It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What airport scanners really see

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


In some tribes you were stoned to death for looking at something the wrong way. In others they will kill their young for being born on the wrong days.

Times have changed as so has the world. Tribes didn't face flying and security measures like we do today or they would probably work towards the same measures we are putting in place.

The Bible is a whole different topic and one could argue that the power structures we see today were caused by organized religion. You could easily make the correlation that the bible is the reason we have the problems we currently do. The bible doesn't teach you to accept everyone for who the are it tells you that only the chosen religion will be loved by god and the rest will be burned in the fires of hell. That doesn't seem very accepting to me like what you are preaching.




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TSOM87

So what would you do then?

2ndline

Tsom87


Why not more bomb sniffing dogs to start with? You know? More reasonable solution then a 25 million dollar scanner deal... which involves Micheal Chertoff. I mean they do the same thing and I bet bomb sniffing dogs would be a lot more effective, if put to use correctly.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by anoymous7]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
I didn't know the images were fake. But accusing me of trying to start a hoax is ludicrus, so I edited the OP.

But the fact still remains, how far will this go?


I'm sorry I assumed that you did since the other post with close to the same topic was on the front page already and in the hoax board. I figured you had seen it and started your own version.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR

Originally posted by xstealth
I didn't know the images were fake. But accusing me of trying to start a hoax is ludicrus, so I edited the OP.

But the fact still remains, how far will this go?


I'm sorry I assumed that you did since the other post with close to the same topic was on the front page already and in the hoax board. I figured you had seen it and started your own version.


well you assumed wrong.

And his point is still valid, How far will this go?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Question

If a porn star goes through the scanner,
are the female TSA going to pull him off the lane to

DO IT?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoymous7

My point being, Is these scanners will do nothing to thwart terrorism and will only infringe on our remaining rights.


The scanners would have revealed the box cutters, used by the scum on Sept. 11, 2001.

The scanners would have prevented Richard Reid from bringing explosives onto an airliner.

The scanners would have prevented Abdulmutallab from bringing explosives onto an airliner. (Granted, there were many other flags that should have kept him off the plane, anyway)

So, yes, I think they would do something to thwart terrorism.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoymous7

Originally posted by TSOM87

So what would you do then?

2ndline

Tsom87


Why not more bomb sniffing dogs to start with? You know? More reasonable solution then a 25 million dollar scanner deal... which involves Micheal Chertoff. I mean they do the same thing and I bet bomb sniffing dogs would be a lot more effective, if put to use correctly.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by anoymous7]


Dogs can only last so long in that sort of environment, they can't sniff all day. Anyway, who wants dogg's jumping up and sniffing before boarding a plane? Its just a scanner that shows the outline of the body its better than being felt and siffed at, IMHO!

tsom87



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by anoymous7
 


why you would feel the need to try and attack me apologizing to somebody is beyond me.

Where do you think it will continue to? I can tell you that I personally don't know but think it will lead to making it harder for bad people to do bad things to people that fly on planes.

www.cnn.com...

Here is an article to back up your idea with the addition of dogs. Costs are high though.

( side note mozilla said cali just had a 6.5, I hope everyone is safe)

[edit on 9-1-2010 by whoshotJR]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by anoymous7
 


why you would feel the need to try and attack me apologizing to somebody is beyond me.

Where do you think it will continue to? I can tell you that I personally don't know but think it will lead to making it harder for bad people to do bad things to people that fly on planes.

www.cnn.com...

Here is an article to back up your idea with the addition of dogs. Costs are high though.

( side note mozilla said cali just had a 6.5, I hope everyone is safe)

[edit on 9-1-2010 by whoshotJR]


Terrorists will only adapt. As it is human nature. If you think your safer with these scanners, you are wrong.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by anoymous7]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I hope this isn't perceived as off-topic, because I believe it really pertains to this issue.

The U.S. and other countries are on the cusp of buying and installing these machines at the [alleged] cost of USD $150,000 each. Then, you factor in the training costs, the actual costs of installation, and perhaps if an airport is very skillful, their actual cost might be USD $200,000.

WHY, oh, why, are we not simply employing bomb detection dogs?

What do bomb-sniffing dogs actually sniff for? The truth is that they sniff for whatever they are trained to sniff for, and their detection level far exceeds what can be seen on a scanning machine. They have been very helpful in Afghanistan, as well as many, many other places.

There was an article that popped up several months ago, that inferred that the specifically-trained detecting dogs were put through hell on Earth, and it outright stated that their spirits were broken. Several handlers, who love their dogs, real dogs who do the job are here to tell you that isn't the case.

I know four handlers who have working dogs. Each and every one of them doesn't like to be called a "handler"........ they think of themselves as partners with their dogs, and each live with the dogs. One was part of a team that worked the Twin Towers area after 9/11. Another worked NOLA after Katrina. Yet another is in central Utah and is trained to sniff drugs as well as firearms/explosives. The last that I refer to was the first working dog that I ever met -- Pria -- who, along with others of my crew, crawled into the collapsed Cypress Overpass, when the Loma Priata earthquake made the Cypress fall upon the lower level, crushing hundreds of cars as their drivers were on their daily commute.

Many cars crushed to less than 3-feet tall, and horns blaring, and the stink of burning and fuel. I was tempted to add "blood" to that last line, but that would've been just a dramatism. I slipped on oil and fuel as we crawled in there, looking for people that could be saved. 42 people died in there. I would have thought it was more. I know for a fact that dozens of people were rescued -- many of them having to be pried and sawed out of their vehicles. The dogs were great. They had more courage that we -- they lunged to find people, and many of them that they found, we might not have gotten to until too late, as they were not making any noise.

I digress. Again. I think trained dog/human teams make infinitely more sense that an machine that a person analyzes the image of. Dogs easily multi-task: They can be trained to detect explosives, orgainic compounds which are the constituents of explosives, drugs, firearms, and perhaps even fear. What are we trying to detect??? Boobs? I fancy myself a fine detector of them already, and it won't cost a thing. Billions to look for what the metal detectors can already sense? What a sham. What a disgrace.

We need dog/human teams if we want to really make an difference, and not just line the pockets of those already in place to pretend to address the issue.

My opinion.

Be safe.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
In some tribes you were stoned to death for looking at something the wrong way. In others they will kill their young for being born on the wrong days.

I didn't say that we should adopt their legal code. Your response is immature in nature. Consider the ideas of what I am speaking about as opposed to the literal "math" behind it.


Originally posted by whoshotJR
Times have changed as so has the world. Tribes didn't face flying and security measures like we do today or they would probably work towards the same measures we are putting in place.

Would you treat a stranger with such carelessness? You wouldn't if you learned their name, their stories, etc. If we see these devices as necessary, it is only because we lack the wisdom and patience to see a way that bridges Order and Charity as our Creators did in order to create life. The sort of conduct we are being forced to live by breeds war and everyone knows that. Airports don't look like places of travel, they look like prisons.


Originally posted by whoshotJR
The Bible is a whole different topic and one could argue that the power structures we see today were caused by organized religion. You could easily make the correlation that the bible is the reason we have the problems we currently do. The bible doesn't teach you to accept everyone for who the are it tells you that only the chosen religion will be loved by god and the rest will be burned in the fires of hell. That doesn't seem very accepting to me like what you are preaching.

What people have made of a set of teachings is far different than what the teachings may actually be. Christianity is essentially the same thing as the Empire.

As the Jews were the Chosen of God-Order, the Christians are the Chosen of God-Charity. However, these elections are not permanent. As the Christ was rejected by the Jews because they manipulated the teachings given to them, the Christians will also be rejected for manipulating the teachings given to them. However, it is not the teachings that are to be blamed. With understanding, it is clear that Order and Charity are taught throughout the scriptures, even across the time lines of the different churches (Jews/Christians).

As time unfolds, the Eternal Chosen of God will be collected together and will persevere. These people will come from many places, not just Christianity, but they will unite through the provision of Christ.

The Jews learned that God is Order through the law. The Christians learned that God is Charity through the sacrifice of atonement to cover our inability to keep the law (Christ). However the true Children of God know these things with or without the scriptures. They can recognize that God is Order and God is Charity when looking at the animals, when looking at themselves, when looking at plants, etc.

The Children of Darkness often set up the scriptures before them wishing to diffuse the Pride and Chaos that they live by. The nature of this world is to reap what you sow, and that is what is occurring. The scriptures teach as much, so do not be concerned that the very people who claim that the bible is God Themselves (by calling it the Word of God), also are the ones who most contradict it's teachings. They will reap what they sow as well.

Seek God who is OrderCharity. Pride and Chaos are the beginnings of death.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by xstealth
 


Those images have already been debunked in another thread. They are apparently photoshopped stock images of a naked woman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Yeah, these images look like they had some work done to them.They look too real and actually you can see some cropping.

According to this daily mail article they should not see anything but contours:


The reality, despite the hype, shouldn't be gangs of ogling security staff. It is only the lower wavelengths of the terahertz band, known as millimetre waves, that actually allow images of anatomical contours to be produced.


And they supply this picture:


That's not too bad now, is it? But wait, the scanned guy looks different, and on the other hand, this image looks photoshopped too!
Look at the differences:


If you move the guy to the right it becomes more clear it is not the same subject, as if it were not clear already.



So, take your pick, who do you believe, the one that says that they can see your junk or the one that says that they can't.
Both images are doctored.

I say they can.

My other concern is the T-waves that penetrate the skin, I can hear the commercials twenty years from now:
"Have you or your loved ones ever gone through an airport scanner and now have weird stuff growing on your body? If so, call the office of Scalper & Scalper - we get you the most money!"



[edit on 9-1-2010 by tungus]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well let me see.
As a female given the choice of a murky ANONYMOUS scan - just one of thousands going through and viewed on a monitor elsewhere OR having a stranger standing in my personal space and running their hands down my body - which one would I choose?
Tough choice....



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by unicorn1
Well let me see.
As a female given the choice of a murky ANONYMOUS scan - just one of thousands going through and viewed on a monitor elsewhere OR having a stranger standing in my personal space and running their hands down my body - which one would I choose?
Tough choice....


LoL well I hope you feel safer.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by anoymous7
 


Not a matter of feeling safer - just less 'squirmy'!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by unicorn1
reply to post by anoymous7
 


Not a matter of feeling safer - just less 'squirmy'!



okay! well have fun with your unicorn.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I think airport scanners that allow airport security to see passengers in the nude is exactly what this country needs for many reasons:

1. 9/11 will never happen again. Conspiracy or not, I'd like to see them explain a terrorist attack again once these scanners are installed.

2. Passengers need not be ashamed of being seen nude. I'd rather be embarrassed with my own body than dead. With all the crazy porn on the Internet, who would really try to leak scanner pictures onto the Internet while working as airport security?

Besides, today's clothes and makeup leaves little to the imagination.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I think this piece of information is worth exploring in the context of this "failed attack". Coincidentally, the same firm or its subsidiaries were responsible for airport surveillance on 9/11 and at the London underground during the attacks in 2005.

Israeli firm blasted for letting would-be plane bomber slip through
Haaretz

Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where Terrorist Boarded Aircraft
link

Israeli Security Firm Fails To Stop Passenger From Carrying Explosives On Detroit Flight
Philadelphia Bulletin



[edit on 10-1-2010 by gouryella]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
I think airport scanners that allow airport security to see passengers in the nude is exactly what this country needs for many reasons:

1. 9/11 will never happen again. Conspiracy or not, I'd like to see them explain a terrorist attack again once these scanners are installed.

2. Passengers need not be ashamed of being seen nude. I'd rather be embarrassed with my own body than dead. With all the crazy porn on the Internet, who would really try to leak scanner pictures onto the Internet while working as airport security?

Besides, today's clothes and makeup leaves little to the imagination.


3. Perhaps they will contribute to the reduction of obesity, if people become concerned with being seen!

(Just trying to inject a little humor. I know, very little humor)



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
As one poster mentioned terahertz waves emmited by the scanners,
I think they can be dangerous.

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join