T1B

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:02 pm**

KC Scott wrote:3. The fact none of it addresses Private aircraft or cargo planes - both of which pose major risk and neither of which has any security

You're a clueless, brain dead knob-slurper. Major risk? Really? The average GA airplane, fully loaded, weighs less than half of what a fucking average SUV weighs. The average cargo plane is not only not even a fucking jet, it might just weigh as much as a fucking SUV if it's full of cargo.

The idiocy is blinding

You should probably avoid mirrors then

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:29 pm**

KC Scott wrote:So you're saying if someone were to fly a GA or cargo plane into say... a crowded stadium or a refinery or, well just about anything else that wouldn't be a risk?

That's exactly what I'm saying, KC Lagos

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:54 pm**

KC Scott sighting?

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:57 pm**

cargo planes are often just as big as commercial airlines, dumbass.

next time you are on a plane taxiing along the runway, look out the window at all those planes as big as yours that says fedex or ups on the side.

as scott pointed out, the whole thing is a gubmint run clusterfuck which will do what all other GRCs do, grow itself.

they were talking about it on foxnews last night. one dude was pimping the sensible model, the israelis who target groups for searches and arm their pilots, while our PC dumbfukks harass everyone but won't stop smart motivated terrorists.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:08 am**

Follow.the.money.

Think about it... these groin patdowns didn’t become manadatory until body scanners were introduced into airports. Why? Two reasons: They needed a negative “punishment” for those refusing to go through body scanners and they needed to create full-body searches as the “norm” for everyone in order to create a false need for more body scanners.

A large portion of the scanners are made by one of Michael Chertoff’s (yes, that Michael Chertoff) clients. Chertoff is currently a direct advisor to Janet Napolitano on the use of body scanners. Yeah, no conflict of interest there…

This whole fiasco is Homeland Security spending hundreds of millions on products made by the former HS Chief to set up the current DHS regime for 7-figure consulting/lobbyist jobs when Obama leaves office.

It’s all nothing more than money, kickbacks and DC business as usual. If it were about passenger safety, they probably would have first tested the machines to determine if they were actually safe…especially on frequent travelers (sup Scott). Not only have they not done that, but they won’t even tell the public how much or what types of radiation they’re being exposed to.

This whole situation is being railroaded to get as many scanners in place as quickly as possible so they can get passengers used to going through them and then say, “Okay, so maybe they weren’t the best idea, but they’re here now so we might as well use them.” …and buy hundreds more, no doubt.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:24 am**

Cuda wrote:The average cargo plane is not only not even a fucking jet,

Shut the fuck up, idiot.

I used to work on a ground handling crew for a contractor who serviced air cargo operations. They most certainly are jets of every make and model. We did at least 2 727's and a 707 every fucking day. Sometimes we get a DC-10 instead of the 707 or an additional MD-80 during the holidays.
This was in Austin which isn't that big.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:29 am**

Rack jiminphilly.

If you want to work for the TSA these days, all you gotta do is know someone from KC and you're in.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:32 am**

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: If you want to work for the TSA these days, all you gotta do is know someone from KC and you're in.

Really?

~swoon~

Sincerely,

KC MeatSpin

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:36 am**

Jesse "The Body/Gov" will fly no more !

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-former ... ds-of-tsa/

I'm with him and I'm just tired of being treated like a common criminal just to board a plane.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:00 am**

gedscal wrote: I used to work on a ground handling crew for a contractor who serviced air cargo operations. They most certainly are jets of every make and model. We did at least 2 727's and a 707 every fucking day. Sometimes we get a DC-10 instead of the 707 or an additional MD-80 during the holidays.
This was in Austin which isn't that big.

FedEx has many more of these- both in livery and under contract haulers, than they have anything else. Nobody has flown 707's for anything in the last 15-20 years. FedEx used to be one of the last ones using 727's, but they're really haven't been cost-æffective in the last 15 years either. The few jets FedEx still uses are indeed the Heavies, but they're far outumbered by piston twins & turboprop twins & singles. Otherwise that's a cool 20 year old, out of date story, bro

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:14 am**

Every time I drive by Rochester International Airport I see FedEx or UPS jets. I guess they just park them there and never use them?

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:22 am**

Cuda wrote:The few jets FedEx still uses are indeed the Heavies,

300 is "a few"? Try again, dumbfuck. The turboprops service small airports out of their hub. Not that you have a fucking clue or anything.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:23 am**

FedEx jets (big ones) are all over the place at most of the airports I fly into & out of (LAX, IAD, etc.). Hardly ever see any small prop jobs.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:33 am**

Cuda wrote:
FedEx has many more of these- both in livery and under contract haulers, than they have anything else.

Wrong about that, too. 370 jets vs 297 smaller prop planes. Good to see you pushing the boundaries of suck. Somebody has to do it.

http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exer ... artini.pdf

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:43 am**

Cuda wrote:

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:58 am**

OCmike wrote:Follow.the.money.

A large portion of the scanners are made by one of Michael Chertoff’s (yes, that Michael Chertoff) clients. Chertoff is currently a direct advisor to Janet Napolitano on the use of body scanners. Yeah, no conflict of interest there… This whole fiasco is Homeland Security spending hundreds of millions on products made by the former HS Chief to set up the current DHS regime for 7-figure consulting/lobbyist jobs when Obama leaves office.

What's even funnier is that a Yemeni man kicked it all off by singeing his penis wiith a firecracker. Surreal.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:44 pm**

OCmike wrote:A large portion of the scanners are made by one of Michael Chertoff’s (yes, that Michael Chertoff) clients. Chertoff is currently a direct advisor to Janet Napolitano on the use of body scanners. Yeah, no conflict of interest there… This whole fiasco is Homeland Security spending hundreds of millions on products made by the former HS Chief to set up the current DHS regime for 7-figure consulting/lobbyist jobs when Obama leaves office.

It’s all nothing more than money, kickbacks and DC business as usual. If it were about passenger safety, they probably would have first tested the machines to determine if they were actually safe…especially on frequent travelers (sup Scott). Not only have they not done that, but they won’t even tell the public how much or what types of radiation they’re being exposed to.

The L3 ProVision millimeter wave scanner is much safer than its Chertoff/Rapistscam counterpart:

•ProVision does not use X-rays or ionizing radiation.
•The signals created by ProVision are a fraction of other commercial radio frequency devices

By contrast, you'd better be wearing a lead lined suit if you have to go through this Rapistscam monstrosity:

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:38 pm**

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:The L3 ProVision millimeter wave scanner is much safer than its Chertoff/Rapistscam counterpart:

They have (had?) a few of these at National Airport in DC. Been through 'em a couple times. Not as bad as the new ones.

By contrast, you'd better be wearing a lead lined suit if you have to go through this Rapistscam monstrosity:

Went through that at Dulles a few days ago. Gotta stand in front of it for about 5-7 seconds, hands over head. Then you proceed about 2 steps to stand in front of a couple TSA flunkies for about 30 seconds while the scan is being analyzed. The TSA tards then said they needed to pat down my lower right leg. Understandable, since my right sock is where I tuck the ol' meat sword. While they said it technically qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction, they still let me board the plane.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:27 pm**

Back in the immediate post 9 / 11 days, I was flying at least 4 to 6 times per month for work, when they first started screening for weapons and all that. I used a Palm PDA in those days and as I was sitting on the plane tapping away with it one day, the little black wand / poker / tapping tool that you kept inserted on the side looked to me like it had possibilities as a defensive weapon if it came to that. It seemed a bit flimsy, but I had access to some nice polymer materials in those days and gave it a go.

Machined down a piece of the polymer on the neighbors metal lath, finished it off and painted it black , made a wood handle for it that I kept in my briefcase, and I had a pretty nice shank. Never, in probably 4 years and likely 250 flights did it ever get a second look. Not a real serous weapon, but as someone who has carried knives all my life and a concealed pocket pistol for many years, made me feel a bit better.

Fuckin TSA morons anyway...

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:10 pm**

If you needed to--you could do a job on someone with a BIC pen. Sharp and strong enough if you know where it does the most lethal damage. They never banned pens.
Talked with a TSA guy who was pumping gas into his ride next to me. I asked him when RSW (Fort Myers) was getting the scanner machines. He said June. I was going to ask him more, but decided to leave the guy alone. Looked like a retired ex-state police or something like that.

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:52 pm**

Yeah, no problem with letting private aircraft going unscreened.

Imagine what happened with PSA Flight 182:

.....happening intentionally to bring down one of these:

That's 135 passenger on PSA Flight 182 versus 800 passengers on the Airbus A380. Think that wouldn't make a nice target for someone like Al Queda?

Posted: **Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:13 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Yeah, no problem with letting private aircraft going unscreened.

Imagine what happened with PSA Flight 182:

.....happening intentionally to bring down one of these:

That's 135 passenger on PSA Flight 182 versus 800 passengers on the Airbus A380. Think that wouldn't make a nice target for someone like Al Queda?

Gee, Diego, I'm sure Glenn Beck agrees with you like totally!

Problem is...it wasn't Al Qaeda who flew whatever it was into the Pentagon...remember?

Or are you still in fetal positioned denial about the world's most incompetent flight student suddenly performing the most difficult piloting in modern history? :wink:

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:17 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote:
What's even funnier is that a Yemeni man kicked it all off by singeing his penis wiith a firecracker. Surreal.

and the entirely useless exercise of removing your shoes was initiated by some fucking gene splice trying to set his air jordans ablaze.....

yeah, he has the look of a criminal fucking mastermind

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:32 pm**

GEDscal wrote:Wrong about that, too. 370 jets vs 297 smaller prop planes. Good to see you pushing the boundaries of suck. Somebody has to do it.

http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exer ... artini.pdf

Nice to see that degree from UT is serving you as well as could be expected. If you'd bother to look for more current figures, FedEx's large aircraft fleet has almost 100 fewer jet aircraft in operation than you seem to think. And although they've added a few smaller prop planes since your 4 year out of date study, 297 is still>288 even using your data. Sorry about dropping all that complicated math on you all unexpected-like.

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:54 pm**

Cuda wrote:The few jets FedEx still uses

Cuda wrote: 288 even using your data.

uh 288 is a lot more than a "few"

carry on

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:40 pm**

Yeah but it's less than 297 to coodles wins. At least according to coodles.

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:42 pm**

Coods, stay the fuck down you clueless asshat

There are over 80 billion lbs. of air cargo transported around the world on a yearly basis. Of that, 34 billion lbs, that's billion with a B, are transported in the U.S. alone.

How do you suppose they move all that cargo? Certainly not with single engine props.

Posted: **Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:08 pm**

War Wagon wrote: How do you suppose they move all that cargo? Certainly not with single engine props.

Well, once they offload the prop planes, they put it into trucks like this:

Posted: **Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:18 am**

jiminphilly wrote:KC Scott sighting?

What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside ucant's trunks?
I'ma get, get, get, get, him drunk,
Get him drunk, stare at his junk.
His junk, his junk, his junk, his junk, his junk,
His junk, his junk, his junk, is what's inside his trunks, (Check it out)

Posted: **Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:38 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote: What's even funnier is that a Yemeni man kicked it all off by singeing his penis wiith a firecracker. Surreal.

If there was no incident to serve as the impetus for getting these machines in place across the US, they would have been installed in the name of being "proactively tough on terror". We're talking about hundreds of millions in graft here. It was going to happen one way or another. Notice how they've stepped up the purchases of these machines even as the passenger backlash, health questions, legality questions and propriety questions are increasing exponentially?

Posted: **Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:10 pm**

Martyred wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:KC Scott sighting?

What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside ucant's trunks?
I'ma get, get, get, get, him drunk,
Get him drunk, stare at his junk.
His junk, his junk, his junk, his junk, his junk,
His junk, his junk, his junk, is what's inside his trunks, (Check it out)

Oh,

Fuck!

fukkin RACK! Marty.

OCMike is on the right track here too, btw.

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:03 am**

Just went through security at San Jose airport. They had four lines going with scanners on every line, but with only one scanner actually up and running. Nice "mandatory" policy there, TSA.

Dumbest thing is that the lines are so short at this time of day, that they could have easily sent everyone through the scanner line if it were really so vital that everyone go through. I thought about going through the scanner line, spreading my legs and letting the scanner chick get a good look at my swinging beanbag but decided to "opt out" of being irradiated instead.

T1B

The "New" TSA

The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA

Re: The "New" TSA