| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mgj
191 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:08 revy wrote: A society willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. Benjamin Franklin! He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
I dont know, maybe its just me, but I believe the same for racial profiling, if there is even the slightest chance that you could blow up a plane because of someone else doing the same thing from your country of origin, I dont have a problem with the government inconviencing you. (or me for that matter). In egypt I was taken aside for "random extra screening" when I was the only white christian in the lineup. I didnt take offence to this because I knew they were just doing there job and I know it happens on the other side of things as well. I feel like people should stop being so self righteous about these things. Its for Everyones security, and in the end, it really has no effect on your day to day life. | ||
|
Phoenix111
4 Posts
On November 18 2010 23:24 muse5187 wrote: I proved you wrong now you change subject with false facts. Pilots no long carry guns, and when it was allowed less than 9% were armed. Also plenty of sharp materials that do not set off metal alarm. ' Really... I'd had to disagree with that one. Turns out pilots DO still carry guns. It's called the FFDO program. Look it up. www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtmhttp://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm On top of that, as a frequent flyer and someone with inside knowledge of airport security procedures (family member works for TSA), I can tell you a few things. 1) There are still dozens of ways to blow up a plane. Between plastic eplosives, liquid explosives, etc, it is impossible to make a plane 100% safe. 2) It is almost impossible to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon anymore. Federal Air Marshalls are on around half of all domestic flights, the FFDO program has a -lot- of armed pilots out there, and the cockpit doors basically take explosives to get through. Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 19 2010 01:20 Electric.Jesus wrote: Two more funfacts about the nude scanners: 1. the estimated chance of getting cancer is equal to the estimated chance of dying in a terrorist attack. (cource) 2. in Germany these ***ing scanners don't even work properly. Alarm goes of in almost 100% of the cases, triggered even by folds in a skirt, apparently (good thing, we buy quality scanners for 250k Euro each, source, in German). This is the most reasonable argument against these scanners I've read in the thread. Honestly, I don't consider it a violation of privacy when a black-and-white outline of my naked body is seen for a few seconds by someone that I'll never see again and doesn't even know my name. It's just... really not a big deal at all. The fact that people are being all melodramatic about it "giving up freedoms" is just silly... Whether it's actually worth the trouble, I don't know. But the privacy bit certainly doesn't bother me at all. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 01:47 Wohmfg wrote: Oh ma lawd. "It looks like a demolition, it must be a demolition! And I've seen plenty of building collapses caused by plane debris flying into buildings, so I must be right! It looks like a controlled demolition, god damn it!" Now, why would whoever orchestrated this inside job need to destroy a little 47 story building in addition to one of the biggest landmarks in New York? They wouldn't. If they wanted to create a scene and uproar then they already have by flying two commercial airliners into massive skyscrapers. Why would they demolish a completely separate building? Can you not see that the most rational and logical explanation is that some plane debris fell down and caused it to collapse? Yes or no? Please answer. I am perfectly willing to accept that the government orchestrated 9/11 if you show me proof, I fully believe that they are capable and willing to do something like that, but please stop with the building 7 nonsense. The debris was limited to one side of the building and the damage did not look like enough to make it fall. Had it been enough to cause a collapse, it would have collapsed unevenly towards the side that was weakened, not straight down like it did. It also would not have stood completely stable for hours then collapse suddenly within seconds later on in the afternoon like it did. You also have the Barry Jennings interview which suggests foul play and demolition. You also have dozens of emergency workers reporting explosions in the basement of the building. You also have mossad arrested driving a van with explosive residue. It is easy to just look at one piece and say something stupid like "you think it's a demolition just cause it looks exactly like one complete with near free fall collapse and the top of the building buckling in the middle as it falls into it's own footprint LOL" but you need to look at everything together. This is not enough proof for you, yet I can promise that I have far more evidence than you can show me that this was done by terrorists and box cutters. Why did they take out building 7? I can only theorize, so I hope you fully understand what that word means. For starters, here are a couple of interesting tenets in building 7: U.S. Secret Service C.I.A. Perhaps they were getting rid of evidence? Perhaps the plane that crashed in philly was supposed to hit building 7 to make it more believable. Who knows, but it makes a lot more sense than two airplanes causing 3 skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint. Oh and a 47 story building is not little unless you live in Dubai. Oh then there is the whole issue of the pilots for 9/11 truth group requesting the FDR data from the plane that hit the Pentagon under the FOIA and the data they received actually completely contradicted the story presented in the commission report. Like I said you have to look at everything instead of just cherry picking one issue so you can find something or someone to laugh at. edit- I forgot to mention the funniest thing that is really suspicious, BBC reported building 7 fell 17 minutes before it actually fell! You can even see it in the background as they report, standing perfectly stable. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:27 matjlav wrote: This is the most reasonable argument against these scanners I've read in the thread. Honestly, I don't consider it a violation of privacy when a black-and-white outline of my naked body is seen for a few seconds by someone that I'll never see again and doesn't even know my name. It's just... really not a big deal at all. The fact that people are being all melodramatic about it "giving up freedoms" is just silly... Whether it's actually worth the trouble, I don't know. But the privacy bit certainly doesn't bother me at all. Lets not look at the big picture and see how this only adds to a long list of freedoms that have been taken away since 9/11. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On November 19 2010 01:45 deesee wrote: Just getting a feel for who I'm talking with. Pretty sure if we did that, we would definitely be more likely to be struck by lightning. At least I'm hearing more than complaints about prying eyes now. I still think that, at the end of the day, (even if it is another step in the march to mankind's enslavement) the body scanner is not an issue enough to worry about specifically on the basis that it contributes to the eventual end of freedom. The government on the other hand... Actually "lightning rod" means that it is connected by a wire to the ground where it directs all the electricity in case of a strike. So only the rod would get struck. Anyways, as i said i'm just against it because it costs a ton, does nothing to improve safety, and is just another inconvinience that we dont need. | ||
|
Jenbu
United States115 Posts
molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds). Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high. In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose. • A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. • B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesisprovoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk. • C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk. • D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose. • E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated. • F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined. • G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis. • H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined? Source: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted. This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms. | ||
|
Vain
Netherlands1115 Posts
1: Chances are smaller that your plane blows up into pieces(wich was already low) And the cons are: 1: Expensive device. WE pay indirectly for these (250k?) devices. So if the device is not very beneficial the money could be better spend elsewhere. 2: Cancer 3: Privacy issues(Yes, not everybody likes to be watched nude by total strangers) So i can conclude we are paying for an expensive device wich lowers the chance our plane will be blown to pieces but we trade that off with a chance of getting cancer what can be just as lethal. Then there is also the privacy issue and inconveniance for lots of people. Sounds like a bad deal to me | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms. No it's not, TSA says it is safe.  Nice post, thanks for the extra info. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:29 Treemonkeys wrote: Perhaps they were getting rid of evidence? Perhaps the plane that crashed in philly was supposed to hit building 7 to make it more believable. Who knows, but it makes a lot more sense than two airplanes causing 3 skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint. Oh and a 47 story building is not little unless you live in Dubai. I dont have the time to fully debunk your conspiracry theories at the moment, but I'll deal with this section anyway. The first point there is rather quick to dispatch of, do you really think blowing up a building on live tv with thousands of people around, and being so incompetent at it that random people on the internet can figure it out, was the best method the US goverment had to delete data/destroy evidence? I mean apparently they managed to hide a hell of a lot of explosives on every single floor of 3 buildings without anyone noticing, and then fly planes in to them to cover it, hoping that the buildings burning didn't detonate or damage anything, and this was better than getting rid of 'evidence' in some simpler way? The 2nd point you make is just misleading, no one has ever claimed that aeroplanes being slammed in to a building is enough to collapse it, but I imagine you already know that. The free fall arguement is easily dismissed by simply watching any footage, the building falls slower than debris falling beside it, and that in itself should be sufficient to demonstrate it's not free fall speeds. I'm not going to pretend to be good enough at maths to prove it mathematically, but there are plenty of people who are and it doesn't take long to find one. Even numbers provided by the supporters of the conspiracy for a free fall drop rate rarely match the actual footage. As to the own footprint arguement, there are two things to address. First, the fatal structural issues began at the top and so collapsing down isn't going to be the same as an earthquake or something knocking it down from the bottom for a start. Also it's fairly obvious the debris didn't end up in a nice little pile at the bottom purely from aerial photography at the time, but I dont presume you meant it that literally. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17727 Posts
| ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
Those who sacrifice security to uphold frivolous freedoms die. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip. We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad) I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that. This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles. On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted. This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms. Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 03:35 Iyerbeth wrote: I dont have the time to fully debunk your conspiracry theories at the moment, but I'll deal with this section anyway. The first point there is rather quick to dispatch of, do you really think blowing up a building on live tv with thousands of people around, and being so incompetent at it that random people on the internet can figure it out, was the best method the US goverment had to delete data/destroy evidence? I mean apparently they managed to hide a hell of a lot of explosives on every single floor of 3 buildings without anyone noticing, and then fly planes in to them to cover it, hoping that the buildings burning didn't detonate or damage anything, and this was better than getting rid of 'evidence' in some simpler way? The 2nd point you make is just misleading, no one has ever claimed that aeroplanes being slammed in to a building is enough to collapse it, but I imagine you already know that. The free fall arguement is easily dismissed by simply watching any footage, the building falls slower than debris falling beside it, and that in itself should be sufficient to demonstrate it's not free fall speeds. I'm not going to pretend to be good enough at maths to prove it mathematically, but there are plenty of people who are and it doesn't take long to find one. Even numbers provided by the supporters of the conspiracy for a free fall drop rate rarely match the actual footage. As to the own footprint arguement, there are two things to address. First, the fatal structural issues began at the top and so collapsing down isn't going to be the same as an earthquake or something knocking it down from the bottom for a start. Also it's fairly obvious the debris didn't end up in a nice little pile at the bottom purely from aerial photography at the time, but I dont presume you meant it that literally. So you you had only had time to cherry pick the points that I went out of my way to say I was theorizing and you ignored all the facts I pointed out. The main purpose was obviously the Iraq war. If one was planning this op, it might make sense to do all the planning in one of the targeting buildings to kill two birds in one stone. Arguing against theorized motives is weak, so please stop, and deal with the facts. We have PhD level physicists saying the buildings fell at near free fall speed. This requires no almost resistance which is not possible in a collapse. Much of the debris is being forcefully ejected from the building is is going faster than free fall speed - on the twin towers. There is no visible debris during the building 7 collapse, only smoke. This leads me to believe you haven't even seen the footage, or haven't seen it recently. Building 7 was not hit by a plane and it is the most obvious in being a demolition, you are lumping all three buildings together when they are very different. Everything you said about fatal structural damage at the top does not apply to building 7. You admit you are not good enough at math, I am, but don't take my word for it. http://www.ae911truth.org/ That should be enough experts to satisfy you. You are saying the structural issues with building 7 began at the top? That is not true, go look at pictures of the building. It was at the bottom. The collapse began at the top, starting with the penthouse caving in to the inside of the building. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 03:48 Fa1nT wrote: Those who sacrifice security to uphold frivolous freedoms die. ...and those who don't live forever? | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 19 2010 03:53 SharkSpider wrote: We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad) I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that. This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles. Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue. Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On November 19 2010 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote: Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky. Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Ladder Legends
IPSL
JDConan vs TBD
Aegong vs rasowy
BSL
StRyKeR vs rasowy
Artosis vs Aether
JDConan vs OyAji
Hawk vs izu
CranKy Ducklings
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Bisu vs Ample
Jaedong vs Flash
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
