body scanners being deployed by TSA can't see beneath the skin, so currently, there is no screening procedure in place that will stop a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass from blowing up a plane.

To repeat, the passenger and cargo screening technology currently employed by TSA cannot stop a motivated individual from smuggling contraband onto an aircraft.



There are 62 million registered motor vehicles in the United States, any one of which could kill you. In 2001, religious zealots killed 2,740 Americans. In the same year, 42,116 people were killed by traffic fatalities in the U.S., equal to a 9/11 every three weeks.

For me, I totally believe and accept that there are many deeply misguided individuals in the world who yearn to kill American citizens on principle. However, the chances that I'm actually going to cross paths with one of those individuals is so remote that I don't even waste time thinking about it. I'm about 10 times more likely to drown, and I don't think about that either.


Except no sane politician can make this argument to the American people, that the 'odds' are against them being blown up on an airline flight, so people there's really nothing to worry about.

Even a 5 megaton nuclear device blown up in one American city won't wipe the United States off the face of the map, and would only kill a few hundred thousand citizens, a tiny fraction of the total 300+ million population, so would you then make the argument that statistically there's nothing to be concerned about after the fact??

Arguing statistical probabilities when discussing potential terrorist attacks doesn't really play well when you try to explain to the American people how you plan to keep them 'safe' from foreign enemies.

[BellaBellucci]

Arguing statistical probabilities when discussing potential terrorist attacks doesn't really play well when you try to explain to the American people how you plan to keep them 'safe' from foreign enemies.

... because of the fear harnessed, amplified, and used as a weapon by those same politicians in the first place.

~BB~

[scroller]

Arguing statistical probabilities when discussing potential terrorist attacks doesn't really play well when you try to explain to the American people how you plan to keep them 'safe' from foreign enemies.

That is indeed true for dumb people. Explains the state lottery pretty well, too.

[thombergeron]

Except no sane politician can make this argument to the American people, that the 'odds' are against them being blown up on an airline flight, so people there's really nothing to worry about.

Even a 5 megaton nuclear device blown up in one American city won't wipe the United States off the face of the map, and would only kill a few hundred thousand citizens, a tiny fraction of the total 300+ million population, so would you then make the argument that statistically there's nothing to be concerned about after the fact??

Arguing statistical probabilities when discussing potential terrorist attacks doesn't really play well when you try to explain to the American people how you plan to keep them 'safe' from foreign enemies.

Right, this is pretty much precisely my point (and Bella's): U.S. counter-terrorism policy is all about politics and security theater and has virtually nothing to do with actually protecting the health and safety of U.S. citizens.

And you got your math a little bit wrong. A 5 MT weapon is huge. The overpressure radius alone is about 12 kilometers. Here in the SF Bay Area, a weapon that size would instantly vaporize at least 700,000 people, and it's likely that another couple million would died of burns, radiation, and blunt force trauma over the next day or two. So that's about 1% of the U.S. population, and nobody who has a 5 MT weapon is going to fire just one at us...

[lisaparadise]

right, this is pretty much precisely my point (and bella's): U.s. Counter-terrorism policy is all about politics and security theater and has virtually nothing to do with actually protecting the health and safety of u.s. Citizens.

And you got your math a little bit wrong. A 5 mt weapon is huge. The overpressure radius alone is about 12 kilometers. Here in the sf bay area, a weapon that size would instantly vaporize at least 700,000 people, and it's likely that another couple million would died of burns, radiation, and blunt force trauma over the next day or two. So that's about 1% of the u.s. Population, and nobody who has a 5 mt weapon is going to fire just one at us...you people make me laugh you think your government is out to get you meanwhile there out to save you are you people that stupid that you think everything is a conspiracy to strip you of your rights?

[giovanni_hotel]

'President XYZ, about that bomb that blew up half of downtown Chicago, how are you going to make sure it doesn't happen to L.A. or NYC?'

'Absolutely nothing. Statistically speaking, the odds are remotely small that it ever happens again. And even if it does, what's a few more hundred thousand dead Americans?? These friggin' Christian breeders are dropping babies like feral cats, hahahaha!!

It's an unfortunate tragedy, but the country will survive. Fear is irrational. Statistics is truth.'

Bella, if someone is AFRAID, their fear is very 'real'. It's not really your decision to decide whether someone else's 'fear' is a valid emotional/intellectual response.

Most Americans who fly have a concern that proper security measures are deployed to hopefully prevent another plane from being hijacked by a suicidal jihadist, even if those security protocols aren't fool-proof.
Do you lock the front door to your house?? Car??? Are these measures guaranteed to prevent a thief from breaking into either??
But still you do it, even though the odds are minimal that someone will break into either your house or car, because it gives you PEACE OF MIND.

You're arguing analytical/ philosophical abstracts, Bella.
FEAR is real and must always be mitigated to lower one's level of anxiety.

EDIT: You're right, thombergeron. For this example I should have said 5 kiloton, not 5 megaton.

[lisaparadise]

'president xyz, about that bomb that blew up half of downtown chicago, how are you going to make sure it doesn't happen to l.a. Or nyc?'

'absolutely nothing. Statistically speaking, the odds are remotely small that it ever happens again. And even if it does, what's a few more hundred thousand dead americans?? These friggin' christian breeders are dropping babies like feral cats, hahahaha!!

It's an unfortunate tragedy, but the country will survive. Fear is irrational. Statistics is truth.'

bella, if someone is afraid, their fear is very 'real'. It's not really your decision to decide whether someone else's 'fear' is a valid emotional/intellectual response.

Most americans who fly have a concern that proper security measure are deployed to hopefully prevent another plane from being hijacked by a suicidal jihadist, even if those security protocols aren't fool-proof.
Do you lock the front door to your house?? Car??? Are these measures guaranteed to prevent a thief from breaking in to either??
But still you do it, even though the odds are minimal that someone will break into either your house or car, because it gives you peace of mind.

You're arguing analytical/ philosophical abstracts, bella.
Fear is real and must always be mitigated to lower one's level of anxiety.best post ive read thus far now i fly maybe 4 or 5 times a year and i have no problem with anythink that makes my odds of getting there safe period.

[BellaBellucci]

Bella, if someone is AFRAID, their fear is very 'real'. It's not really your decision to decide whether someone else's 'fear' is a valid emotional/intellectual response.

Not one person: people. And not just any fear: fear capitalized upon by the police state. And it's not my decision: because I'm not alone in my opinion.

To turn the tables on your position: why should the fearful get to determine how scared the rest of should be? People as a whole should not allow themselves to be terrorized by terrorists even if there are individuals who can't help themselves. They want to say that we should respect their fear and all comply with the new rules, but what about complying with the wishes of those who say that the ends don't justify the means? Again, a terror plot has never been stopped solely by the TSA.


Do you lock the front door to your house?? Car??? Are these measures guaranteed to prevent a thief from breaking in to either??
But still you do it, even though the odds are minimal that someone will break into either your house or car, because it gives you PEACE OF MIND.


Yes, but have you ever seen someone install a machine that violates privacy and raises health concerns in order to get into their house or car? No, they just use their keys, and in some cases, some minor biometrics, but that's it because there are no adverse affects other than the minor inconvenience of having to fumble for keys. And as you said, a pro is going to get in no matter what. If that kind of criminal is that close to your property, it's too late. The same goes for the scanners.

I mean, if we're going to such great lengths to stop terrorism, then why not just ban air travel all together? They used planes once, so nobody should fly, right? It's called overreaction.



FEAR is real and must always be mitigated to lower one's level of anxiety.

What about my anxiety about government intrusion? I trust the statistics on this so much more than I do some TSA lackies who don't even know their own rules most of the time.

YouTube - I Screen Myself (TSA Parody) by Lynda McLaughlin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VmDwBKKTVU&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Hillary Clinton Comments On Patdowns By TSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKJgL8G326E&feature=player_embedded)

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

I guess Israel's enhanced security checks are irrational too, an overreaction by a police state.lol

[thombergeron]

best post ive read thus far now i fly maybe 4 or 5 times a year and i have no problem with anythink that makes my odds of getting there safe period.

:banghead

Passenger and cargo screening does not increase your odds of getting there safe. Period.

It only makes you think that your odds of getting there safe are increased.

Do you see the difference? One is real, one is not real.

[thombergeron]

I guess Israel's enhanced security checks are irrational too, an overreaction by a police state.lol

I thought we were discussing TSA screening procedures in the United States. You know that TSA is a U.S. agency, right? What does Israel have to do with this?

[BellaBellucci]

I guess Israel's enhanced security checks are irrational too, an overreaction by a police state.lol

Precisely, since the Israelis also possess what are arguably the best army and intelligence service in the world.

Mossad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mossad_seal.png" class="image"><img alt="Mossad seal.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/91/Mossad_seal.png/125px-Mossad_seal.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/91/Mossad_seal.png/125px-Mossad_seal.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad)

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

:banghead

passenger and cargo screening does not increase your odds of getting there safe. Period.

It only makes you think that your odds of getting there safe are increased.

Do you see the difference? One is real, one is not real.
what are you fuckin stupid?fuck off you idiot

[bte]

you people make me laugh you think your government is out to get you meanwhile there out to save you are you people that stupid that you think everything is a conspiracy to strip you of your rights?

I got a friend who is like that. He is constantly talking about how the government was behind 911 and how the N.W.O is going to take over the world. He occassionally sprouts off about the return of Jesus and whatnot.

People protest when the gov't does nothing, then when the gov't does something. People protest because they do not like what the gov't implemented.

[lisaparadise]

i got a friend who is like that. He is constantly talking about how the government was behind 911 and how the n.w.o is going to take over the world. He occassionally sprouts off about the return of jesus and whatnot.

People protest when the gov't does nothing, then when the gov't does something. People protest because they do not like what the gov't implemented.24 pages of stupidity unfuckingbelievable.

[bte]

24 pages of stupidity unfuckingbelievable.

I agree. Why don't the TSA just implement profiling. I am not talking about racial profiling, because Muslims can be white, middle eastern, black, asian, or whatever. But don't pat down a kid or a senior simply because they are the 10th person in the line.

[lisaparadise]

I agree. Why don't the TSA just implement profiling. I am not talking about racial profiling, because Muslims can be white, middle eastern, black, asian, or whatever. But don't pat down a kid or a senior simply because they are the 10th person in the line.i agree trust me i was in line at pearson coming home from florida and there was 3 black guys infront of me and 3 cololombians behind me and im the one who had to get searched in the back room you could here me yelling swear words from me for miles i was absolutly discusted

[BellaBellucci]

I got a friend who is like that. He is constantly talking about how the government was behind 911 and how the N.W.O is going to take over the world. He occassionally sprouts off about the return of Jesus and whatnot.

The government is behind 9/11, the NWO is coming (EU, AU, soon-to-be NAU, etc). There's evidence to show for each of these allegations. There is, however, no evidence of the second coming of Jesus.


People protest when the gov't does nothing, then when the gov't does something. People protest because they do not like what the gov't implemented.

And sometimes the government takes advantage of that line of thinking and doesn't even bother to think things through. Why should they, ya know? People are going to complain regardless, right? So why bother trying?

~BB~

[fred41]

There's no evidence the U.S. gov't was behind 911 except in kooksville.

[BellaBellucci]

There's no evidence the U.S. gov't was behind 911 except in kooksville.

Really? You've always seen 110 story buildings fall straight down as a result of a crash above the 80th floors? No evidence? The video of the controlled demolition is just the tip of the iceberg.

Did you know that Silverstein actually authorized the demolition of WTC7? How could he have done that unless it was already set up for such an event?

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

Bella,

I am a firefighter. I watched the 2nd plane crash into the building live. I had just gotten off shift. Honest to God, my concern after watching the building burn for as long as it did was the risk of collapse.

What I didn't know then, but do know now from watching and reading about the construction was that it was built in a system called truss construction.

Truss construction is popular for several reasons. It's used in a lot of warehouses. Truss construction is strong and allows less material to be used to make it lighter. The major problem with truss construction is that when one truss goes, you will almost 100% of the time, have a complete and utter failure of all the supports. Which is what you saw with the towers.

Steel begins to fail at 1200 degrees F. Its not that it's melting but that means it will twist and contort very quickly at 1200 degrees. With that in mind, the load (weight) of the building wouldnt take long to collapse. An average house fire will reach 1100 degree F in about 3 1/2 minutes.

There was a fire in 1999 in Worcester that killed 6 Firefighers. They said that the temperature in the cold storage warehouse reached 3000 degrees and there was very little material to burn there.

So, how hot do you think it was with a plane full of jet fuel exploding into both towers?

It wasnt a controlled demolition. That's what the conspiracy theorists want you to believe. They try to point out little things that would lend to their crazy ideas.

I cant speak about #7....



Really? You've always seen 110 story buildings fall straight down as a result of a crash above the 80th floors? No evidence? The video of the controlled demolition is just the tip of the iceberg.

Did you know that Silverstein actually authorized the demolition of WTC7? How could he have done that unless it was already set up for such an event?

~BB~

[fred41]

Really? You've always seen 110 story buildings fall straight down as a result of a crash above the 80th floors? No evidence? The video of the controlled demolition is just the tip of the iceberg.

Did you know that Silverstein actually authorized the demolition of WTC7? How could he have done that unless it was already set up for such an event?

~BB~


mmmhhh-hmmmmmm...........

[BellaBellucci]

Bella,

I am a firefighter. I watched the 2nd plane crash into the building live. I had just gotten off shift. Honest to God, my concern after watching the building burn for as long as it did was the risk of collapse.

What I didn't know then, but do know now from watching and reading about the construction was that it was built in a system called truss construction.

Truss construction is popular for several reasons. It's used in a lot of warehouses. Truss construction is strong and allows less material to be used to make it lighter. The major problem with truss construction is that when one truss goes, you will almost 100% of the time, have a complete and utter failure of all the supports. Which is what you saw with the towers.

Steel begins to fail at 1200 degrees F. Its not that it's melting but that means it will twist and contort very quickly at 1200 degrees. With that in mind, the load (weight) of the building wouldnt take long to collapse. An average house fire will reach 1100 degree F in about 3 1/2 minutes.

Even if that were so, and there are arguments on both sides, none of this explains the straight downward descent of the towers, only why the structure was weakened. I want to know why the buildings were weakened enough all the way to the lower floors so that the building collapsed instead of toppled. I'm not a structural engineer, but I know how it looks. I also don't like a lot of the accessory shadiness on the part of those who 'should have known' it was coming because they stood the most to gain.

Not to mention the precarious relationship between the CIA and 'Al-Qaeda' since the days of Iran/Contra. 'Al-Qaeda' being in quotes, of course, because it means simply The Base, referring to the database that the CIA kept on their own foreign operatives.

Means, motive, and opportunity? Plenty to go around. I don't profess that any of this is a smoking gun. I'm just disappointed that more people don't question the government's official story.


There was a fire in 1999 in Worcester that killed 6 Firefighers. They said that the temperature in the cold storage warehouse reached 3000 degrees and there was very little material to burn there.

I remember that fire. What a sad story. Denis Leary's brother was killed. I had met Denis a few months before that while he was filming Monument Ave in Eastie and remembered thinking he was a complete loon, but he sprung forth from that tragedy as a leader and got it done for the families left behind providing a somewhat happy ending to a tragic event.



I cant speak about #7....

YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100)


mmmhhh-hmmmmmm...........

Thanks a lot Fred! :lol:

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

Even if that were so?

It is so....Steel starts to fail at 1200 degrees. An average house fire quickly reaches 1100 degrees. 3000 gallons of jet fuel does what to steal?

I mean it was hot enough that rather than take their chances, people were jumping 90 stories down. 90 stories was a better option than staying....Is that insane or what?

It's funny how you just dismiss that so you can believe your theories. Put hundreds of trillions of pound falling down on trillions of pounds of steal, cement, load. The bulk of the structure.. the weight was all in the middle of the building... the sides did little to nothing to support the building.

I went down to ground zero 3 weeks after 9-11. Do you know that the weight and everything pulverized just about everything. I mean, with all the stuff in the buildings you'd think they would find computer parts and phones and everything. They found...little to nothing.

You should do some research and learn about building construction before you make comments like that...



Even if that were so, and there are arguments on both sides, none of this explains the straight downward descent of the towers, only why the structure was weakened. I want to know why the buildings were weakened enough all the way to the lower floors so that the building collapsed instead of toppled. I'm not a structural engineer, but I know how it looks. I also don't like a lot of the accessory shadiness on the part of those who 'should have known' it was coming because they stood the most to gain.

Not to mention the precarious relationship between the CIA and 'Al-Qaeda' since the days of Iran/Contra. 'Al-Qaeda' being in quotes, of course, because it means simply The Base, referring to the database that the CIA kept on their own foreign operatives.

Means, motive, and opportunity? Plenty to go around. I don't profess that any of this is a smoking gun. I'm just disappointed that more people don't question the government's official story.



I remember that fire. What a sad story. Denis Leary's brother was killed. I had met Denis a few months before that while he was filming Monument Ave in Eastie and remembered thinking he was a complete loon, but he sprung forth from that tragedy as a leader and got it done for the families left behind providing a somewhat happy ending to a tragic event.



YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100)



Thanks a lot Fred! :lol:

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

they made what decision? To pull what? the guys out of the building?

Im sorry but telling the fire department to pull it... means to pull their operations out ... as he said because they couldnt contain the fires.

The fire department doesnt demolition buildings... so that's the only thing he could mean.



Even if that were so, and there are arguments on both sides, none of this explains the straight downward descent of the towers, only why the structure was weakened. I want to know why the buildings were weakened enough all the way to the lower floors so that the building collapsed instead of toppled. I'm not a structural engineer, but I know how it looks. I also don't like a lot of the accessory shadiness on the part of those who 'should have known' it was coming because they stood the most to gain.

Not to mention the precarious relationship between the CIA and 'Al-Qaeda' since the days of Iran/Contra. 'Al-Qaeda' being in quotes, of course, because it means simply The Base, referring to the database that the CIA kept on their own foreign operatives.

Means, motive, and opportunity? Plenty to go around. I don't profess that any of this is a smoking gun. I'm just disappointed that more people don't question the government's official story.



I remember that fire. What a sad story. Denis Leary's brother was killed. I had met Denis a few months before that while he was filming Monument Ave in Eastie and remembered thinking he was a complete loon, but he sprung forth from that tragedy as a leader and got it done for the families left behind providing a somewhat happy ending to a tragic event.



YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100)



Thanks a lot Fred! :lol:

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

I just find it difficult to believe that a structure that complex would fall so easily from an impact so high up. I don't buy the so-called 'pancake theory' and many witnesses reported hearing explosions from the lower floors. I'm sorry, but to my laymen's eye, it looked a LOT like this:

YouTube - Landmark Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ)

YouTube - Stoners Watch Aladdin Hotel Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&NR=1)

YouTube - Everglades Hotel Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ&NR=1)

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right. I just think that everything about this event is still suspect and that people should be more critical of the things that they're told by officials. In fact, IMO the book should never be closed on catastrophes such as this.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

they made what decision? To pull what? the guys out of the building?

Im sorry but telling the fire department to pull it... means to pull their operations out ... as he said because they couldnt contain the fires.

The fire department doesnt demolition buildings... so that's the only thing he could mean.

How could Silverstein pull firefighters that weren't there? Moreover, he admitted to giving the order to pull the building, not the non-existent FDNY operation.


WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

You are entitled to believe what ever nonsense you want. You dont buy the 'pancake theory'? If you took the building you showed in the videos and put them on top of another 60 floors.. it would come right down...

Witnesses heard explosions in a fire scene? HAHAHA... Bella, I hear explosions in about 90% of the fires I go to. Electric panels explode, fire compressors explode. The people inside the towers heard what sounded like explosions but it was people jumping.

...and you mean the people screaming and running for their lives were coherent enough to say where and when they heard explosions.. or the dead people told you that heard explosions? hahahahaha

YOUR LAYMANS EYES... Exactly. Too funny. You'll believe anything that goes against the government.

The buildings
I just find it difficult to believe that a structure that complex would fall so easily from an impact so high up. I don't buy the so-called 'pancake theory' and many witnesses reported hearing explosions from the lower floors. I'm sorry, but to my laymen's eye, it looked a LOT like this:

YouTube - Landmark Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ)

YouTube - Stoners Watch Aladdin Hotel Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&NR=1)

YouTube - Everglades Hotel Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ&NR=1)

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right. I just think that everything about this event is still suspect and that people should be more critical of the things that they're told by officials. In fact, IMO the book should never be closed on catastrophes such as this.

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

You should really go back and listen to the video that you posted. Make sure that you have the volume turned up. HE DIDNT ADMIT TO GIVING ANY ORDER... GO BACK AND LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS. I'll SAVE YOU THE TROUBLE....HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS:

"I remember getting a call from the...ahhhh.... fire department commander telling me that they weren’t sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we’ve had such terrible lose of life, may be the smartest thing to do is just pull it. Ahhhh, THEY made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

It says "THEY MADE THAT DECISION"

What do your "layman's ears" think of that?


By the way.. it was Denis Leary's cousin. Jeremy Lucey that got killed in Worcester.


How could Silverstein pull firefighters that weren't there? Moreover, he admitted to giving the order to pull the building, not the non-existent FDNY operation.



~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

You should really go back and listen to the video that you posted. Make sure that you have the volume turned up. HE DIDNT ADMIT TO GIVING ANY ORDER... GO BACK AND LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS. I'll SAVE YOU THE TROUBLE....HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS:

"I remember getting a call from the...ahhhh.... fire department commander telling me that they weren’t sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we’ve had such terrible lose of life, may be the smartest thing to do is just pull it. Ahhhh, THEY made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

It says "THEY MADE THAT DECISION"

What do your "layman's ears" think of that?


By the way.. it was Denis Leary's cousin. Jeremy Lucey that got killed in Worcester.


Wow. You're better at nitpicking then me. Bully for you! :Bowdown:

And there's nothing wrong with questioning your government. In fact many people find it patriotic.

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

Im not nitpicking. You're telling me something this guy said... and he didnt say that. Its not being picking its telling the truth.

Sad thing is, people will just read your comments and believe them without watching the video. Thats how conspiracy BS starts.



Wow. You're better at nitpicking then me. Bully for you! :Bowdown:

And there's nothing wrong with questioning your government. In fact many people find it patriotic.

~BB~