PDA

View Full Version : What are these tools(??) collected at airport security?



winchman
08-13-2006, 02:24 AM
A news article about things collected at airport security checkpoints had a photo showing these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/winchman/060812_security_hmed_7p.jpg

They appear to be tools of some sort. At least, the handles look like pipe wrench handles to me. Any idea what they are?

I tried to enlarge them, but the definition gets pretty bad.

Here's the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321792/

Roger

Mike Burdick
08-13-2006, 03:03 AM
Roger,

Looks like a pipe or strap wrench to me too. One thing for sure though, if they WERE actual lethal weapons, airport security would have never found them!:D

JCHannum
08-13-2006, 09:27 AM
I had thought they might be the hook jaw wrench Rigid makes for hex bolts & nuts, but compared to the hand grenade, they are very small. Maybe a miniature of some sort?

Millman
08-13-2006, 09:38 AM
Does anyone think it is right for a government steal your things, then auction them off to someone else? Hardly ever hear anybody getting mad about that. Just not right. The GUB' was stealing enough of our rights away, ...now this BS.

Alistair Hosie
08-13-2006, 10:30 AM
I don't know Millman look again some idiot was trying to take a hand grenade on board.I mean what must these guys be thinking about before entering a plane to turn up with a hand grenade oh well seems like there is hope for me after all:DAlistair

Millman
08-13-2006, 10:35 AM
It's just the idea that they can take your stuff and sell it without your permission. I remember the Nazis doing that to the Jews.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 10:48 AM
Does anyone think it is right for a government steal your things, then auction them off to someone else? Hardly ever hear anybody getting mad about that. Just not right. The GUB' was stealing enough of our rights away, ...now this BS.

BS,there aren't stealing anything,you don't have to surrender anything from your person at the airport,you have a choice,leave it behind or don't get on a plane,simple.
This reminds me of the people complaining about the delays at the airport this week,would you rather be late,or dead and on time?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me they look like normal 6" stilsen wrenches.The question I have is what exactly are these idiots thinking trying to pack this stuff onboard?That reminds me of the pictures of stuff taken after 9/11,people had ship augers,steak knives,caulkguns,tape dispensers,pitch forks and all manner of stupid crap in the're lugauge.

I can hear it now"oh,honey turn around and go back,I forgot to pack the garbage disposal"geez...

I also don't know what the big deal is with people bummed out about not being able to bring mouthwash,deoderant and etc on board either since the last time I flew nobody on board seemed to be using any of it anyway:D

Millman
08-13-2006, 10:54 AM
Come on now, WS, that attitude is what forces a mother to drink her own secretions to get permission to feed her baby. This BS is way out of hand, and what better way to control the masses...Put FEAR in their lives. Stealing is stealing. One of the commandments. It's all about control. Another thing, if they are not taking your stuff???Where are they getting all these items?

Evan
08-13-2006, 11:10 AM
That isn't a hand grenade, it's a cigarette lighter. I want to know why they are confiscating sex toys. Exactly what sort of threat do they figure they present on an aircraft? I can think of a few lines but they would get bleeped by the ******* censor sensor. :D

speedsport
08-13-2006, 11:19 AM
Stealing?, don't think so. People willingly hand the stuff over. Simple, keep your stuff and leave the airport, no problem.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 11:27 AM
Come on now, WS, that attitude is what forces a mother to drink her own secretions to get permission to feed her baby. This BS is way out of hand, and what better way to control the masses...Put FEAR in their lives. Stealing is stealing. One of the commandments. It's all about control. Another thing, if they are not taking your stuff???Where are they getting all these items?


Since you don't know I'll try and explain it.We are fighting an enemy that has no problem hiding among women and children.If we leave them an opening in the form of not checking milk or formula they will exploit it.Mothers testing the're own milk,so what,she made it,it came from her and many are just flipping out the teet and lettin the little ones get the're fill in public anyway,big,f---ing deal

This is not fear mongering,it is common sense.Fear mongering would be shutting down air traffic nation wide.The treat is REAL after all.I think it is also safe to say that we DO NOW KNOW what happened to TWA 800 also.

It is also NOT STEALING,you have the choice,either ditch the stuff and get on the plane,or MISS your flight.If you don't want to ditch the stuff all you need do is turn around and make other arrangements.They are getting the items from people who are stupid enough to try and bring them on,finding out they can't and not wanting to give up that non-refundable ticket they saved $5 on.

I'm sure the government is getting rich selling toenail clippers and tiny little stilsen wrenches.The people that try to bring this crap on the plane are stupid,simple as that.I mean I can see someone finding a grey area on a stilsen wrench,but a machette?Get real Pyle.

Frankly I think carry ons should have been banned years ago,this would have stopped many of the hijackings and probably 9/11 also.The only thing that should be allowed is medication and even that should be checked.

Evan
08-13-2006, 11:32 AM
tealing?, don't think so. People willingly hand the stuff over. Simple, keep your stuff and leave the airport, no problem.

And lose the value of you non-refundable ticket. Sure. For once I agree with Millman. They are confiscating stuff that has no bearing on security and safety. Exactly how is a blender a threat? I can buy a kyocera ceramic cleaver at any good knife shop, strap it to my leg and they won't find it except with a strip search.

At the rate it's going the next step will be to have everybody change into a hospital gown before boarding. While in some cases I wouldn't mind seeing that there are an overwhelming number of people out there the sight of which in a flimsy gown would make getting there much less than half the fun.

Evan
08-13-2006, 11:36 AM
Frankly I think carry ons should have been banned years ago,this would have stopped many of the hijackings and probably 9/11 also.The only thing that should be allowed is medication and even that should be checked.
Nonsense. El Al has been hijacked once, just once in the late sixties. After that they installed airlock doors on the cockpit and put armed air marshals on the flights. One in uniform and one in plain clothes. The score since then is three attempts with IIRC two dead hijackers and a couple in prison. Nobody bothers to try anymore and the only thing they worry about coming on board is bombs and guns.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Nonsense. El Al has been hijacked once, just once in the late sixties. After that they installed airlock doors on the cockpit and put armed air marshals on the flights. One in uniform and one in plain clothes. The score since then is three attempts with IIRC two dead hijackers and a couple in prison.

Exactly I agree totally,arm the pilots and the air marshalls,not here the anti-gun nuts are all over that one.Female senator was quoted as saying"are we sure we can trust a pilot to carry a gun?" To which my response was -do you trust him to fly the plane your on?The idiot media here has everyone more scared of a marshal or pilot with a gun,than a terrorist with a bomb.



Nobody bothers to try anymore and the only thing they worry about coming on board is bombs and guns.

Right,but bombs come in many different forms,the most recent versions were powerade bottles and digital cameras.Ya,there are all sorts of knives that can be smuggled on board,but after 9/11 I don't think that plan would go far against 80-90 passengers,the odds would not be in the hijackers favor.If I were on board he/she would end up gutted like a trout.

Also notice that the Israeli answer to terroism is diffrent than ours both US and Canadian.The past few weeks have proven this,Hezballa launched a few dozen rockets and took some hostages and Israel answered back almost immediately with bombing runs and artillary,they didn't wait for the UN,or world approval like p---ies do.

EDMTech
08-13-2006, 12:02 PM
The problem is, when we start making people throw away mouthwash, toothpaste, and deodorant, and start taking peoples possessions and selling them (no doubt many of them trivial and relatively harmless), we are accomploishing one thing....

LETTING THE TERRORISTIS WIN!!!

Lets break this down: a terrorist is a person who rules through fear. When 9/11 happened and people stopped going to malls and baseball games, the terrorists had a victory. When some asshat tried to light a shoe bomb on a plane, they stopped allowing lighters (but matches were ok.. go figure), the terrorists had a victory. The list goes on. They know they will never kill 300,000,000 Americans, but they CAN affect our way of life, the way of life they hate so much. And they ARE winning battles.

Every other week we hear about a "foiled" terrorist plot. I doubt even half of them were true. They have us running so scared that all they have to do is talk about doing something, and everyone one in America puts their head between their knees and crys. Suddenly we're losing more of our beloved rights and freedoms and for what? To appease terrorists that's what.

I'm glad I don't have to fly nearly as much for work as I did last year. If I was still flying on a weekly basis with all of this crap going on, I'd probably wind up going to prison for choking a TSA agent with my shoelaces. Oh crap, now they're probably going to ban shoelaces... :mad:

BadDog
08-13-2006, 12:53 PM
Exactly. Rant on...

I'm fully sick of the *sheep* in this country more than willing to accept anything our wonderful and benevolent government wants to claim or do in the name of "safety". Give up any and all rights including guns, privacy and due process as well as saying goodbye to common sense and efficiency or convenience in our daily lives or business (and if you don’t think that affect you, take a course in basic economics). 90% of the “response” to 9/11 has been NOTHING but hand waving and blowing smoke up the bloated back sides of the mindless masses. They are confiscating items and creating “security” measures that have NO bearing on safety. But the politicians need something to point to and say “See, we are dealing with this, now just accept it, it’s for your own good.”

Can things be done to improve safety? Sure, but anything substantial generally has too much “cost” politically (read PAC and contributor issues) to make it happen, so they slough it off onto the mindless public as a bunch of highly visible and intrusive “security measures” that do nothing of substance, but can be held out as a “response” to the problem.

Not too long ago I left on a business trip not long after having gone on a family road trip and forgot to remove my mustache scissors. 2” long blades on cheap scissors that were part of a travel kit gift from my son that I forgot to remove so that everyone on the flight could be safe. You would have thought I was smuggling a bomb as I was escorted aside where they emptied every bag I had on a table as another “guard” stood between me and the table with chest all puffed out and his partner riffled through everything, wadding tossing and making as much mess as humanly possible. Then, after taking those my “weapon”, said with no further thought, “Ok, move your stuff to that other table to repack your bags and move along.” I can’t repack on that table, but have to grab arm fulls, picking up random socks or whatever I drop off the floor, and move to another table to repack as the useless buffoons stand around grinning and enjoying the aggravation they’ve caused. I’ve also had nail clippers confiscated, my wife’s Bic and had my stuff “dumped and tossed” on a table for no reason at all. Of course they left me with my ink pin, keys, and several other items which are much more effective weapons. And I could easily have a VERY effective composite knife strapped on my waist under my shirt. It’s just a bunch of posturing...

And god help you if you say something about the way your treated since you obviously “not with the program” and “may be a threat” so they can harass you to any extent they choose; to which you basically have no recourse unless you want to waste more hours waiting on “supervisors” and then filling out forms which will have no effect. anyway. Particularly considering time constraints to catch your flight, you are totally at their mercy and they know it.

But the real message from the politicians is, “See here all you mindless sheep, we are protecting your safety by hiring DROVES of low paid, unskilled, and barely trained “TSA” and other “security” personnel enforcing ineffectual and poorly thought out plans to further add to the noise, distraction and confusion at airports. Don’t you feel safer?” Don’t pay attention to low paid and high turn over baggage handlers, cleaning crews with all their gear, and “catering” trucks driven by minimum wage drivers and many others that constantly enter and leave the airports and airplanes.

And take away all carry ons? I truly wish upon ANYONE who supports that moronic notion that things in your life beyond your control change so that you are forced to travel by air frequently for 5 to 16 hours on a plane with nothing but what the airline provides for your “comfort”, particularly on modern flights where your lucky to get a cup of soda and 10 peanuts. And you don’t think a determined terrorist could strap those “supplies” on in non-metalic “money belt” type rigs, or in shoes and so on? I can’t believe anyone would stupid enough to buy into that garbage, but there are obviously plenty willing to give up anything for even the thinnest illusion of safety. Taking away carry-ons AT MOST makes in only SLIGHTLY less convenient for a determined terrorist while making the lives of all those already unfortunate enough to have to deal with air travel on a regular basis into more of a pure hell than it already is.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 01:15 PM
The problem is, when we start making people throw away mouthwash, toothpaste, and deodorant, and start taking peoples possessions and selling them (no doubt many of them trivial and relatively harmless), we are accomploishing one thing....

LETTING THE TERRORISTIS WIN!!!

Lets break this down: a terrorist is a person who rules through fear. When 9/11 happened and people stopped going to malls and baseball games, the terrorists had a victory. When some asshat tried to light a shoe bomb on a plane, they stopped allowing lighters (but matches were ok.. go figure), the terrorists had a victory. The list goes on. They know they will never kill 300,000,000 Americans, but they CAN affect our way of life, the way of life they hate so much. And they ARE winning battles.

Every other week we hear about a "foiled" terrorist plot. I doubt even half of them were true. They have us running so scared that all they have to do is talk about doing something, and everyone one in America puts their head between their knees and crys. Suddenly we're losing more of our beloved rights and freedoms and for what? To appease terrorists that's what.

I'm glad I don't have to fly nearly as much for work as I did last year. If I was still flying on a weekly basis with all of this crap going on, I'd probably wind up going to prison for choking a TSA agent with my shoelaces. Oh crap, now they're probably going to ban shoelaces... :mad:

Did people stop flying this week?No.Would they have if those planes had blown up?Yes simple as that.

Freedom? Just what freedom has been lost? The right to buy a blender on sale in Chicago and then stuff it in the overhead?Or the right to make that blender into a bomb?

See I have no problem with letting people carry whatever they want onto a plane,hell if they want to pack loaded guns or for that matter hangem on the're hip I'm fine with that because it's a level playing field.

But the situation doesn't allow it because we have limited ourselves in prosecuting the war on terror.We won't do what it takes to win.

Remember the 9/11 hijackers weren't Spainish,they weren't Belgians and they weren't Chinese,they were Muslims,logic would mean we should pay more attention to Muslims than any other group,but we don't because we're afraid the're feelings might get hurt.

Instead we are the ones being made to feel the pain,both when the bombs go off and when we want to travel.For things to change in the Muslim world they must start to feel the pain,only then will they begin to turn on the're mentally deranged relatives.

When you have a group of people who go ape s--- when a silly cartoon is drawn of the're god they only way you can deal with them is to turn the're own people against them.

Until we can change the're behavior we are stuck with changing ours.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 01:26 PM
I also will add that the VERY people bitching about the're"freedoms" being lost would be the SAME ones crying and screaming bloody murder if those planes had been blown up.

Okay,maybe toenail clippers and matches should be allowed,but if you read that list it also included machettes.Tell me why that person wasn't shoved onto the ground and cavity searched just for being stupid.

Furthermore,lets see if what you guys say is true,lets go back to pre-9/11 rules and see what happens,maybe the terrorist will just give up,or maybe we'll all need hardhats with the wreckage falling from the sky.We can board a plane chanting it as a mantra-

We're not afraid,we're not afraid.we're not afraid......BOOM!

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 01:34 PM
And take away all carry ons? I truly wish upon ANYONE who supports that moronic notion that things in your life beyond your control change so that you are forced to travel by air frequently for 5 to 16 hours on a plane with nothing but what the airline provides for your “comfort”, particularly on modern flights where your lucky to get a cup of soda and 10 peanuts. And you don’t think a determined terrorist could strap those “supplies” on in non-metalic “money belt” type rigs, or in shoes and so on? I can’t believe anyone would stupid enough to buy into that garbage, but there are obviously plenty willing to give up anything for even the thinnest illusion of safety. Taking away carry-ons AT MOST makes in only SLIGHTLY less convenient for a determined terrorist while making the lives of all those already unfortunate enough to have to deal with air travel on a regular basis into more of a pure hell than it already is.

So that the threat this week was SPECIFIC means nothing?

Millman
08-13-2006, 01:41 PM
From what I read, those hijackers were from Saudi. Not Iraq. No WMDs either. You really think 9/11 couldn't happen again because of these stupid rules? There is no such thing as "The War on Terror". Here's a scenario....I'm standing in line with my sister and her baby...some fool tells her she has to drink her own breast milk or she can't feed her baby on that plane. Whoever says that is going to get knocked on their ass; man or woman. Years from now, you'll see what I mean. It's all about fear and oil and control of the masses. The GUB needs that to OK it's next occupation of Iran and have more young men killed. I feel bad for the young soldiers, you should read some of their blogs and watch the videos of the guys on the ground, instead of believing the media.

BadDog
08-13-2006, 02:02 PM
So that the threat this week was SPECIFIC means nothing?
Exactly. How much more specific can I be?

Taking away carry-ons would only have changed their tactics. There is NOTHING that they wanted to do that would have been more than slightly inconvenienced by the loss of carry ons. A small “bladder” made using common kitchen sealers for the liquids and paste/putty along with a smaller electronic device well below the threshold of detectors, and all strapped on people under the clothes. Oh, but wait, your so willing to just keep giving and giving, I guess you advocate the “next step” listed above where we all go through cavity searches and wear surgical gowns to board.

While I think your “drinking the cool-aid” with respect to most of your comments, I do agree with the sentiment that we’ve ham-strung ourselves with regard to dealing with this problem. Profiling and other tools that WOULD work to make us safer without giving in to the terrorists as we are now doing will never be allowed by all the “liberal” activists. While the terrorists are delighted to kill and destroy where possible, their real goal is to disrupt Western Civilization to the greatest extent possible, both economically and psychologically, and we have GIVEN them every thing they could ever want for VERY little effort and actual success on their part. I do NOT like where my country is headed.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 02:39 PM
From what I read, those hijackers were from Saudi. Not Iraq. No WMDs either. You really think 9/11 couldn't happen again because of these stupid rules? There is no such thing as "The War on Terror". Here's a scenario....I'm standing in line with my sister and her baby...some fool tells her she has to drink her own breast milk or she can't feed her baby on that plane. Whoever says that is going to get knocked on their ass; man or woman. Years from now, you'll see what I mean. It's all about fear and oil and control of the masses. The GUB needs that to OK it's next occupation of Iran and have more young men killed. I feel bad for the young soldiers, you should read some of their blogs and watch the videos of the guys on the ground, instead of believing the media.

You are the reason for this mess,or rather your refusal to live in reality.You believe that this is simply a power grab and that we have nothing to fear from a GLOBAL terrorist threat.We are not the only ones being attacked and the number of attacks are increasing this IS THE REALITY.

The left and the news media which is controlled by the left(CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN,BBC) are todays Nevel Chamberlins,head in the sand all the way.

Is it any wonder that the media are the ones screaming the loudest?Or that they are the ones who sold out our NSA phone and finance tracking programs even though they were the very programs that help out this week?
What about the media taking the side of Hezballa to the point of doctoring photographs and staging scences of "victims"?
How about burying stories like the India train bombings?

I also didn't say 9/11 couldn't happen again,it would be more difficult though.Just because someone intends to do you evil do you bend over and take it,becasue that is exactly what you are saying.Do you leave your keys in the car or the doors to your house unlocked?

As I said before we are stuck with two choices,either go all out and do what it takes to win or give up some convience and survive.Currently thanks to people being mislead by the left we are in a give up and survive mindset.

As for the war in Iraq,we knew he had WMD before the gulf war,we knew he used some in the gulf war.We HAD inspectors in there for VERIFICATION before Clinton allowed them to be kicked out.Now,if this is all about GWB and Haliburton and oil then the golden boy of the DNC and the left in this country is neck deep in it too.

As for the justification for war,we knew he at least at one time had WMD,we found out that he was cheating along with UN general Cofi Annan on the oil for food program(your tax money and mine and another Clinton-Gore fiasco BTW) he was constantly breaking the no-fly zone which was provided by UN resolution and he was in fact BREAKING existing UN resolutions that limited the range of his ballsitic missles,any one or all of the above was reason enough.


I'm sure you won't believe any of this,but that is irrelevent reality marches on without you.

Tinkerer
08-13-2006, 02:47 PM
This is your Pilot... I like to welcome you to SlumberAir. We hope your supplied PJ's are comfortable. At this time you'll notice I've activated the seat belt and recline sign as the on board Antiseizieologist will be passing gas soon and you should wake you in your destination. Thank You for flying SlumberAir and Sweet Dreams. ;)

Yep nothing like holding you over a barrel and shaking. Lets see jewelry... x-mas decorations sporting equipment and toys. And they have a marketing strategy to maximize their profits with stated little overhead and can add anything to their list to boost the inventory. I'm glade I don't have to fly the FRIENDLY SKY'S :rolleyes:

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 03:16 PM
Exactly. How much more specific can I be?

Taking away carry-ons would only have changed their tactics. There is NOTHING that they wanted to do that would have been more than slightly inconvenienced by the loss of carry ons. A small “bladder” made using common kitchen sealers for the liquids and paste/putty along with a smaller electronic device well below the threshold of detectors, and all strapped on people under the clothes. Oh, but wait, your so willing to just keep giving and giving, I guess you advocate the “next step” listed above where we all go through cavity searches and wear surgical gowns to board.

Yes,do we need to keep the restrictions in place?Not permantly,just until it is reasonable that we have ALL the suspects in custody.It is only logical common sense that we take steps WHEN THE THREAT IS KNOWN AND VIABLE AS IT WAS THIS WEEK.What happens next to the suspects in this case is where our offense is derailed.Instead of being interogated and forced to give up information there is currently a crowd of lawyers lining up to defend them at our expense and in a few years they will most likely either be exhaulted to hero status by the left or freed.


While I think your “drinking the cool-aid” with respect to most of your comments, I do agree with the sentiment that we’ve ham-strung ourselves with regard to dealing with this problem. Profiling and other tools that WOULD work to make us safer without giving in to the terrorists as we are now doing will never be allowed by all the “liberal” activists. While the terrorists are delighted to kill and destroy where possible, their real goal is to disrupt Western Civilization to the greatest extent possible, both economically and psychologically, and we have GIVEN them every thing they could ever want for VERY little effort and actual success on their part. I do NOT like where my country is headed.

Sadly you are the cool-aid drinker on this point.I do not want to give up one inch of anything,I am just saying we are stuck in the defensive posture and the left along with the RINO'S are to blame.We need to stop this multi-cultural BS and get on with kicking a--.
More importantly the terrorists real goal is not disruption,that is only part of the plan.The real goal is to DIVIDE & CONQUER,they have said it time and time again,I have no clue why no one will believe it.They are in persuit of a Muslim paradise and that is all there is to it.Will they achieve this goal?No,I don't believe unless we roll over and play dead.In the reality we are stuck with we can only limit our losses until the breaking point comes.

Look at the current situation,we are trying to deal with Iran and, Russia and China are blocking us every step of the way.The French are peeing the're pants in fear of the Muslim population in France to the point that the French government is a puppet of the Islaofacist movement.

Once again it will fall on the US and a few of our close allies to save the day.The Muslims are unsure what the response would be if they set off a nuke here.Our reaction could go either way.That is my only fear,that we will loose several cities and be nearly crippled before anybody wakes up and joins us in reality.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 03:22 PM
Exactly. How much more specific can I be?

Taking away carry-ons would only have changed their tactics. There is NOTHING that they wanted to do that would have been more than slightly inconvenienced by the loss of carry ons. A small “bladder” made using common kitchen sealers for the liquids and paste/putty along with a smaller electronic device well below the threshold of detectors, and all strapped on people under the clothes. Oh, but wait, your so willing to just keep giving and giving, I guess you advocate the “next step” listed above where we all go through cavity searches and wear surgical gowns to board.

Yes,do we need to keep the restrictions in place?Not permantly,just until it is reasonable that we have ALL the suspects in custody.It is only logical common sense that we take steps WHEN THE THREAT IS KNOWN AND VIABLE AS IT WAS THIS WEEK.What happens next to the suspects in this case is where our offense is derailed.Instead of being interogated and forced to give up information there is currently a crowd of lawyers lining up to defend them at our expense and in a few years they will most likely either be exhaulted to hero status by the left or freed.


While I think your “drinking the cool-aid” with respect to most of your comments, I do agree with the sentiment that we’ve ham-strung ourselves with regard to dealing with this problem. Profiling and other tools that WOULD work to make us safer without giving in to the terrorists as we are now doing will never be allowed by all the “liberal” activists. While the terrorists are delighted to kill and destroy where possible, their real goal is to disrupt Western Civilization to the greatest extent possible, both economically and psychologically, and we have GIVEN them every thing they could ever want for VERY little effort and actual success on their part. I do NOT like where my country is headed.

Sadly you are the cool-aid drinker on this point.I do not want to give up one inch of anything,I am just saying we are stuck in the defensive posture and the left along with the RINO'S are to blame.We need to stop this multi-cultural BS and get on with kicking a--.
More importantly the terrorists real goal is not disruption,that is only part of the plan.The real goal is to DIVIDE & CONQUER,they have said it time and time again,I have no clue why no one will believe it.They are in persuit of a Muslim paradise and that is all there is to it.Will they achieve this goal?No,I don't believe unless we roll over and play dead.In the reality we are stuck with we can only limit our losses until the breaking point comes.

Look at the current situation,we are trying to deal with Iran and Russia and China are blocking us every step of the way.The French are peeing the're pants in fear of the Muslim population in France to the point that the French government is a puppet of the Islaofacist movement.

Once again it will fall on the US and a few of our close allies to save the day.The Muslims are unsure what the response would be if they set off a nuke here.Our reaction could go either way.That is my only fear,that we will loose several cities and be nearly crippled before anybody wakes up and joins us in reality.

Evan
08-13-2006, 03:32 PM
Airlock doors such as El Al uses would have prevented 911. It's a simple as that. The pilots are instructed to carry on regardless of what happens in the passenger compartment. If you cannot gain control of the cockpit you cannot hijack the plane.

So, why don't all planes have airlock doors? It would cost about three first class seats. How much did 911 cost?

As for bombs in carry on luggage I can't think of an instance where a bomb in carry on luggage has brought down a plane( I could be wrong). Sure, it's possible but it makes more sense to put it in the checked baggage with an activating device. You can put just about anything in checked luggage and it won't be examined closely.

This business of having to check everything is going to cost a great deal of aggravation and money. The X-ray scanners used to check carry on luggage are weak because they don't have to work fast or penetrate much. The scanners for checked luggage are a different story. They are many times more powerful and can not only wipe out all types of film in a single pass they can also damage eeproms in computers, cameras, mp3 players and just about any other sort of electronics. Eeproms are widely used to hold operating firmware for such devices. They can be erased by high energy radiation and the damage is cumulative even over long time periods. Although no damage may be detected after just one scan it builds up and at some point will cause failure. If you fly often you should not take your laptop in your checked baggage right now.

The checked baggage scanners such as the CTX-5000 can produce x-rays more than 300 times more powerful than the carry on scanners.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 03:52 PM
Something as cheap as a .38 snubnose in the hand of a pilot or navigator would have prevented 9/11 too.

It just peeves me that after all the knee jerk and back biting after 9/11 and what could have been done,this week when we have a real threat and we know the actual attack plan everybody is bitching and moaning because they had to go to Walmart and buy somemore tooth paste and mouthwash:rolleyes:Ya,I'm dead,but I'm on time and my breath is minty fresh:D

BadDog
08-13-2006, 04:54 PM
I agree with you on the hard line "we need to get this done" stance. No more Vietnam "try to do it with our hands tied” crap, send the blasted bleeding heart pacifists over there and let them live with the murdering scum they are so eager to protect. Same for the lawyers. Give the pilots guns, solid doors (which most planes sorta have now, though not El Al standards), put armed Marshals on every flight, “profile” as needed, and then simply require all middle eastern nationals (or any high risk individuals) to go through additional security checks. Give the “high risk” individuals cause to alter their behavior and go out of their way to become “low risk” or let them deal with the trouble, not everyone else. Sure there are terrorists and sympathizers who are already US or “friendly” citizens and could slip through (how is that different than now?), but that one action would improve our safety far beyond *everything* else that’s been done since 9/11. I’m also not opposed to turning the entire Middle East into a smoking crater if they can’t be persuaded to police their own. If they want to let the terrorist hide among them, then take them down too since they are then collaborating accomplices. Women and children included. If the illegal Mexican’s in the SW started acting like the Middle East terrorists (not an attack on Mexicans, just a convenient “they are dispersed among us and not easily isolated" analog with mixed support among the citizenry), I would either get the hell out of the area or do what I could to help get them eradicated. And if I didn’t do one or the other, I would expect that my family would be in jeopardy as the “bad guys” are eliminated while hiding amongst us. As you suggest, when they (as in *all* of their brethren) start feeling the painful backwash of the extremists, then either there will start to be a lot more “weeding from within” (directly or through tips) or they will all be dead, either way, it’s over...

But I strongly and TOTALLY disagree with the reactionary over reacting that does NOTHING to increase safety and that you are so quick to accept. For dealing with an “actual attack plan” as you suggest, sure, go through every single piece of checked and carry on baggage as needed to deal with THAT INSTANCE. And of course there will be delays as unpleasant as that will be. My wife was traveling back from the East Coast that day and her 5 hour flight took over 10 by the time it was over (due to weather AND terrorist crap). But once things like this start happening, it far too often becomes normal as vocal folks decry how we must give up convenience if there is any hope (or rather false promise) of more safety. And of course TSA gets more power and funding, so that bureaucratic agency is fully in support of such “required” measures just as any bureaucratic agency would be.

And even on the DAY of the “actual attack plan”, do you really think it would take them even an hour to adapt once they know the news is out? They either will reschedule or adapt. Put yourself in their shoes. Now arguably any religious fanatic (Christian, Jew, Muslim, take you pick, the nut jobs come in all flavors) is not going to be the brightest or most adaptable (doing gods will after all?), but if it was *ME* that was trying to do something like that, and IF I was a stupid fanatical religious nut job hell bent on taking the fast train to “paradise” like they are, then it wouldn’t take me even an hour to adapt to the “no carry on” rule and STILL carry out my mission right in the middle of all the poor traveling folks who are the ONLY ones suffering any negative effects as the TSA and government agencies seize yet another excuse to broaden their control over “law abiding” US citizens (and otherwise empire building within as well) and the terrorist gloat over all the disruption they have caused EVEN if they do not adapt and move forward anyway.

So the gov agencies win more power, the terrorists win in that they accomplished at least part of their goals even though they were “neutralized” before doing physical damage, and other than a few people detained (who will likely be living better than I will, and at the least will be “heroes” to their people and “god”), who suffers in this scenario???

In reality, the simple fact that several “attack plans” have been so “easily” (and fully) stopped, showing none of the adaptability and perseverance that has been evidenced in the Iraq and Afgan wars, makes me question the accuracy of the information we’ve been fed about these “neutralized threats” anyway.

sch
08-13-2006, 09:33 PM
Many other countries don't have any problem with supplying an envelope that is sealed, stowed in the plane and returned to the passenger at the other end of the flight to handle 'contraband de jur'. As mill man says, the police and feds have gotten so use to confiscation as a tactic with 'drug smugglers' that they now routinely seize any significant cash lode found anywhere with
little recourse, extending this to the latest in contraband is easily done by the TSA machinery.
Steve

Evan
08-13-2006, 09:47 PM
In reality, the simple fact that several “attack plans” have been so “easily” (and fully) stopped, showing none of the adaptability and perseverance that has been evidenced in the Iraq and Afgan wars, makes me question the accuracy of the information we’ve been fed about these “neutralized threats” anyway.

It isn't hard to become paranoid over this, and I don't mean attack by terrorists. I lean strongly toward the boogie man theory myself. How easy is it for a government to manufacture a desperately dangerous threat and then a stunning success in defeating it in the nick of time? Far too easy, especially when nobody is actually killed.

BTW, whatever happened to the anthrax problem, anyway? Was that just a way to justify reading everyone's mail when thought desirable?

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 11:15 PM
But I strongly and TOTALLY disagree with the reactionary over reacting that does NOTHING to increase safety and that you are so quick to accept. For dealing with an “actual attack plan” as you suggest, sure, go through every single piece of checked and carry on baggage as needed to deal with THAT INSTANCE. And of course there will be delays as unpleasant as that will be. My wife was traveling back from the East Coast that day and her 5 hour flight took over 10 by the time it was over (due to weather AND terrorist crap). But once things like this start happening, it far too often becomes normal as vocal folks decry how we must give up convenience if there is any hope (or rather false promise) of more safety. And of course TSA gets more power and funding, so that bureaucratic agency is fully in support of such “required” measures just as any bureaucratic agency would be.

And even on the DAY of the “actual attack plan”, do you really think it would take them even an hour to adapt once they know the news is out? They either will reschedule or adapt. Put yourself in their shoes. Now arguably any religious fanatic (Christian, Jew, Muslim, take you pick, the nut jobs come in all flavors) is not going to be the brightest or most adaptable (doing gods will after all?), but if it was *ME* that was trying to do something like that, and IF I was a stupid fanatical religious nut job hell bent on taking the fast train to “paradise” like they are, then it wouldn’t take me even an hour to adapt to the “no carry on” rule and STILL carry out my mission right in the middle of all the poor traveling folks who are the ONLY ones suffering any negative effects as the TSA and government agencies seize yet another excuse to broaden their control over “law abiding” US citizens (and otherwise empire building within as well) and the terrorist gloat over all the disruption they have caused EVEN if they do not adapt and move forward anyway.

.

Like I have said,I don't want to give anything up,nor have we given anything up.The real knee jerk here is the idea that this ban will be permanant.
For a better view look at this from the side of the officials in charge.Put yourself in the're position,

You learn from a allied government that they have uncovered an active plot to board and then blow up several jets using crude homemade bombs disgused as common items such as cameras and mouthwash and the plan is in it's final stage with the mules boarding possibly that morning,what do you do?

Add to that the last time there was a sucessful hijacking you were blamed by the media and the libs for not having ESP and foiling the plot.The result of this was six months of investigation as to how much you knew and when you knew it,then six more months of sham hearings where you are blamed for the mistakes of a previous administration and in the end are the center of a bunch of cook theories involving Zionists and iluminati.

So,I ask you,what would you do?

Fact is we can never be totally safe,but to allow a known threat to happen,especially when all of the suspects were not rounded up when the plot was revealed would be irresponsible.I don't think the bans will be permanant and I don't think we'll see any money moving anywhere.Simple fact is there are many soft targets that are much easier to hit.On that note I think the reason we haven't seen a Beslan,Ryssia type attack here is because the Muslims here understand that it could be a very different America for them the following day.

wierdscience
08-13-2006, 11:23 PM
It isn't hard to become paranoid over this, and I don't mean attack by terrorists. I lean strongly toward the boogie man theory myself. How easy is it for a government to manufacture a desperately dangerous threat and then a stunning success in defeating it in the nick of time? Far too easy, especially when nobody is actually killed.

Then is EVERY government in the whole world involved?Remember,it's just the US they are attacking,Canada was/still is in the crosshairs.


BTW, whatever happened to the anthrax problem, anyway? Was that just a way to justify reading everyone's mail when thought desirable?

Well I do know that USPS is irradiating most of the mail now.

Getting back to the subject of cockpit doors,I don't think they would be totally effective for one reason,foriegn airlines and pilots.

There is nothing to say that a foreign airliner will be equiped with an airlock door,or guards.Not to mention we have had one case of a Muslim pilot crashing a plane load of people already.

Evan
08-14-2006, 12:25 AM
There is nothing to say that a foreign airliner will be equiped with an airlock door,or guards.

They will be shortly if you don't let them land here.

It's to the advantage of every government to have an outside threat, real or imagined, to distract the population from whatever problems the government has at home, and governments always have problems at home. It's the oldest ploy in politics and politics is the real oldest profession although there isn't a significant difference between it and the other "oldest" profession.

Even if a country hasn't bought in to the entire terrorist threat defense scenario they are still using it to their advantage. Situations as exist now allow governments to justify actions that would otherwise be generally unaceptable to the population. Just look around in the US.

I find it unbeliveable that the USA with it's intelligence and military resources hasn't been able to find and capture or kill one man that they claim to desperately want in the last several years. The one explanation that makes sense is also the most likely one. Osama bin Laden is far more valuable as a boogie man than as a martyr languishing in a prison somewhere.

AZSORT
08-14-2006, 12:36 AM
Its not called commercial aviation for nothing. You are voluntarily entering into an admiralty jurisdiction by accepting the ticket and agreeing to all the rules and regulations of this enterprise adminstered by the FAA under the commerce clause of the constitution. Legally, its about the same as when sailors used to ship out on the high seas. You ever notice how the pilot is called Captain? He's the head guy all right, with complete authority while your on board. Notice all those nautical terms? Came from maritime law. Driving has a lot of it too. Air-port, ports of entry, bills of lading, docks, etc. Its a priviledge to fly - not a right. In this day and age of the good ship America, there is very little you get to do as a matter of right anymore. Get over it, be good little serfs and enjoy the prosperity.

Rustybolt
08-14-2006, 09:36 AM
find it unbeliveable that the USA with it's intelligence and military resources hasn't been able to find and capture or kill one man that they claim to desperately want in the last several years. The one explanation that makes sense is also the most likely one. Osama bin Laden is far more valuable as a boogie man than as a martyr languishing in a prison somewhere.


here is where we are going to have to disagree. Given the same set of circumstances for anywhere in the world, say Canada, with the help of your neighbors,you could go off the radar indefinately. No matter who is looking for you.Just look at that guy who bombed abortion clinics.

You can ascribe any motive you want, but absent any proof that the government conspired not to find him, you have to conclude the guy is just good at hiding. There is no conspiracy. The most efficient branch of the US government is the post office.

wierdscience
08-14-2006, 09:51 AM
With $80m on his head Osama has a lot of people either looking for him or dying in the attempt.There were a couple articles by the AP on people who have gone looking for him turning up dead and mutilated in the Darka region were they think he is.
Me,I could do provided I could pack enough ammo along with me,in a region where you can't trust anybody the best bet is to kill everybody you meet:D

As for satellite intel,all it can prove is that he isn't on the roof.

Now,on a different note,if you have a guy like him in your sights and you know where he is and what he is up to,do you kill him,or use him to locate his footsoldiers first?

Where ever he is you can bet with $80m on his head he is hiding from his own people.

Evan
08-14-2006, 10:25 AM
You can ascribe any motive you want, but absent any proof that the government conspired not to find him, you have to conclude the guy is just good at hiding. There is no conspiracy.

What conspiracy? We have a group of people who are charged with running the government. Many of the decisions they make are made behind closed doors in secret and are not available for public scrutiny. That is the norm for matters of national security and defense.

Wait a minute... That does sound like a conspiracy. You decide.

Alistair Hosie
08-14-2006, 11:27 AM
I agree with Evan on the boggie man theorie the government here in the UK are playing up the recent crisis and making the most politically out of it they can warning us we must never take all our eyes of the ball.Only thing is Evan airlock doors are useless if the terrorists so called are willing to blow themselves up Alistair

JCHannum
08-14-2006, 11:28 AM
Wait a minute... That does sound like a conspiracy. You decide.

No, that sounds like the neccesities of national security. Without that, something like D Day could never have happened.

As far as killing or capturing OBL, his demise will not cause Al Queda to implode, or the middle east problems to vanish. Fixating on one man is a mistake. The organization is the problem.

OBL is probably in a cave or rat hole like Sadam was found in. That is not a bad place for him. If he is captured or killed, he will become a martyr and a rallying point for the crazies that support him.

Evan
08-14-2006, 12:21 PM
OBL is probably in a cave or rat hole like Sadam was found in. That is not a bad place for him. If he is captured or killed, he will become a martyr and a rallying point for the crazies that support him.

Precisely. That logic lends support to the idea that he is more valuable as a vague and undefined threat, a boogie man. So why make a show of desperately wanting to capture or kill him? Simply dismiss him as unimportant.

JCHannum
08-14-2006, 01:10 PM
Precisely. That logic lends support to the idea that he is more valuable as a vague and undefined threat, a boogie man. So why make a show of desperately wanting to capture or kill him? Simply dismiss him as unimportant.

Yes Evan, that is why I said fixating on one man is a mistake. It is the libs that are using OBL as a boogey man to support their views of the inefficiency of the war effort, when in fact it is their poster boy who let him get away to begin with.

EDMTech
08-14-2006, 09:19 PM
Until we can change the're behavior we are stuck with changing ours.

Defiance is a powerful weapon.

Give the bully your lunch money today, and he'll come for it again tomorrow.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I don't think what we are doing is necessarily the right thing.

Think of this: if you're a terrorist trying to sneak a liquid explosive on a plane, a plane that they are going to be on when they detonate it, I doubt they are particularly concerned with their health. So what is to stop them from drinking whatever explosive chemical they have? You don't have to "drink" like a half gallon of the stuff I'm sure, just a little nip. Also, the real risk is two fairly inert chemicals, like a nitride and glycerine. Both clear, odorless chemicals that are pretty much inert when sepearated. Mustapha takes on one chemical, and sits in the front of the plane. Having never been seen with Mustapha, Hakeem brings on the other chemical and sits in the rear of the plane. Mid flight, a couple of bathroom trips exchange the chemicals and it's over.

Do you think these guys dumb? 9/11 should have shown their resourcefulness. They can figure this stuff out, rules or no rules.

Read the thread here on "bump locks". Saftey is just an illusion we create for ourselves. Terrorists are smart, dedicated, patient, organzied, and often well funded people. Making you and I toss that bag of Dorito's we picked up at the airport newsstand isn't going to save anybody. Neither is not allowing us to carry on our laptops so they can throw them 50 feet across the plane's fuseloge like they do with the rest of our luggage, then claim no responsability when you get to your meeting and that presentation you spent the last 3 weeks on is inaccessable. If someone wants to put a bomb in a laptop, it's not going to matter if it's in the cabin or cargo hold, the technology to make a timer or remote to detonate it is covered in the first 2 weeks of high school electronics.

All of this crap is just feel good, insurance liability kind of hype to keep people from being too scared to fly. Know what will make me feel better? Close the borders. Actually enforce laws on overextended visas. And yes, at the risk of offending a few people who are getting the opportunity of a lifetime by living here, more careful screening and survailance of people immagrating here from Muslim fundamentalist countries.

EDMTech
08-14-2006, 09:24 PM
I should also mention; no amount of airport security is going to stop someone from camping out a half mile from the airport in a van with an RPG.

So worried about saftey? Lock youself in a fireproof, padded room with a lifetime supply of food and a telephone directly linked to 911. As for me, odds of getting killed crossing the street are probably 2000x higher than that of dying in a terrorist attack. I still feel safer on a plane than I do in many neighborhoods in this country.

wierdscience
08-15-2006, 01:34 AM
I should also mention; no amount of airport security is going to stop someone from camping out a half mile from the airport in a van with an RPG.

So worried about saftey? Lock youself in a fireproof, padded room with a lifetime supply of food and a telephone directly linked to 911. As for me, odds of getting killed crossing the street are probably 2000x higher than that of dying in a terrorist attack. I still feel safer on a plane than I do in many neighborhoods in this country.

I'm not the least worried about my safty,my family,flying the same morning as this crap went down,yes.I don't like it anymore than anyone else,but we have allowed a small minority of people in this country to convince many that terrosim isn't a real threat which means sadly we are stuck with make-do defensive tactics instead of staying on offense 24/7/365

There are at least 1,000 ways they can hit us,when we find out #959 is the plan today,we must act,not to act is foolish.There is a huge difference between what they might do and what we know they are doing right now.

The little nut from Iran was on 60minutes last night,he claimed to have 50,000 suicide bombers waiting on a phone call,is he bluffing I don't know.Last week he was returning home from a trip to Indonesia by plane,we had our chance and missed it.

The little nut has said August 22nd is the date to watch,lets see.

Rustybolt
08-15-2006, 10:12 AM
I agree with Evan on the boggie man theorie the government here in the UK are playing up the recent crisis and making the most politically out of it they can warning us we must never take all our eyes of the ball.Only thing is Evan airlock doors are useless if the terrorists so called are willing to blow themselves up Alistair



Alistair. Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but these boogymen have a nasty tendancy for going to great lengths to really blowing people up. In the case of small firearms, large husbands, and islamic wackos, it's best to err on the side of caution.

Evan
08-15-2006, 10:33 AM
Nobody said that he isn't dangerous as a rallying point for the "cause". Boogey men are supposed to be dangerous. The point is that he is more useful for political purposes as a figure lurking in the shadows than a pathetic broken person such as Saddam appeared when captured. Having him loose but largely cut off from his network and not free to move suits the ends of more than one government and cause.

JCHannum
08-15-2006, 11:42 AM
Having him loose and largely cut off from his network and not free to move is a strategy that has been successful in reducing him to an ineffectual figure living in a cave or rathole. Leaving him there prevents him from achieving martyr status and also prevents anyone else from taking over the reins. That sounds like an effective strategy to me.

The tinfoil hat brigade will turn anything they can into a "conspiracy". It is sickening to listen to the theories that Sept. 11 was a government plot.

Evan
08-15-2006, 01:43 PM
The term "conspiracy" is overused. You must remember that we are not party to everything that goes on in the high circles of government. The people in power are not purely motivated by unselfish concern for their fellow man and the health and welfare of the USA. Altruism is rare in those circles. Vested self interest is common. Groups of such people form circles of power that reenforce and share those self interests. Actions are taken within the scope of the power they wield to further those interests.

It doesn't necessarily coincide with the interests of the people they govern or the best interest of the state in general.

Millman
08-15-2006, 01:59 PM
Evan, you definitely understand how the "Ruling class" operates. That's the way it's been since the beginning of time. If that tribe has fire and women; and you don't; the only choice is to go get it. Political heathens.

JCHannum
08-15-2006, 06:35 PM
The choice of the word conspiracy was yours. I was merely responding to your premise that it is a conspiracy to let OBL remain alive, when there is just as good an argument to support that it is a successful strategy.

Evan
08-15-2006, 06:39 PM
Actually, I was responding to Rustybolt.


You can ascribe any motive you want, but absent any proof that the government conspired not to find him, you have to conclude the guy is just good at hiding. There is no conspiracy. The most efficient branch of the US government is the post office.

gmatov
08-16-2006, 02:17 AM
This is so ridiculous.

There's them of you who blame it all on the "Liberals", who have not won a vote in Congress in over 12 years.
GW is in charge, both houses of Congress are Rep, the Supremes are mostly Rep, yet you a**es say it is the Libs, and the Lib media, who put out this crap of "Terror" alert levels.

I don't think it is a Dem thing, or an ACLU thing, that a Medal of Honor winner, 80 years old, is targeted for a strip search. I don't think it is a Dem thing, or an ACLU thing, that says they should strip search an 80 year old Caucasian woman, rather than however many apparent Middle Eastern men of 20 to 40 years of age board the same plane.

I also seriously doubt that YOUR Rep gubmint has interdicted oh so many terrorist plots from being carried out on our planes. Thay DO like to say they have done so. SOME of YOU DO like to believe that. For you, I really wish I had a decent reproduction of the title to the Brooklyn Bridge. I could make a fortune.

JC,
I thought GW was supposed to get him in Afghanistan. We sent in troops, BUT, it seems GW had a bigger kettle of fish to fry. He wanted to get Saddam to avenge his Dad, whom Saddam tried to kill. Ipso facto, take the money from the Afghanistan adventure, do your dirty work in Iraq, conjure up a "War".

How in the Hell you guys, PURE NeoCons, can continue kissing this admin's asses, I cannot comprehend. Must be a LOT of you making a million a year or more with your "home machine shop". Don't know what you are doing here, unless you are more of the "moles".

Baddog,

I agree with you to a great extent. They are getting to control more of what you can do. The Gubmint has ALL the control it has ever wanted, and all due to the GW Bush Admin. Scare the hell out of you, you will accept all their BS.
Give them all the more control.

Wierdscience,

You scare the hell out of me. EVERYTHING GW says is OK with you. That is the scary part. AND, you pass it on to the forum , here.

You surely ARE wierd. Absolutely no discernment. They said it, I believe it, that settles it. You'd think you were a Catholic, but you must be a Born Again Baptist.

I don't really like you guys. You think only you have the "true way".

You are as full of **** as the proverbial "Christmas Goose".

You might not like that reference, but, big F**kin' deal.

Cheers,

George

BillH
08-16-2006, 02:29 AM
Yep, the liberals are still bitter about Bush.
I dont like Bush that much any more, he has gone soft and too far to the left for my taste.
When he was first elected, people were worried about his foreign policy and thought he had a rock solid domestic policy. Turns out he has a rock solid foreign policy(war on terror) and a horrible domestic policy(legalizing illegal immigrants)
I still give him an A+ for war on terror and Tax cuts. Immigration, an F-.

BadDog
08-16-2006, 05:25 PM
I had resolved to ignore anything further in this post as it goes ever further off topic, but then I saw THIS (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200608/msg00087.html) marvelous description of exactly what I was trying to convey earlier. I just figured several of the posters in this thread might enjoy (or benefit from) reading it.

Evan
08-16-2006, 05:45 PM
I didn't read the entire thing. However I read enough. I don't know where he got the idea that the supposed plot was to make triacetone triperoxide (TATP) on the plane. It isn't feasible. That is the explosive the subway bombers used but it was made in advance.

My take is that they were intending to use a binary liquid explosive which TATP is not. TATP is a white crystalline powder.

A common component of a liquid binary explosive is nitromethane. Nitromethane is a liquid high explosive all by itself but is is incredibly insensitive at room temperature. To make it sensitive enough to detonate a sensitizer must be added. A variety of amine based chemicals will do the job, ethylamine works fine, so that all that is needed is a blasting cap or equivalent.

All that is needed is to mix the two chemicals to form a suitable high explosive, In fact, just such commercial explosives exist and are popular because they can be shipped separately without being classed as explosives.

On the subject of having to taste the liquid, that would not be advisable if you are a terrorist planning on living long enough to carry out the plot. Nitromethane is extremely toxic and if you sipped some you probably wouldn't make it to the plane.

topct
08-16-2006, 06:16 PM
A grandious vishionois, (my spelling sucks) for the HSM. (forgot to add a smiley here) :D

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/B28bomb.gif

The details of the above construction are avialable on line for.....Free..:D

BadDog
08-16-2006, 06:22 PM
Actually, I have no knowledge of the applicability or accuracy of his chemistry. I was more interested in the over all point which is, IMO, quite valid...

Edit: On your point about the 2-part explosives. They could easily be brought on board in bladders (assuming something can be found to hold such compounds for a sufficient length of time without rupture) strapped to terrorists under their cloths, or in inside convenient body cavities. As I said, along with others and this guy, the current "can't take liquids of any kind on board" is a useless farce and typical meaningless "feel good/safe" propaganda intended to show that “something is being done” for the sheep-like masses. And as a result of this BS, my trip this week end will be a worse inconvenience than it always is, AND I will be NO safer in the bargin.

Evan
08-16-2006, 06:55 PM
I completely agree BD. Sure glad that I don't have to fly on business like I used to.

Evan
08-16-2006, 07:21 PM
The details of the above construction are avialable on line for.....Free..:D

There is a much easier way to build an infernal 9th planetium kaboom device. It isn't portable though. All you need is a few lbs of plutorock, an old house, some well casing, a few dozen machinists willing to die for the cause and a welder plus a few truckloads of concrete and a few other goodies.

It's called an "inertial containment device".

You machine two subcritical hemispheres of plutonium. (dang, I said it. Now I gotta watch out for the black helicopters). Set them aside in a safe place. That's the part where you use up a couple of dozen machinists, plutonium is highly toxic.

Buy an old house near downtown soon-to-be-disturbed-city-of-your-choice. Buy about 30 feet of 6" well casing and install with welder so the bottom is in the basement and the top in the attic. Fill the basement with concrete. It doesn't have to be the entire basement, just a room with the bottom of the well casing in it will do.


Drill a couple of holes near the top of the well casing about 5 feet down from the top to accomodate a pair of 1/4" steel rods to bridge the ID.

Go buy a few hundred pounds of wheel weights and have a barbeque. Melt them down and cast a cylinder in the shape of the ID of the well casing and containing one of the hemispheres of the plutonium flat side up at the top. Make it about 100 lbs. Drop this into the well casing to the bottom. Make another just like it.

Insert the rods near the top and drop in the other lead+Pu insert on these rods with the PU facing flat side down. Pack another 50 or so lbs of your favorite high explosive on top of this, TATP will do nicely.

That's it. When the explosive charge is set off the lead+Pu will be fired down the pipe with enough inertial energy to keep the hemispheres together long enough for a supercritical reaction to occur. BOOM. Estimated yield is maybe several kilotons.

BTW Craig, don't panic. Similar instructions were published by Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine over 20 years ago. The government didn't like it but decided they couldn't do anything as it was already public knowledge. The difficult part is getting the plutonium. However, there is enough plutonium missing from various inventories to build at least several devices such as this.

wierdscience
08-16-2006, 10:23 PM
This is so ridiculous.


Wierdscience,

You scare the hell out of me. EVERYTHING GW says is OK with you. That is the scary part. AND, you pass it on to the forum , here.



Everything GW says isn't okay with me,he is fiscally liberal,socially conservative and internationally middle of the road.Tax cuts were okay,intitlement spending I didn't like,Iraq and Afganistan I have no problem with,but Iran and Syria should have been next.

So far as passing it on,you obviously have no problem doing that yourself,but you shouldn't become deranged and act like a 2 year old.


You surely ARE wierd. Absolutely no discernment. They said it, I believe it, that settles it. You'd think you were a Catholic, but you must be a Born Again Baptist.

Not a Catholic,or Baptist,but I do follow the Christian faith.By your statement you must be an anti-christian biggot of sorts.



I don't really like you guys. You think only you have the "true way".

You are as full of **** as the proverbial "Christmas Goose".

You might not like that reference, but, big F**kin' deal.

Cheers,

George

I like you,well at least when you can respond to a post like an adult.Notice how many posts we have on this thread and yours is the only one that resorted to personal attacks?

Typical immature tactics,steer a discussion you don't like into the ditch because you have no coherant argument.

chief
08-17-2006, 01:48 AM
Or had any more successful terrorist attacks in the U.S. since these polices were implemented???
If the government made all this up it would have been leaked and verified by now. The muslims want you dead, they have stated this in plain langauge a hundred times, what part of " America should be islamic and all non believers killed "don't some of you people understand?

Evan
08-17-2006, 01:55 AM
The muslims want you dead, they have stated this in plain langauge a hundred times, what part of " America should be islamic and all non believers killed "don't some of you people understand?

The radical muslim extremists want that. The average muslim wants no such thing. At the most, they want America's money, which they get by selling oil. It works out quite well for them and killing off their market is not in their best interest and they know it.

chief
08-17-2006, 03:16 AM
Hillary, Al gore, Kofi Annan and Bono will save you. Too bad the average muslim does what the mullahs tell him to do.

BadDog
08-17-2006, 03:35 AM
Yeah, there are some/many nut case Muslims that do want us all dead. So? Nobody has disputed that. The issue at hand (at least since the topic got derailed) is whether the current measures are in any way meaningful. Most feel the answer is a resounding “NO!”

You seem to be holding out our not having lost another plane or been damaged by another attack as evidence that they DO work. I really hope you are just trolling, but just in case, I would like to say that to state such a thing is unbelievably naive and shows a complete lack of rational thought, making your sig somewhat ironic. :D

Consider this... Can you stick a dime store sticker having the text “This home protected by ICU Security Surveillance Systems Inc.”, and then definitively state a year later that this is a viable security measure simply because you have not suffered a home invasion since putting it up? Or a more accurate analogy, perhaps you placed 15 dead bolts on the door along with 5 key pads, and other measures forcing you to spend an extra hour EVERY time you want to go into the house (even in the rain and blizzards) while ignoring the windows and the other 3 access doors altogether, THEN claim that because you have not suffered a home invasion, THEN you MUST have sufficient security measures in place. Or one more; you buy a $30 radar and laser scrambler for your car from a guy with a POB in NYC and then successfully drive 75 in a 65 for 100 miles without getting a ticket, in spite of seeing several patrol cars along the way, THEREFOR PROVING that it works. I maintain that IF our current situation is proof that our security measures are viable or even meaningful, THEN all those scenarios must be equally valid.

Or do you start to see the problem with your logic?

And just to spell out the obvious, consider the front door taking an hour for each entry which is very much like our current situation when flying. The “security measures” on the front door make you life frustrating and aggravating again and again for you, the rightful owner and occupant. Then a burglar, rapist, or other miscreant will simply note that the hassles are easily avoided and, on their own terms and timing, just come in the side door without a second thought or delay. Now you’ve been miserable for a year, preaching to the world how good you security is since it’s protected you 100% thus far, and yet it made no difference when actually put to the test...

JCHannum
08-17-2006, 11:35 AM
The "radical Muslim extremists" that want us dead are increasing in power, and several are now running countries. The "average Muslims" are doing little if anything to hold these guys back and, in fact, seem happy to see them in power.

As far as airport and airline security, if doing something is wrong simply because it happens to inconvenience you, then what is the alternative? To do nothing?

There are many other things that can and should be done to increase airline security. Sky marshals and profiling to name the simplest to implement. These will have to happen at some time. It appears Britain is making no bones about implementing profiling, and that is as it should be. Even with these measures in effect, it still makes good sense to have a comprehensive inspection of boarders and their luggage.

As previously pointed out, air travel is not a right. If you do not wish to be subjected to the requirements, use another method.

Evan
08-17-2006, 11:47 AM
As far as airport and airline security, if doing something is wrong simply because it happens to inconvenience you, then what is the alternative? To do nothing?

The alternative is to actually improve security instead of making a show of improving security. Almost nothing that has been done has the effect of really improving security. It is for appearances only and the people implementing it know that perfectly well. They are operating on the "if it tastes bad it must be good for you" principle.

Taking away nail scissors from grandmothers is utterly ridiculous when ceramic and plastic knives are available to anyone and cannot be detected. I used to travel frequently before 911 and to prove that my laptop was "safe" I had to turn it on and show that it worked. That was absolutely useless for security and only proved that it was an operational timing device for the bombs that could have been hidden in the two extra empty but covered battery compartments that model has.



As previously pointed out, air travel is not a right. If you do not wish to be subjected to the requirements, use another method.

Have you tried rowing to Europe lately?

Evan
08-17-2006, 12:30 PM
As previously pointed out, air travel is not a right

Further to that comment, that is the same as saying that travel is not a right, by any means. The fact that somebody else provides carriage isn't the issue. There have been and still are governments that deny their citizens the freedom to travel. If you subscribe to that philosophy as permissible then I suggest you try visiting one of those countries, if they will let you.

Travel isn't a right, it's a freedom. That freedom is being severely eroded. Are you comfortable with that?

JCHannum
08-17-2006, 01:11 PM
As I mentioned, there are definitely other approaches that must be taken to increase airline security.

Boarding inspection is merely one tool. Since it was already in effect, increasing the level of inspection was easily implemented. Since Sept. 11, many other methods have been added to increase the effectiveness of the inspection, while some of the silliness has been eliminated.

By saying air travel is a right, I have defined air travel as a parameter. That is definitely not the same as saying travel by any means. Travel is a freedom in this country, the means is your decision. I have flown to California twice this year, and in no way do I feel that my rights were interfered with.

Millman
08-17-2006, 01:23 PM
Last night on the news , more stories saying how the nuclear power plants were not secure, guess people can still gain access through the gates! It's all about fear and control of the masses. Keep them scared and they will do what they are told, when they are told. Let the passengers start carrying weapons. In a lot of bar fights, just showing your weapon, will make people think twice.

thistle
08-17-2006, 03:11 PM
Having just been travelling , I have to wonder what good it is to stop travellers carring a bottle of water, and calling out fighter escorts fora 60 year old women with a tube of face cream when read all about it......

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060807_1_n.shtml



7 August 2006

Iran answers Hizbullah call for SAM systems

By Robin Hughes JDW Deputy Editor
London Additional reporting by Alon Ben-David JDW Staff Reporter
Israeli-Lebanese border

Iran is to supply the Islamic Resistance - the armed wing of the Lebanese Shi'ite Party of God (Hizbullah) - with a quantity of surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems over the coming months, Western diplomatic sources have confirmed to Jane's.

According to the sources, Tehran will supply Hizbullah with Russian-produced SAMs, including the Strela-2/2M (SA-7 'Grail'), Strela-3 (SA-14 'Gremlin') and Igla-1E (SA-16 'Gimlet') man-portable SAM systems.

Iran is also understood to have agreed to deliver its own version of the Chinese QW-1 man-portable low- to very-low-altitude SAM system - the Mithaq-1- developed by the Iranian Defence Ministry's Shahid Kazemi Industrial Complex in Tehran.

Iran launched a mass production line for an advanced variant, the Mithaq-2 - believed to be a short-range passive infra-red SAM - on 6 February. Both variants, believed to be based on Chinese technology, are understood to have been made available for Hizbullah.

However, Jane's understands that Hizbullah already has Iranian-supplied Strela 2s in its inventory

Israel Air Force sources say that their platforms, most notably helicopters, have encountered Strela-2 fire throughout the current conflict. Senior Israel Defence Force sources told Jane's that they believe that Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps personnel, in support of Hizbullah, were involved in these launches.

195 of 953 words


© 2006 Jane's Information Group

i wonder if they are going to ask the Jihadists for an end user certificate?

Evan
08-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Big deal. The US has been selling stinger missiles to the Saudis for over 20 years.

Weston Bye
08-17-2006, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=thistle] I have to wonder what good it is to stop travellers carring a bottle of water, and calling out fighter escorts fora 60 year old women with a tube of face cream when read all about it......

QUOTE]

I happened to catch the ABC evening news last night, the first report about the incident with the woman. A fellow passenger interviewed said he talked with her before the incident; she claimed to be a journalist, claimed that she made it through screening with vaseline and four lighters, claimed she was testing the system.

None of that is being reported today. Just coverage to the effect that she was deranged. Maybe so, but...

Not the first time I have seen the story change mid coverage.

Wes

chief
08-17-2006, 07:49 PM
Baddog,
First, I'm not trolling, I have been a board member for many years, Secondly
my job is in the security and personal safety field, I know what works and what doesn't. You recieve only the inforamation that is made public.
We have a long way to go in many areas, ports, borders etc. As explosive devices become more difficult to detect security measures must also change to meet the need. It's better to take a little time and arrive safely.
I am of course open to any actual suggestion as to how to improve the system. Just whining about however is only wasting time. Racial profiling works but the the left snivels about it.

Evan
08-17-2006, 08:33 PM
The threat isn't nearly as great as we are led to believe. If it was there would be planes falling out of the sky daily. Somebody with skill and knowledge would have no trouble making an indetectable device to go in checked luggage and triggered by a barometer or timer. The terrorists evidently do not either have anyone with such skills or aren't as bent on destroying us as some seem to believe.

Just for example, the explosive TATP cannot be detected by sniffers or neutron backscatter. It does not contain nitrogen. It is also largely transparent to x-rays. A trigger device can be made to fit in a pen. TATP differs from glucose by only two oxygen atoms, TATP is C6H12O4 and glucose is C6H12O6. There is no technology that can detect it. TATP also doesn't require a high explosive initiator. It is sensitive enough to initiate with a mechanical impactor. The materials used to make it are universally available and uncontrolled and the instructions are widely available.

BadDog
08-17-2006, 08:46 PM
<sigh> I really want to stay out of this, but I seem helpless... ;)

Membership duration on the board does not negate trolling, but that's beside the point.

The fact remains, whatever your roll in “personal security”, your logic is fatally (a word far too appropriate in this case) flawed just the same as the rest of the “security administration”. You seem to be parroting the “just do something, anything at all, regardless of applicability to the problem” line so popular among the extreme left “activists”. If the inconvenience does not make us safer, then what point is the inconvenience except to drive home the incompetence of the safety administrations and their supposed (and questionable given their choices) effort to “protect” us?

And you say you are in some way “in the security and personal safety field”. Is it possible that you are somehow involved with the current farce and this hits too close to home? That would certainly explain your response.

You also challenge me (us) to provide an alternative. Let me turn that back on you. I challenge YOU to defend the current “security” (I really don’t want to use that word in this context, so I put it in quotes) activity as being in ANY way meaningful or useful. What point to take all liquids from carry-ons when dangerous people have no more chance of being stopped due to the procedure than they did without? What purpose to take nail clippers and scissors, but ignore the bic pen that makes a much more effective weapon, or any random heavy object that will make an bludgeon FAR more effective as a weapon?

I don’t need to provide an alternative to point out an utterly useless action and the resulting waste or inconvenience when I see it. If I see someone throwing salt over their shoulder to ward off bad luck, must I provide an viable alternative to ward off bad luck? That’s pretty much the same as taking water bottles from passengers in the name of “safety”. The simple fact is that we MUST start profiling along with better data tracking/sharing to have a significant positive impact safety. But the liberal extremists will never tolerate profiling and all bureaucratic agencies resist anything that might erode their power base, so cooperative data tracking/sharing is going to severely limited for all practical purposes.

So, in my opinion, the only viable response to your challenge is to suggest that we lump air travel into the same category as driving to work, or walking in the park, and eating at McDonalds. These are all things with a FAR greater chance of causing us harm than any historic action of terrorism, yet we do it every day and GOD HELP US even with our kids along. Sure, a reasonable effort should be made to “grab the low hanging fruit” by using metal detectors and “sniffers” to eliminate the potential Uzi or dirty bomb, but NOT AT THE PROHIBITIVE EXPENSE IN CONVENIENCE OR ECONOMIC IMPACT!!! Going beyond that level has gone WAY beyond the point of diminishing returns and is of no practical use other than drama and generation of “billables” for an entire sub-economy that’s sprung up to “deal with the threat”. Of course, being “in the security field” such a concept has a direct impact on your bottom line, so I don’t expect you to accept that suggestion any more than I expect the TSA to acknowledge it as viable and reasonable solution or the BATF and DEA to acknowledge the “war on drugs” as an equally abysmal failure.

You also seem to make allusions to information that you may or may not have that affects the topic, but is not known or can not be discussed. That’s a classic debating dodge used by those supposedly “in the know” but debating a weak position. See Rumsfeld, Bush, Clinton, and any other political figure for examples. But even if it were given credibility and we assume that there are magic devices in use that block the obvious attack vectors those of us on the board with no experience or interest in the matter can spot so easily, then I still say, “Why are the lame and inconvenient measures beneficial in any way?” Just like taking “assault rifles” from law abiding citizens not only does not affect the criminal’s weapons (supply or existing, other than raising the price to acquire just like with drugs) but there are so many other SUPERIOR weapons available (not to mention knives, sticks, bats, and on, and on) as to make it utterly meaningless and only troublesome/harmful to the very law abiding citizens that are supposed to be protected. In this case as in so many others, it’s nothing but posturing and feeding/stroking their special interests.

Now, I've got to go out to my shop so as to refrain from repeating the obvious yet again... ;)

JCHannum
08-17-2006, 09:13 PM
TATP is becoming common, and is being used more frequently. It has a power of about 50%-80% that of a comparable amount of TNT. It is quite unstable, and dangerous to handle. It can be detonated simply by tightening the cap on a bottle used to store it. The bomber stands a very good chance of becoming the bombee during its manufacture or before it is deployed in its ultimate location.

The technology to analyze it does exist. It costs about $20.00/test.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/4884.htm

It would be interesting to hear what the naysayers opinions would be had boarding security not been stepped up, and further incidents of airline hijacking or bombing occured.

Evan
08-17-2006, 09:34 PM
The risk of handling such explosives isn't high on the list of things to worry about for a terrorist. As for analyzing it, that is relatively trivial. You have to detect its presence first. That is not trivial until it goes bang. The point is that not much has been going bang and especially not aircraft. So, where is the threat? The "security" measures in place aren't capable of detecting such a bomb and nobody has reported actually finding such a bomb so it seems that no such bombs have been deployed even though it wouldn't be difficult.

[edit] Note that analyzing and detecting are not the same thing.

BadDog
08-17-2006, 09:50 PM
Should have gone to the shop quicker... <sigh>

And now a report from a friend of mine who was forced to check his luggage for the good of all mankind, because he had the foolish audacity to pack toothpaste and deodorant. His backpack held his laptop and other “necessities” including books and documents relevant to his job (some sensitive) and for perusal while endlessly waiting for his own good. But in an effort to ballance the weight and bulk, his checked bag, COMPLETE WITH TSA LOCK(!!!) held his battery chargers for both laptop and cell phone, a mouse, a video cable, and some other “supporting electronics” not needed for the flight. Of course, the bag was “lost”. He eventually got it today (2 days later) undamaged and apparently unopened. But his chargers, and the other electronics (basically everything BUT the toothpaste, deodorant, and his clothes) was MISSING! It wasn’t damaged or apparently opened, so the airline couldn’t care less. And the TSA apparently does not even have a mechanism for complaining or getting any kind of satisfaction being that the lock was either opened with their key or picked. Though why anyone would PICK a lock in a soft sided case is a mystery. Basically, they all told him to pound sand and he has no recourse. Estimate cost of recovery, somewhere over $300...

But gee, it’s worth every inconvenience since I am so much safer... :rolleyes:

Evan
08-17-2006, 09:58 PM
I'm heading for the shop myself.

Later.

wierdscience
08-17-2006, 10:06 PM
The risk of handling such explosives isn't high on the list of things to worry about for a terrorist. As for analyzing it, that is relatively trivial. You have to detect its presence first. That is not trivial until it goes bang. The point is that not much has been going bang and especially not aircraft. So, where is the threat? The "security" measures in place aren't capable of detecting such a bomb and nobody has reported actually finding such a bomb so it seems that no such bombs have been deployed even though it wouldn't be difficult.

[edit] Note that analyzing and detecting are not the same thing.

Except your missing the fact that the plot last week did i
involve liquid explosives and it was in the test phase.

Also all the ink pens,plastic knives and ceramic meat cleavers won't be used again,unless it's by a really stupid terrorist.What we saw last week was a trial run and a change in tactics.

Liquid expolsives have also been used in the past as recently as 1995,by Al quieda,it didn't bring the plane down,but it did kill one and mame a few people on board.

I find it ironic that the lib media has been going on and on about the alleged lack of security since 9/11,while at the same time outing what has been done for the whole world to see,even though those are the very programs that allowed the plot to be broken up.Shows us exactly who's side they are on.

BadDog
08-17-2006, 10:23 PM
The lessons of software security have some relevance here. Security that depends on secrecy and obscurity is not security at all. Like a conventional lock, it “keeps honest folks hones at best”. I despise the media in general, but in this case, they are doing the right thing. If the media can find it and “out it”, much like our ongoing discussion of the numerous options for negating ANY benefit of the current farce on here, then so can “they”. Better that even the complacent sheep who otherwise believe the “security” propaganda be forced to deal with the reality of our vulnerability along with the total lack of safety provided by the current farce. However, it is an unfortunate reality that when those same complacent sheep are presented with clear and undeniable evidence, they will inevitably morph from sheep to ostrich and insist on sticking their heads in the sand rather than deal with things head on. They would much rather try to shore up their sheltered and comfortable belief in the safety afforded by “the system” and instead will deride those who refuse to blindly comply as being simply selfish unwilling to make sacrifices for the “good of the many”. You can be sure that the government agencies bent on empire/power building, security contractors bent on holding lucrative contracts, and terrorists who are successfully impacting our economy and lives while awaiting the opportune moment to capitalize on our obvious willful ignorance, will all thank you for your assistance.

chief
08-17-2006, 11:02 PM
Bad Dog,
I work for the DoD, while not privy to everything, I do see reports not availible to the general public, as I stated before, these measures while not perfect do make things more diifficult for potential terrorists.
Driving to Mcdonald's you could hit a bus and perhap kill sixty people, drop an
airplane over an urban area and we all know what happens.
I agree that all government agencies need to improve things and the only way to improve that is by getting out and voting.
You seem to want to sit there and attempt to hold the morally superior position of being able to say " I told you so" without offering any suggestions.
Freedom is not free, it is a compromise. Searching old ladies is in part because of the left's whining and snivelling about racism and sensitivity.
I for one am glad that there are people who are at least trying to do the right thing rather than your position of doing nothing or only offering critizism.
How often do you fly?

wierdscience
08-17-2006, 11:29 PM
The lessons of software security have some relevance here. Security that depends on secrecy and obscurity is not security at all. Like a conventional lock, it “keeps honest folks hones at best”. I despise the media in general, but in this case, they are doing the right thing. If the media can find it and “out it”, much like our ongoing discussion of the numerous options for negating ANY benefit of the current farce on here, then so can “they”. Better that even the complacent sheep who otherwise believe the “security” propaganda be forced to deal with the reality of our vulnerability along with the total lack of safety provided by the current farce. However, it is an unfortunate reality that when those same complacent sheep are presented with clear and undeniable evidence, they will inevitably morph from sheep to ostrich and insist on sticking their heads in the sand rather than deal with things head on. They would much rather try to shore up their sheltered and comfortable belief in the safety afforded by “the system” and instead will deride those who refuse to blindly comply as being simply selfish unwilling to make sacrifices for the “good of the many”. You can be sure that the government agencies bent on empire/power building, security contractors bent on holding lucrative contracts, and terrorists who are successfully impacting our economy and lives while awaiting the opportune moment to capitalize on our obvious willful ignorance, will all thank you for your assistance.

That was the single most ridiculous post yet,you must be proud.

Your analogy of sticking a security company sticker on the window applys to that piece of work above too.

Lets say you DO have an alarm system,do you advertize it by placing a sticker on your window telling anyone who wants to rob you exactly what kind of security system you have and how best to defeat it?Of course not,that would be akin to putting a sign in the front yard that reads"going on vacation for two weeks"
Yet this is exactly what the New York times did when they outed the NSA phone and finance tracking,it was patently stupid and totally irresponsible.Yes we have freedom of the press,but that does not and should not include devulging classified material.

As for being sheep,sheep don't see danger,if they did we would not need shepards or sheepdogs.By ignoring or dismissing the danger YOU are the sheep.

Lets just forget the Iranian hostage taking,the Achillie Laro,the Beruit airport,the Cole,the Kobar towers,the WTC 1993,2001 and the other 1600 or so acts of terror commited by Islamofacists the world over since 1960.Lets just deny that any of that is real,lets dimiss it as being a "boogieman",oh hell,just repeat"I'm not being raped" over and over and maybe it will just go away.That is the victim mentality the"sheep" have adopted,ignore reality.

Whatever economic impact has resulted from the inconvience this past couple weeks,it is nothing compared to the impact of 11 or 12 planes blowing up in mid air.

LarryinLV
08-17-2006, 11:57 PM
Wierdscience,
You're not so wierd after all.

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 12:15 AM
[edit] Note that analyzing and detecting are not the same thing.
My mistake in grammar. The device described is a detector. Reading the link makes that clear.

Since no aircraft are being blown up does not mean there is no threat. That convoluted logic is what got us here. All the bombings and acts of terror mentioned by WS leading up to Sept 11 were a pretty good indication that there was a very serious problem. It was largely ignored until it culminated on Sept 11, when a whole bunch of planes "fell" out of the sky. Since then, no more have. I should think the increased security has played some part in that.

The system in place is not the best, and is being improved. It will have to continue to develop and grow, and hopefully it can stay ahead of the crazies. The cost will be time, money and inconvenience. If that is a problem for you, I guess that is a shame. You might ask the families of the victims of Sept 11 if they feel your sacrifice is too great.

TECHSHOP
08-18-2006, 12:22 AM
My "thoughts and rants" on this have been posted earlier, look them up if you care.

I agree with Evan's POV in the general historic scope: that a "dangerous outside threat" is being used to support the "pre-existing powers" of both parties in the USA.

But that observation in no way reduces the actual threats.

The absurdity of this the US is a nation in a war, but not a nation at war. A good job to the Brits on this one, your part in all this has not been taken for granted...

If I am a sheep, then I am a well armed and equipt one, with a few years of training and experiance. I am going to spend a little time in the shop...

BadDog
08-18-2006, 01:24 AM
Chief:
My point on the driving is that driving is FAR more dangerous that flying EVEN NOW, yet we do it anyway without a second thought and with only "reasonable" (though debatable on that point) safety measures in place that are not overly inconvenient, though they did rescind the 55 mph national limit eventually for just that reason. It was simply not worth the marginal safety improvement. I also complained about the 55 mph speed limit and got the same crap then about “safety”. Same thing here. And as I said earlier, you are either not reading, or not comprehending. I’m not setting here and whining, saying we should do nothing. I’m saying stop doing crap that makes no difference. I’m very willing to make concessions and put up with inconvenience once they actually make a difference. And I also see you have chosen not to answer my challenge of defending the current preposterous security efforts. I don’t blame you, I don’t think they can be defended effectively and logically, but I would love to see someone try. Who knows, I might change my mind if someone could and did do so. I however did answer yours, but I’ll let you read that again, this time try reading for comprehension...

WS:
Ridiculous? I happen to have spent a fair deal of time working in the security arena myself and I can assure you that once you move beyond the “keep and honest person honest” level, my statement is perfectly valid and generally accepted. In this type of “security”, hiding the details of the protective mechanism (when you can’t keep it constantly changing and random) is only a very thin first level of “safety” as anyone who is determined (and backed) will get through it quite readily enough. So a security mechanism MUST be able to stand on it’s own even when the details are known. That’s why really serious encryption and other security efforts put their details and algorithms out there publicly with a challenge to anyone to TRY and break it. And that’s why the DVD encryption and many others failed, because they were relying on nobody figuring out how it worked, and if they did, oh well... And in yet another case of having to state the obvious, YES you do put a sticker on the window. Every security company I’ve ever had monitoring my home or business wanted and all but demanded to put out a sticker/sign under the theory that the typical bumbling drop out thieves will go find an easier unsecured home. Same for auto alarms and others. And in fact, that “hang out a sign and hope that is enough to scare them off” is the ONLY benefit of our efforts that I can identify beyond the basic efforts in place even BEFORE 9/11.

And yet again, those of you supporting the current situation are jumping to conclusions and going off the beam. Nobody that I’ve seen denies that the Islamic flakes are a problem that must be dealt with. The point that some of us are trying to get across is that the current response IS NOT EFFECTIVE. I maintain that nothing done since 9/11 has made any difference in our safety. This position is at least as defensible as claiming that the lack of successful attacks proving that it has resulted in increased safety. And I do travel, usually around 4 times a month...

And the Fed loves this crap. Look at the “Patriot Act”, when they start interfering in the name of “Security” and the “Patriot Act”, anyone who stands against it is forced to stand AGAINST security and patriotism just because they positioned things (including the choice of name) so that anyone standing against it would be automatically vilified by the masses. If you think the political spin doctors choose those names and phrases by chance or based on accuracy, well, I don’t even know what to say.

Lets see if this can get some focus from the TSA supporters (primarily Chief and WS) since my earlier requests have been totally ignored...

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TAKING AWAY WATER BOTTLES AND SHAMPOO IS DOING TO MAKE THINGS SAFER? OR ANYTHING THAT’S CHANGED IN THE LAST 2 WEEKS FOR THAT MATTER? WILL YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP CLAIMING THAT THOSE OF US UPSET ABOUT ALL THIS ARE JUST SELFISH AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT INCONVENIENCE AND EXPLAIN **WHY** WE ARE BETTER OFF NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE?

You guys claim again and again that we are ignoring the problem, but I believe I and others have addressed every one of your points while you keep coming back to the same empty claims. To reiterate again in hopes you’ll not do the same thing again. We KNOW that the Islamic nuts are dangerous and want to kill us. We KNOW that something must be done. We DO NOT think that the current approach has ANY value, and believe we should not be made to pay the cost for nothing. We DO want you to explain why we should feel otherwise rather than continue to act as if we are delusional. We HAVE explained why we believe this is a futile waste of time and the BEST response you guys can come up with is that we have not suffered another successful attack since 9/11 measures were put into place, that we should not complain about the inconvenience, and that if we do we are just whining about necessary inconvenience. Can you do better?


And finally, ** confrontation off **

I really don’t mean to disrespect you guys, but I do feel strongly about this. And truthfully, some parts of this post and others were intentionally worded more provocatively than I should have JUST to try to get you guys to provide a logical and rational support counter to mine. I hope this hasn’t become a personal issue, but I really would like to see the other side of the debate supported a bit more solidly...

Evan
08-18-2006, 01:38 AM
JC,

That "detection" pen is really analyzing a substance to see if it is TATP. That is not what I mean by detecting. Detection requires discovery in the first place which that pen does not do. Present checked luggage bomb detection relies on remote sensing apparatus such as x-rays and other means such as chemical sniffers, neutron backscatter signature and gamma cameras. These are not capable of distinguishing TATP and because of the chemical similarity to such common substances as sugars and it isn't likely possible.

Wierd,

The news reports indicating that TATP was to be somehow used in the recent plot by mixing liquids are either a total misunderstanding of what TATP is or some strange sort of misdirection for reasons unknown. If the plot intended to use liquid explosives that is not what the perpetrators had in mind. It is obviously not feasible and making TATP, while not very difficult, is more time consuming and involved that would be at all possible on an aircraft. The terrorists know that and that would not have been the plan.

TATP is not a liquid explosive. The fact that it is made from liquids is not relevant. Binary liquid explosives are an altogether different material as I have already pointed out.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 01:39 AM
I agree with Evan's POV in the general historic scope: that a "dangerous outside threat" is being used to support the "pre-existing powers" of both parties in the USA.

I don't think that is the case at all,I do think that both Adolph Hitler and Nevelle Chamberlan have been re-incarnated.Either that,or the same attitudes have been re-kindled.

To me it's flawed logic to think that a very real threat is somehow just a tool of whatever government to control it's people.If that were actually the case,then Paul Reveer was obviously crying wolf when he made his ride.The British were certainly real.


But that observation in no way reduces the actual threats.

Doesn't this cancel out the previous argument just a little?


The absurdity of this the US is a nation in a war, but not a nation at war. A good job to the Brits on this one, your part in all this has not been taken for granted...

BINGO!


If I am a sheep, then I am a well armed and equipt one, with a few years of training and experiance. I am going to spend a little time in the shop...

In the end that is what might save us,I say might because a large number of us still don't think we are at war.

Evan
08-18-2006, 01:44 AM
Had to clear this off topic bit up.


And that’s why the DVD encryption and many others failed, because they were relying on nobody figuring out how it worked, and if they did, oh well.

DVD encryption is not meant to secure a DVD via encryption. It's easily broken and that was known and expected. The reason it provides protection is that under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act it is illegal to circumvent encrytion that is intended to protect copyright material. The encryption on a DVD makes it possible to prosecute those who decrypt it under federal law as a federal offense even if they do not distribute the material. This was not possible under copyright law since merely copying something isn't illegal, distribution is.

Evan
08-18-2006, 01:52 AM
Since no aircraft are being blown up does not mean there is no threat. That convoluted logic is what got us here.

Of course it doesn't mean there is no threat. It does indicate the threat is not as serious as we are being led to believe since the means to blow up aircraft in the face of the present "security" is clearly available. So, why aren't they blowing up?

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 02:05 AM
JC,

Wierd,

The news reports indicating that TATP was to be somehow used in the recent plot by mixing liquids are either a total misunderstanding of what TATP is or some strange sort of misdirection for reasons unknown. If the plot intended to use liquid explosives that is not what the perpetrators had in mind. It is obviously not feasible and making TATP, while not very difficult, is more time consuming and involved that would be at all possible on an aircraft. The terrorists know that and that would not have been the plan.

TATP is not a liquid explosive. The fact that it is made from liquids is not relevant. Binary liquid explosives are an altogether different material as I have already pointed out.

I don't put much if any faith in the media anymore,not since CBS& Rathergate,and the more recent "posing" of corpses in Lebenon carried out by request from the AP and the Guardian.They are no longer journalists,nor are they reporters,they are fabricators.

Enough of that though,as to the argument about what explosives were going to be used,there are quite a few very simple combinations which I won't post here that would fit the bill and get by the detectors assuming some good packaging.

Checked bagage is another area where methods of detection aren't as critical because of changes in material handling.There is one company near here among several others building ballistic cargo container that will contain a large detonation.A Locarbe,Scotland type incident where a cassette recorder was packed with plastik and stowed in bagage has a very low chance of happening again.Intrestingly those changes began long before 9/11

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 02:11 AM
Had to clear this off topic bit up.



DVD encryption is not meant to secure a DVD via encryption. It's easily broken and that was known and expected. The reason it provides protection is that under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act it is illegal to circumvent encrytion that is intended to protect copyright material. The encryption on a DVD makes it possible to prosecute those who decrypt it under federal law as a federal offense even if they do not distribute the material. This was not possible under copyright law since merely copying something isn't illegal, distribution is.

Finally,someone brings up an example of "trojan horse" security,avoiding an obvious trap only to step into another one without realizing it.

It is also a time honored method to trap a prey by closing off all but a few possible exits,the ones you chose to leave"open".

Evan
08-18-2006, 02:26 AM
Checked bagage is another area where methods of detection aren't as critical because of changes in material handling.There is one company near here among several others building ballistic cargo container that will contain a large detonation.
Unfortunately they aren't in use.


Armed with a Technical Standard Order (TSO-C90) from the FAA, the HULD (“hardened unit load device”) has been ready for commercial use since 2001 but to date, only one undisclosed carrier has agreed to begin purchasing the system in a limited capacity.
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1333/documentid/3152/history/3,2360,656,1333,3152

From the same article of last September:




Currently, the overwhelming majority of freight loaded onto commercial passenger planes remains unscreened for explosives or other dangerous materials.

The Congressmen will introduce two amendments to the Homeland Security Department’s Authorization Act (H.R. 1817) for fiscal year 2006 in an attempt to establish a system to begin inspecting 35 percent of cargo by the end of fiscal year 2006...

BadDog
08-18-2006, 02:28 AM
Now THAT is a good point WS. If only it could be accepted on an "I hope so" argument. But I’m afraid I don’t buy that since the science used to justify confiscation of carry “liquids” appears clearly faulty (re. Evan’s points) and from the same points as well as my own, taking obvious carry on liquid containers makes no difference at all. If they can detect it in balers under clothes, they can detect it in bottles and elsewhere, so why the inconvenience?

As for the DVD derail, good point Evan. While the point is still valid, my example was very poor. Not my area of interest, just something I thought would be easily recognizable. However, the same issue with similar technologies (including DVD I think?) predate the “digital millennium” copyright legislation.

Evan
08-18-2006, 02:41 AM
The DMCA was being drafted with the help of the MPA (Motion Picture Association) at about the same time the DVD encryption system was being tested in the mid 1990s. Before the encryption standard was finalized it had already been defeated. The MPA proceeded with the standard anyway since preventing decryption wasn't the point.

BadDog
08-18-2006, 04:29 AM
That's pretty much how I remembered it, though I don't have a mind for all those details like you seem to. I wasn't totally sure if I was confusing that with all the other next great thing "security measures" that were defeated within days of release leaving valid users to deal with "activation", troublesome "dongles", and flaky/trouble prone schemes while "illegal" users of "cracked" copies get to live happily with none of the hassle and inconvenience foisted on legitimate users and having NO impact on the counterfeiters/hackers. Oh wait, that sounds familiar... :D

And to continue my meta discussion from earlier, I would dearly love for some of you to prove me wrong, or at least give me cause to reconsider. Because frankly, I think we ARE just counting down to a major disaster and THAT is why the current futility really pisses me off. I would love to change my mind, but it won’t be because someone accuses me of being selfish, ignorant, blind, delusion or otherwise not understanding the threat without ANY substantial points to back up their assertion. If you really have something to offer to this discussion, then explain why Evan, myself, and so many others are wrong. As far as I recall, not one of you pro-TSA security measures folks (with the exception of the indefensible “no more attacks” point and the somewhat lesser flawed recent “Trojan security”) have present even an attempt at justifying the current measures as having any benefit except to effectively say, “Well, we gotta do something, whether effective or not...”

If we can’t actually make it better through action, why is making things worse better than inaction (or rather maintaining the status quo as it was before 9/11 or at least before the latest crisis reaction)?

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 09:47 AM
Of course it doesn't mean there is no threat. It does indicate the threat is not as serious as we are being led to believe since the means to blow up aircraft in the face of the present "security" is clearly available. So, why aren't they blowing up?
Give us something to work with here. Exactly how many aircraft need to be blown up before you consider the threat serious?

Boarding and luggage inspection are not aimed only at preventing the placing of bombs on aircraft, they are also intended to prevent contraband, dangerous and illegal substances from being brought into or taken out of the country as well as to prevent potential weapons being brought aboard with the intent of hijacking.

The display board that initiated this thread showed many items that may very well have been in carry on with the intent of making a hijack attempt. No one will ever know. If any of that prevented one hijack or other terrorist act, it is not a wasted effort.

It does not require a very long memory to recall the days before airline security. In the 60's & 70's, hijacking was almost a cottage industry. Today, it is virtually non-existant.

Evan
08-18-2006, 10:12 AM
Give us something to work with here. Exactly how many aircraft need to be blown up before you consider the threat serious?

One?


It does not require a very long memory to recall the days before airline security. In the 60's & 70's, hijacking was almost a cottage industry.

Not with El Al. They took the hint after one hijacking. They implemented real security, in the 70's.

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 11:33 AM
One?



Not with El Al. They took the hint after one hijacking. They implemented real security, in the 70's.

One? How about Lockerbie? Or does it have to be in some specified time frame such as one/week, month or year?

If one is an aceptable answer, would it still be acceptable if your wife were aboard that one? The only acceptable answer is zero.

El Al has extensive security measures in force. But can you tell me which are effective and which are for appearance?

El Al, in Israel, inspects the baggage and passengers on the road to the airport, before they even enter the terminal. Once at the counter, which is guarded by armed military personell, they are interrogated and classified by race and country of origin as to threat level. Depending on that classification, further inspection or interrogation may occur.

Baggage is inspected by hand and swabbed if deemed necessary. (That would detect TATP.) It is put in a decompression chamber before loading to simulate flight conditions and eliminate barometric devices.

More information here;
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2003/nf20030825_5134_db039.htm

Should the US begin to implement some or all of these tactics? Definitely yes. But will they be permitted to? I sincerely doubt it. There will be too many that say they are infringing on some imagined "rights", or unnecessary window dressing as evidenced here.

Evan
08-18-2006, 12:00 PM
One? How about Lockerbie? Or does it have to be in some specified time frame such as one/week, month or year?

Quit being deliberately obtuse. We are talking about "enhanced" security measures taken since 911 in the US. No flights originating in the US since then have blown up even with the total lack of security on cargo and the ease of defeating measures applied to checked baggage.


The only acceptable answer is zero.

Agreed. However, attributing the fact that we have zero doesn't mean the "security" is to credit. It's like the old joke: Why do elephants wear red running shoes? A: To hide in a strawberry patch. Ever see an elephant in a strawberry patch? No. See, it works.


Baggage is inspected by hand and swabbed if deemed necessary. (That would detect TATP.)

No, it won't if even reasonable care is taken to clean the luggage. Unlike nitrates the residue of TATP is very easy to remove and is also volatile so it will dissipate by itself. The current swab tests only detect nitrates anyway. Don't fertilize your lawn before catching your flight.

I am aware of the security measures that El Al uses. That's why I brought it up. They are specifically concerned about explosives, not nail clippers and pocket knives.

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 01:54 PM
Sorry, but I am not being obtuse, merely defining the problem. The discussion has been regarding the US security measures in effect. Not necessarily those "enhanced" since Sept 11. These measures have been modified and adjusted to suit known potential threats since their inception.

I have not said that the current security measures are entirely to credit for the current level of protection, but there is no way of proving they have not had an effect. There would certainly have been many instances of terrorism if no steps had been taken, and no measures put into effect since the 60's and 70's.

The real difference between El Al and the US measures are not that El Al is concerned about explosives vs the US being concerned about weapons as you feel. El Al instead focuses on indentifying the terror suspect, not the weapon.

Evan
08-18-2006, 02:11 PM
I have not said that the current security measures are entirely to credit for the current level of protection, but there is no way of proving they have not had an effect. There would certainly have been many instances of terrorism if no steps had been taken, and no measures put into effect since the 60's and 70's.

Pure supposition with no proof since it cannot be proven. As for proving they have had no effect that is logically impossible since only events can be shown to have happened, not non events.

The lack of events despite ample opportunity demonstrates a lack of trying. Since there is essentially zero security on air cargo then ipso facto security cannot be credited for the lack of events.

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 07:35 PM
Pure supposition with no proof since it cannot be proven. As for proving they have had no effect that is logically impossible since only events can be shown to have happened, not non events.

The lack of events despite ample opportunity demonstrates a lack of trying. Since there is essentially zero security on air cargo then ipso facto security cannot be credited for the lack of events.

On Sept 11, there were four acts of terrorism resulting in an enormous loss of life. Boarding inspections were immediately made more stringent, and no further acts of terror have been committed.

Air cargo security is not being discussed.

Evan
08-18-2006, 07:48 PM
Air cargo security is not being discussed.
Since there is no security there isn't much to discuss about the security. The question is, why isn't anybody taking advantage of this major lapse? Oh wait, I forgot. They are arming the pilots of cargo only flights. That should help a great deal.:rolleyes:


Boarding inspections were immediately made more stringent, and no further acts of terror have been committed.
Correlation does not imply causation. The correct statement anyway is that "boarding inspections were made to appear more stringent". Ceramic knives are even more effective than box cutters.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 07:53 PM
Pure supposition with no proof since it cannot be proven. As for proving they have had no effect that is logically impossible since only events can be shown to have happened, not non events.

The lack of events despite ample opportunity demonstrates a lack of trying. Since there is essentially zero security on air cargo then ipso facto security cannot be credited for the lack of events.

It would also by that logic mean that just because an attempt hasn't been sucessful,doesn't mean it hasn't be tried.

Evan
08-18-2006, 07:58 PM
I must give the current administration credit where due. Keep in mind I am not making a statement about my politics. They have been very successful in instilling terror in the minds of the American people. The "real" terrorists need not take further action, the US and Britain as well as other countries are doing an admirable job of crippling themselves. It appears to largely be "mission accomplished".

chief
08-18-2006, 08:15 PM
Yes Evan,
If we all do nothing, sing kumbya and trust in Kofi Annan all will be well. As with Bad Dog you only offer critizism of the system, exactly what measures should we use?
Do you wear safety glasses in the shop, there is no proof they they will protect your eyes, a piece of stainless might go right through them so why wear them? Why waste time taking off jewelry or roll up your sleeves? I have been machining for 35 years and have never gotten hurt, why should I worry about safety? Nothing has happened yet. Remember what killed the cat.

Evan
08-18-2006, 08:21 PM
You haven't been paying attention Chief. How about securing the cockpit properly as I said before? That is step one. That stops hijacking, period. As I also said, if that had been done a long time ago 9-11 would not have been possible.

[added]

Also, as BadDog said, I am not required to know how to fix a problem to be able to recognize a problem. I can diagnose a compound fracture but I don't know how to set it. That doesn't mean my diagnosis is wrong.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 08:25 PM
" A disclaimer, I'm working entirely off of news reported by people who
don't know the difference between soft drinks and nail polish remover,
but the information I've seen has the taste of being real. As near as
I can tell, it is claimed that the terrorists planned to make organic
peroxides in situ on board an airplane and use them to destroy the
plane."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above was taken from Perry Metzger's forwarded message.Where did he get the information?The media,where did they get it?Go only knows,reporter was probibly reading the back of her hair dye bottle.

To jump to the idea that somehow they were planning to use either TATP or TSTP is a big leap.We STILL do not know the EXACT nature of the threat,it hasn't been stated by anyone in a position to know FIRSTHAND.

It could have been as simple as a cup of diesil and a pint of amonium nitrate.Hell a gallon of gas and a match would make an impression with no explosion needed.

Still banning liquids certainly the first few days after the plot was disrupted was the only prudent responsible thing to do.If the result had been different and those fights had been attacked we would not be having this discusion,instead just like after 9/11 the who kew what when debate would be raging.

BadDog
08-18-2006, 08:32 PM
And you offer only ethereal support for the farcical “security” currently in place without even a vague attempt at explaining WHY we should support this system. Based on your shallow words, it would appear that you feel that simply because it exists, it must be valid.

So instead of rational discussion and debate, you focus on attempts to belittle and discredit those of us attempting a real discussion. You have offered not one shred of evidence supporting the current mess, could it be because you find it indefensible other than by personal attack on those who disagree? We answer your challenges with specifics, you then ignore both our responses (which you claim we have not made) and ignore our challenges made in turn. We provide facts and logical discussion, your only response is to accuse us of being selfish and ignorant for not following blindly while offering pathetic jabs such as the "kumbya" childishness. You continue to say we “want to do nothing” simply because we don’t like what is currently done, ignoring the suggestions we have made for things that appear to make a great deal more sense. Now that I’ve said that several different ways as clearly and simply as I possibly can, I fully expect you to continue saying nothing significant...

Yes, I must say I am not surprised you and others like you are/were involved in creating the current fiasco as the intellectual acuity demonstrated in your posts is clearly evidenced in entire security system currently in place.

And your point on shop practices with eye protection examples is so pathetic, it does not merit a considered response as anyone with the intelligence to be reading this site will see how silly it is...

BadDog
08-18-2006, 08:39 PM
BTW, that was directed primarily at chief, though generally applicable to the entire pro-TSA side. The other responses were not there when I started my reply.

WS: How many times must I ask what good taking liquids did when a zip lock baggy strapped to their thigh/belly/whatever would have passed right on through with no notice? Assuming the chemicals involved were harmless enough in the trasport state to not damage a water bottle or other confiscated containers, how long do you think it would take them to adapt to that? I think it is you pro-TSA guys that are ignoring that these dangerous enemies of ours (I figure I have to include that again since you all keep claiming we don't get that fact) are intelligent and resourceful. The ONLY answer to that question (IMO) is that it's a case of (as I said before) "we gotta do something, anything at all, valid or not, we just gotta do SOMETHING to make everyone feel like we are doing something to make them safe!"

This is growing SO old. I give up. No matter how many times we ask the questions, you guys dodge answering and return the same empty responses.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 08:48 PM
I must give the current administration credit where due. Keep in mind I am not making a statement about my politics. They have been very successful in instilling terror in the minds of the American people. The "real" terrorists need not take further action, the US and Britain as well as other countries are doing an admirable job of crippling themselves. It appears to largely be "mission accomplished".

Crippled,hardly,inconvenienced,a little.This is what p---es them off the most,the best they can do and we still keep going.Iran is testing,so did S.Korea,only we didn't bite,they have instead nothing but empty posturing to claim as victory.

So,look at what happened,they took two of our buildings and we took two of the're countries, convinced Kahdafi that he didn't need WMD's and helped Syria finally do what it had promised too 20 years ago.There is nothing left for them but sending splodeydopes out to kill themselves and even they have gotten chicken-s---.

President Mohumad A--hole as I have started calling him will most likely try something if he isn't satisfied with his faux victory over Israel by Hezbulla.So be it,we are waiting.Personally I think they are waiting until after 2008 for anything major here,they need another lib saberrattler like Carter or Clintoon,all talk,no action.

Europe had better get the're collective act together,otherwise there won't be anything for us to save this time.France is a lost cause,England is looking that way.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 09:03 PM
BTW, that was directed primarily at chief, though generally applicable to the entire pro-TSA side. The other responses were not there when I started my reply.

WS: How many times must I ask what good taking liquids did when a zip lock baggy strapped to their thigh/belly/whatever would have passed right on through with no notice? Assuming the chemicals involved were harmless enough in the trasport state to not damage a water bottle or other confiscated containers, how long do you think it would take them to adapt to that? I think it is you pro-TSA guys that are ignoring that these dangerous enemies of ours (I figure I have to include that again since you all keep claiming we don't get that fact) are intelligent and resourceful. The ONLY answer to that question (IMO) is that it's a case of (as I said before) "we gotta do something, anything at all, valid or not, we just gotta do SOMETHING to make everyone feel like we are doing something to make them safe!"

This is growing SO old. I give up. No matter how many times we ask the questions, you guys dodge answering and return the same empty responses.

I give up too,chimps could give up and answer about what they would do in response to a KNOWN threat with SPECIFIC DETAILS AND TIME!Talk about a dodge.If that Sunday night/Monday morning had passed and nothing had been done in response to that KNOWN THREAT then people would have died,the economy would be in a stall and you would be either A,stranded at an airport or B dead or C here bitching,wining or complaining because nothing was done.

I think it is time we re-name the libs,the "Damned if you do,damned if you don't crowd" that is more fitting and to the point.

Evan
08-18-2006, 09:30 PM
I think it is time we re-name the libs,the "Damned if you do,damned if you don't crowd" that is more fitting and to the point.

Suits me. Now, what about us conservatives that think the current situation is a sham and a farce?

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 09:49 PM
Suits me. Now, what about us conservatives that think the current situation is a sham and a farce?

I thought you guys already had a national spokesman to decide these things?:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/wierdscience/dalegribble.jpg

Evan
08-18-2006, 09:52 PM
Sorry, but I don't get it.:confused: If it has anything to do with TV, which I suspect, I never watch television except for the news when eating breakfast.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 10:05 PM
Sorry, but I don't get it.:confused: If it has anything to do with TV, which I suspect, I never watch television except for the news when eating breakfast.

You watch the news during breakfast?No wonder your confused/sick to the stomach:D

He's Dale Gribble from the cartoon series King of the Hill,his character sees a covert governemt conspiracy in nearly everything and is constantly questioning everything and sometimes even his own questions:D

BadDog
08-18-2006, 10:23 PM
I give up too,chimps could give up and answer about what they would do in response to a KNOWN threat with SPECIFIC DETAILS AND TIME!Talk about a dodge

Yes, just as chimps apparently DID decide what to do using ONLY the specifics of that one reported pending attack with no regard to the general implications of said attack. Thank you. You have actually done a great job of providing another angle making EXACTLY the point I was trying to make earlier. :D


I think it is time we re-name the libs,the "Damned if you do,damned if you don't crowd" that is more fitting and to the point.
And if from my responses you are labeling me (or Evan for that matter) a "Lib", you either have less reading comprehension that I give you credit for, or you don't know the definition of "Liberal".

In case you misunderstood, and it would be rather easily assumed, but thinking and speaking for yourself is NOT specifically excluded from conservative political thought, though it often seems to be excluded from both sides (more so the further off center, but not always). Not that it matters really, but since you bring it up, I happen to be well right of center in my general political views but I don’t limit myself blindly to supporting anything vaguely coming from those supposedly on the conservative side.

Yet again another “dodge”, avoiding the questions posed and refusing to offer any rational discussion, but instead incorrectly attempting to dismiss us as “Libs” and “chimps”.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 10:58 PM
Yes, just as chimps apparently DID decide what to do using ONLY the specifics of that one reported pending attack with no regard to the general implications of said attack. Thank you. You have actually done a great job of providing another angle making EXACTLY the point I was trying to make earlier. :D

And if from my responses you are labeling me (or Evan for that matter) a "Lib", you either have less reading comprehension that I give you credit for, or you don't know the definition of "Liberal".

In case you misunderstood, and it would be rather easily assumed, but thinking and speaking for yourself is NOT specifically excluded from conservative political thought, though it often seems to be excluded from both sides (more so the further off center, but not always). Not that it matters really, but since you bring it up, I happen to be well right of center in my general political views but I don’t limit myself blindly to supporting anything vaguely coming from those supposedly on the conservative side.

Yet again another “dodge”, avoiding the questions posed and refusing to offer any rational discussion, but instead incorrectly attempting to dismiss us as “Libs” and “chimps”.

Okay in your own words-
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TAKING AWAY WATER BOTTLES AND SHAMPOO IS DOING TO MAKE THINGS SAFER? OR ANYTHING THAT’S CHANGED IN THE LAST 2 WEEKS FOR THAT MATTER? WILL YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP CLAIMING THAT THOSE OF US UPSET ABOUT ALL THIS ARE JUST SELFISH AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT INCONVENIENCE AND EXPLAIN **WHY** WE ARE BETTER OFF NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE?

Answer,specifc threat was recognized,action was taken,suspects arrested,evidence siezed,no planes fell from the sky as a result.Action taken was taken to stop plan in motion.Same answer as the last 60 or so posts,no one disputes the events of last weekend they did happen after all,comprehension problems on your end too huh?

I don't blindly follow anything,I don't blindly follow Bush or the administration,as an example the current cease fire sucks and should not have been foisted off on Israel,let them clean house and back them up 100% with whatever they need,PR,troops,ordinance etc.

If being labled Lib caught your attention,it served to point out that your veiw point is shared on KOS and several other lib blogs,maybe coincedence if so I appologize,but the first few posts DID sound as though the toothfairy,santa claus and terrorism where in the same category.That has been the mantra of the left since day one after all.

I am conservative by nature,but conservatives also get things wrong.AnnCoulter had essentially the same views as you and I don't think she has it right either.The real knee jerk is everyone including you going off the deep end thinking the bans will be permenant for all time.

We could have this war on terror wrapped up by Christmas if we all conservatives included got on the same page and worked together.

Shuting down airports is not a win for terrorists it's just another setback for both sides,us being divided is a win.

It is a government by the people for the people,as long as the people are divided how can we expect anything better from the government?

Okay,I'll give you all the liquids you can stand and I'll sit next to the terroist with the bomb disgused as baby formula,but the F---ing laptops must stay home,I'm sick of some lazy bastich catching up on work he should have done on the ground clicking keys while I'm trying to sleep:D


Dragging a laptop around is also a tired,lame,faux status symbol akin to the tired,lame letting a cellphone ring for 10 minutes before answering so you seem important:D

BadDog
08-18-2006, 11:33 PM
Thank you.

Now, the points. :D



Answer,specifc threat was recognized,action was taken,suspects arrested,evidence siezed,no planes fell from the sky as a result.Action taken was taken to stop plan in motion.Same answer as the last 60 or so posts,no one disputes the events of last weekend they did happen after all,comprehension problems on your end too huh?

We can agree that action was taken. We differ in our views as to whether it was effective. The suspects and evidence were seized, ok. However, the accuracy of the reports (whether due to incompetent reporting or deliberate misdirection; both of which are KNOWN to occur rather frequently) is still a matter of debate. And the specific mater I’m trying to discuss is how the across-the-board restrictions make a difference. The ONLY value I can see is IF there were a terrorist not already scared off the he might be on the “pick up” list, saw the confiscation and denial of carry-ons and was scared off only because they lacked the intelligence to see that the stuff could be smuggled on without using an obvious bottle. This is what I want answered. Not by a “well, nothing bad happened, so it must have worked” argument, but by real discussion TELL why a terrorist single mindedly pursuing destruction would have been foiled by this rather than making the smallest of mental effort to successfully and easily avoid the tiny net placed in their way...

But I will give you that the “administration” (across the board in a global sense) was forced to “do something” or be crucified if anything went wrong. But that’s not the point Evan (if I may speak for him at least in part) and I are trying to make. This was *reactionary* and too narrow in focus to be effective in any meaningful way. And the “planes didn’t fall from the sky” is not a valid argument for multiple reasons already pointed out. If there was a REAL attempt to deal with the problem the reactionary joke of a solution would not be necessary.



I don't blindly follow anything,I don't blindly follow Bush or the administration,as an example the current cease fire sucks and should not have been foisted off on Israel,let them clean house and back them up 100% with whatever they need,PR,troops,ordinance etc.
Agreed. It’s time to hard line with these people and stop letting them not only make all the moves (Iraq war not withstanding) but also make (and break) all the rules.



If being labled Lib caught your attention,it served to point out that your veiw point is shared on KOS and several other lib blogs,maybe coincedence if so I appologize,but the first few posts DID sound as though the toothfairy,santa claus and terrorism where in the same category.That has been the mantra of the left since day one after all.
Not at all. Noticing and refusing to overlook a flawed system is not the limited domain of one political view or the other. The fact that the Libs are screaming is not surprising since, in the current bi-polar political climate they are going to foist any petard they can. And the lack of such a violent reaction from the Cons side is also not surprising since they will make every effort to minimize or neutralize anything reflecting badly on “their side”. I did say my views are “well right of center”, but that does not mean I support either Rep/Dem or Cons/Lib. I have my own views that happen to fall in that area, which says nothing of whether I support others *claiming* the same ground...



I am conservative by nature,but conservatives also get things wrong.AnnCoulter had essentially the same views as you and I don't think she has it right either.The real knee jerk is everyone including you going off the deep end thinking the bans will be permenant for all time.

I haven’t “gone of the deep end” at all. Given the technological realities of our situation, those same bans that you claim have value now, will also hold that same value for the future. Or do you suppose that the terrorists are patterned on our sad Coyote who never tries a failed plan more than once? If they remove the restrictions, and assuming they ever had any value (a point I will not concede), then what’s to stop the same guys from trying the same exact plan again? IF they rescind the restrictions, then IMO, they are saying that it was nothing but posturing and agreeing with us...



We could have this war on terror wrapped up by Christmas if we all conservatives included got on the same page and worked together.

Cons/Lib does not matter. We just have to get serious and stop giving them the “human rights” they deny others. Force them to live and play by their own rules, including those who support them directly or indirectly. That’s the only approach that matters and France, Russia, and all the rest who stand against us can get the hell out of the way or burn along with those who would harm us behind their skirts. But even then, if we pulled out all the stops, we will not have it “dealt with” by Christmas IMO.



Other random points.

I disagree, but you new I would. :D Due to the security delays, valid or not, I have to spend hours in the airport and on planes. Should I be forced to watch you sleep? ;) Or does it make more sense to spend the time with my family and use the otherwise useless time doing the work I missed while spending time with my family? Sorry, but get some ear plugs, otherwise that baby sucking on explosives will be crying and keeping you awake with or without my “clicking”. :D

JCHannum
08-18-2006, 11:45 PM
Correlation does not imply causation. The correct statement anyway is that "boarding inspections were made to appear more stringent". Ceramic knives are even more effective than box cutters.

Correlation is the only proof available. I would like you to support your argument by providing definite proof that the increased security measures have not reduced the number of terrorist hijackings or bombings of US airlines. Hard numbers only please, opinions and ideas are not proof.

Sorry, my statement is correct. The increased security measures put into effect did in fact immediately eliminate the threat from the vast majority of edged weapons that could be possibly used in a terrorist hijacking. That is not "appearances".

Your statement that it merely presented an appearance is your opinion, not a fact.

wierdscience
08-18-2006, 11:54 PM
No problems,points taken,it will get interesting here when the slpodydopes start showing up on our schools,buses and trains,we will get forced into more and more restrictions as this downward spiral continues.

I don't pretend that our security is as good as it could be,but it isn't as bad as some believe either.I do know of things being one that others aren't prevy too,I do build things for a living after all and have worked on a few interesting projects in recent years.

There is also some truth to the statement that we always hear about the failures of our FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS,but seldom ever any of the sucesses.

Besides I figure the delays are designed to provide time for the face recognition software to work,grandma is getting hassled so we have time to look at Akmed twice:D

gmatov
08-19-2006, 02:14 AM
"I would like you to support your argument by providing definite proof that the increased security measures have not reduced the number of terrorist hijackings or bombings of US airlines. Hard numbers only please, opinions and ideas are not proof."

Ipso facto, no successful bombings, the security enhancements must be effective.

"There is also some truth to the statement that we always hear about the failures of our FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS,but seldom ever any of the sucesses."

I think today we hear about the successes, there ARE no failures, and the proof is there has not been another US plane go down. They keep saying "We have to be right 100% of the time, they just have to get lucky once."

I think a lot is the mindset from 9/11 and the Hero image, "Let's Roll!", that has the US traveler thinking life ain't the same, they ain't taking a plane to Cuba, anymore, they take them over to blow them up. If you are gonna die anyhow, kill the sumbitches. Mebbe you can kill them before they can do whatever they were gonna do.

WS,

"I am conservative by nature,but conservatives also get things wrong.AnnCoulter had essentially the same views as you and I don't think she has it right either.The real knee jerk is everyone including you going off the deep end thinking the bans will be permenant for all time.
"

Blatant Heresy. They'll drum your ass right out of the Rep party for that utterance. YOU doubt ANN COULTER? She is the poster babe of the Rep party. She can utter no untruth.

I don't like your sig, either. It took about 3 posts of yours many months ago to be offended. You post much more in the political threads than in the machining threads. You become a lot more vehement in these threads than in any machining thread.

Funny enough, my morning paper had 2 MORE attempted bombings, one was a shipping container with supposeed nitrates on the exterior. Used "explosives" to open it, found carpets and tapestries or some such. The dog did get his treats, however. Makes me wonder if the explosive sniffing dogs are stiffing the system, every time they sniff an "explosive", they get a treat.

Same at Waco, the dogs found hundreds of "accellerants" and fed those dogs treats. All we seem to get is fat dogs.


NO, I DON'T think they are doing us much good with the restrictions. They ARE taking away liberties, not that WS would think they were. He is, of course, one of the "Faithful". My Party, Right or wrong!

Also, in my paper today, a Federal Judge has declared the Admin's ubnauthorized wiretapping as Unconstitutional. The Admin is adamant that they can do anything they want. That is as close to dictatorship as you can come.

I can't wrap my mind around this stuff.

"
Everything GW says isn't okay with me,he is fiscally liberal,socially conservative and internationally middle of the road.Tax cuts were okay,intitlement spending I didn't like,Iraq and Afganistan I have no problem with,but Iran and Syria should have been next.

So far as passing it on,you obviously have no problem doing that yourself,but you shouldn't become deranged and act like a 2 year old."

He is Fiscally Conservative, he gives everybody else's money to the rich.

He is not Socially Conservative.

Internationally, he is Far Right, My way or the highway.

Entitlement spending is not killing our country, killing entitlements is. You are surely calling SS as the Devil of Entitlement. It is self financed, EXCEPT that for a number of years it has had excess funding which both Dems AND Reps have borrowed against. That is no big deal. The original Law stipulated that it HAD to invest its excess funds into Federal Notes. NOT the Stock Market.

The problem comes in when you have Demagogues like GW come into office to destroy it and tell you that those notes are "just pieces of paper". As thoguh the 700 billion that the Chinese hold are "just pieces of paper", or the 500 billion that the Japanese hold are "just pieces of paper, or the billions that you and I hold either in Savings Bonds or in 401s are "just pieces of paper".

You STILL scare the Hell out of me. 6 years of GWB and you still back him all the way, and half his party is backing away, partly because they are like rats leaving a sinking ship, the guy is killing us, we are losing votes "Left" and "Right".

I think the word "zealot" was invented for you. I think you hate EVERYBODY.

Cheers,

George

Evan
08-19-2006, 02:27 AM
Correlation is the only proof available. I would like you to support your argument by providing definite proof that the increased security measures have not reduced the number of terrorist hijackings or bombings of US airlines. Hard numbers only please, opinions and ideas are not proof.
and gmatov
Ipso facto, no successful bombings, the security enhancements must be effective.


Sigh. Correlation isn't proof of anything. It never is. It makes no difference if all you have is a correlation between an event and something else, in this case a non event, which doesn't even make it a correlation.

It is a scientific and logical tenet that correlation does not imply causation. I didn't make that up.

For example:



We must be very careful in interpreting correlation coefficients. Just because two variables are highly correlated does not mean that one causes the other. In statistical terms, we say that correlation does not imply causation. There are many good examples of correlation which are nonsensical when interpreted in terms of causation.
Ice cream sales and the number of shark attacks on swimmers are correlated.
Skirt lengths and stock prices are highly correlated (as stock prices go up, skirt lengths get shorter).
The number of cavities in elementary school children and vocabulary size have a strong positive correlation.http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html

and


Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
Even if two variables are legitimately related or correlated, there is not necessarily any causal relationship between them. In other words, changes in the one variable may not be directly caused by the independent operation of the other variable. The one may fluctuate in relation to the other due solely to chance (coincidence) or, as is often the case, each is strongly affected by one or more other (confounding) variables that were not considered by the researcher. ...
In the well-known expression "correlation does not imply causation," statisticians summarize this understanding of the legitimate use of statistical relationships. In the absence of any other evidence, data from an observational study cannot be used to establish causation.
http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/1999/techbrief/techbrief_8.htm


Also, you insist that I prove that something that hasn't happened is because something else did happen. This is logically impossible since you cannot prove a negative. This is why in our legal system the accused must be proven to have commited an action rather than the accused proving they didn't. It's impossible to prove a non event since it didn't happen and therefore has no cause. There is no such thing as cause and non event in logic.



This article is about a logical fallacy. The term negative proof can also refer to a proof of impossibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility). The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) of the following form:
"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

While it is logically possible that increased security is responsible for reduced terrorist activity it cannot be shown to be the case. It is just as possible that the reason is that the terrorists aren't interested in taking action.

Given the gaping holes in the security system this is the only logical explanation. If the terrorists were bent on taking action as has been claimed they would have little trouble doing so and therefore would have done so. The logic is inescapable. It isn't possible to take credit for something that has not occured.

This is an example of rigorous logic and can even be reduced to a mathematical equation that can be shown to be correct.


Wierd said:

Answer,specifc threat was recognized,action was taken,suspects arrested,evidence siezed,no planes fell from the sky as a result.Action taken was taken to stop plan in motion.Same answer as the last 60 or so posts,no one disputes the events of last weekend they did happen after all,comprehension problems on your end too huh?
There is a great deal of doubt that what has been reported represents reality.



Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?
It seems unlikely. The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, after the arrest of what Mr Reid said were all the "main suspects".
Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were unnecessary. Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for anyone else those individuals were peripheral to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is debatable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1853741,00.html




also from that link:


What were the explosives at the centre of the alleged plot?
Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP, triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive.
Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes this would be very difficult, particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours.
Totally impossible. You can't "cook" it without a handy freezer. They are relying on the general and near total lack of scientific knowledge of the public to try and foist this off on us. They apparently take us for idiots, or they are themselves. Even stupid terrorists aren't that stupid.

chief
08-19-2006, 07:27 AM
Bad dog,

I have not made a personal attack on anyone, you on the other hand accused me of being a troll and you managed to insert into every rebuttal you made to every poster they somehow lacked reading comphrension skills or were just generally less intelligent than yourself. You seem to take offense
and belittle anyone who disagrees with your position. I believe you suffer from PAS (pompous ass syndrome).

JCHannum
08-19-2006, 07:54 AM
Using totally unrelated facts as correlation coefficients can be dangerous if misapplied. Ice cream and shark attacks is an example.

Using very closely related facts is proof. Four terrorist hijackings in one day directly related to carry on edged weapons vs zero in five years following a total ban on those in carryon is a direct cause and effect. Your argument does not hold in that case.

If the terrorist's "aren't interested" it is most likely that it is because they stand a high probability of having their attempts fail.

BadDog
08-19-2006, 10:04 AM
Chief:
Again, I have to suggest you try to read for comprehension. :D And I believe Evan made a similar suggestion in post 109, so I ‘m not the only one that has noticed. ;)

So, just for clarity, and because I can’t sleep and so have little else to do tonight, I reread your posts on this thread. To summarize:

I did not call you a troll, I said “I really hope you are just trolling, but just in case...” In fact, just the opposite, I specifically gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your response was that you were not a troll, and for some reason mentioned your time here, seemingly as supporting your contention that you were not trolling. My only further comment was that time on the board had nothing to do with being a troll or not. Again, a problem with reading comprehension?

You have provided nothing of substance, no logic, no facts, no reasoning, no substantiation of any sort. The most substantial contribution was the invalid assertion that since no more attacks have occurred, the measures are successful. This is completely invalid for reasons stated, you offer no counter but to claim that it is fact.

The only other contribution was an allusion to you working in security and with the DoD. I suppose that is supposed to give some measure of credibility by association and some supposed privileged knowledge. But given the obvious opinions of those you seek to discredit or dismiss, those “credentials” have just the opposite effect (for me at least) since those parties are the ones creating and implementing and perpetuating what we (I) regard as “this mess”.

You also use the typical politician (and MBA/Management) “no defense” response of attempting to shut down your opposition by implying (or directly stating in your case) that you are not allowed to point out obvious flaws without providing solutions and use that to attempt to discredit us. When in fact we have suggested numerous “better” options that you had the oportunity to answer and maybe even shot down, but then you would have to comprehend and acknowledge them. Easier to ignore what you have no answer for and instead try other tactics? As was pointed out so clearly and more than once, so surely you could NOT have missed it, you do not have to have a "solution" to see that something is defective and non-functional. Of course with your continued apparent confidence in the “no bad has happened, so the security must work” logic I am not surprised you also feel that this is a valid point...

Just to repeat the (one would think) obvious, I do not have to know how to fix my car to know that smoke billowing out, terrible sounds and harsh vibration is likely to leave me stranded or worse. And just because I made it to work all week after adding a can of “engine rebuild in a bottle” I bought off the internet site claiming “great things” does NOT imply or prove that it had any effect at all.

And the biggest reason for the “reading comprehension” comments is that you repeatedly make statements that are clearly ignorant of the obvious content of earlier posts. To me, that can only mean that either you (1) didn’t even bother to read them, (2) you didn’t comprehend what you read, (3) that you are just stubbornly backing the “party line” with no idea how to support the position, or (4) that you ARE just “trolling”. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by allowing that you simply didn’t understand what you read, and suggested you read it again more carefully (which would also cover case #1, but I assumed you surely would not be so (pompas?) as to make such declaratory comments without having first read!). If I’m wrong, then just explain my mistake. But instead, you resort to childish personal attacks again by calling me a pompass ass...

Further specifics on the reading comprehension point:

1) You imply that we who disagree with the current situation don’t “get it” that they want to harm us. And yet we have continually stated our understanding in no uncertain terms.

2) You claim we offer no alternatives, but we have offered many MANY alternatives that you somehow don’t seem to see. In fact, I address that very thing specifically to YOU in more than one post. But still you claim the same thing while refusing the counter challenge to offer *reason* and *logic* supporting you assertion that the current situation is anything but a farce. You continue to ignore that challenge completely in favor of derogatory remarks and personal attacks...

3) Your responses to my comment on the dangers of driving and eating at McDonalds completely mangled what I said, showing a complete lack of understanding, but in no way addressed them. So again, I suggested that you re-read focusing on comprehension and even restated (hopefully) more clearly, which you also ignored.

On your personal attacks:

You specifically accuse us of “whining” in post 73
Characterize our contempt for the current system as advocating doing nothing and sitting around singing “kumbaya”, and then offer silly analogies (that are in no way applicable to the discussion) to not wearing safety glasses or following other “safe shop practices”. in post 108

So, you make clear declarative comments that are clearly refuted by the contents of numerous previous posts. You use shallow (and worn out) attempts to discredit those of us you disagree with. You offer nothing of substance to support your position (except logic that is completely invalid). You refuse to directly answer or even *acknowledge* ANY point we’ve made, question asked of you, or any direct challenge.

I realize I have been quite redundant, but I’m just hoping to make this is clear enough to actually get through...

But yeah, you must be right, I’m the “pampas ass” in this story. :rolleyes:

Evan
08-19-2006, 10:17 AM
Using totally unrelated facts as correlation coefficients can be dangerous if misapplied. Ice cream and shark attacks is an example.

Using very closely related facts is proof.
JC, what part of never do you not understand?

"In the absence of any other evidence, data from an observational study cannot be used to establish causation."

The only relation is an apparent correlation. That is not proof of anything.

If you can't accept that fact then there is no point in discussing it. I seem to be wasting my time. Hopefully somebody reading this understands the point. It is this sort of lack of critical thinking that is in large part responsible for the mess things are in today so I guess that is a futile hope.

[added]



Using very closely related facts is proof. Four terrorist hijackings in one day directly related to carry on edged weapons vs zero in five years following a total ban on those in carryon is a direct cause and effect. Your argument does not hold in that case.
Banning and enforcing are not the same thing. The ban is unenforceable. My argument is entirely valid.

Take your pick, or just take them all. They are ceramic, non metallic and cannot be detected with a metal detector. They are sharp as a razor blade and as strong as steel. They are made from zirconium carbide.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics/knife1.jpg

Rustybolt
08-19-2006, 11:29 AM
If the terrorist's "aren't interested" it is most likely that it is because they stand a high probability of having their attempts fail.



There it is in a nutshell. It is also a case of slight of hand. While you're watching the TSA and bitching about it, someone else is watching you watch the TSA.

Evan
08-19-2006, 12:16 PM
Keep believing that and you won't get real security.