The new pediophilia

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:31 am

I wasn't challenging you Spidey, just wanted to know what exactly you mean. So your point is to use profiling and only additionally scan some of the people (e.g. Arabian looking, nervous, recorded at demonstrations, etc.?).

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:12 pm

Pretty much…with the emphasis on “etc“.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:02 pm

Duper wrote:um...no. No, our government doesn't promote or sponsor any particular religion. Obama made THAT rather clear. Surely you heard that. In fact there are plenty within the government that would like annex Evangelicalism. To some place other than here.

It doesn't you say? Well.......there's a powerful Evangelical Christian cult with direct ties to our government which has far more international influence than we think. Obama has NO sway over 'The Family' and what Senators they control or influence. (Sorry I can't get this link to parse properly. Copy and paste without the brackets.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellow ... anization)]

Duper wrote:No, they hate us because we are not muslim and a number of things that this country exports culturally. It's not that complicated.

True there. We are infidels in their eyes, so what? Most Muslims are NOT terrorists that want to kill us, just as most Christians are NOT terrorists either, only a those crazy few. All religions have their fringe believers.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:03 pm

Here's another thing I'm not sure of. I'm no expert when it comes to explosives, but I'm pretty sure you have to compress something for it to explode. Powders may ignite and burn but explode? I don't think so. I do know for sure that you can light C4 with a lighter and it will burn, but not explode. Now if you put it on the ground and stomp it out, it will take your foot off. Anybody else have more knowledge on whats required to create an explosion?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:51 pm

an explosion is simply a rapid expansion. For this discussion, is hot gas released by a high-rate of combustion.

You've probably heard of gunpowder and grain silo explosions.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:07 pm

C4 is an semi-stable substance packaged in a plastique. (kinda like puting Nito or dynomite <which are simular> into playdoh) You need a blasting cap or comparable force to detonate it.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:14 pm

What about Det cord? It's thin like clothes line, easily concealed and will set off most explosives. Mythbusters uses it all the time to set off their little experiments. How easy is it for a 'terrorist crazy', to obtain? Damn scary if the average person can get a hold of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonating_cord

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:04 pm

IIRC detonating cord still needs a blasting cap to set it off.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:48 pm

How did this thread devolve into an insertion and set off thread? Am I wrong, but wasn't this about a sort of photography?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:51 am

AlphaDoG wrote:How did this thread devolve into an insertion and set off thread? Am I wrong, but wasn't this about a sort of photography?

It did. But that's how crazy what they are proposing is. Someone tried to set off explosives on an airplane. The TSAs reaction? Let's take revealing pictures of people.

Back to my first post: if it's explosives you're worried about, why not employ technologies that detect explosives.

It's this type of governmental reasoning (or lack of)that leads some people to ask if this is really about aircraft security.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:44 am

Probably the only deterrent from the 'make-you-naked scanners' will be the uptight islamoprudes not wanting infidel women to see their tiny pee pee's!

Why not just roll healthcare, economic stimulus and airline security into one big package and finance it with all that unspent bailout money the democrats are hording for electioneering?!? Hire a bunch of nurses assistants to perform full physicals including rectal exams on everyone who boards a plane as a free service!

see, I think about stuff....

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:31 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
...see, I think about stuff....

...yeah.. thanks for sharing.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:33 pm

Heh, TSA fail.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Probably the only deterrent from the 'make-you-naked scanners' will be the uptight islamoprudes not wanting infidel women to see their tiny pee pee's!

see, I think about stuff....

Actually, what about Muslim men not wanting their burka clad women being viewed nude by a infidel?

see I too thinks of stuffs

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:47 pm

woodchip wrote:Actually, what about Muslim men not wanting their burka clad women being viewed nude by a infidel?

see I too thinks of stuffs

I think you're correct Woodchip. It's the Muslim males that have a problem with female nudity. They even freak out if anything other than the eyes are shown. Birdbrains!

Grendel wrote:Heh, TSA Fail

Yep. Ripe for abuse. There's always a few perverts in every occupation.

Krom wrote:IIRC detonating cord still needs a blasting cap to set it off.

So? Those are small and obtainable and easy to set off. The Det cord just makes it easier to hide and set off the main explosive. Why would any creep "fruit of the boomer" (sorry, couldn't resist) care if a blasting cap goes off first before the bigger blast kills everyone around him? The people in charge of our safety need to think outside the box if they're going to keep these bastards from killing people and I don't think full body scanners are going to be the solution.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:24 am

I think blasting caps have metal in them. The reason the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber failed, at least in part, is because they are trying to create an explosion with a device that is free from detection by the metal detectors when they board. Without a casing of some sort they aren't getting any compression on the material they want to explode.
If they ever find the right components the scanners will be a better way to find them although this inevitability is leading headfirst toward the first tampon bomber and then the scanner operator who wants to start pulling all the women out of line who show a 'suspicious string' in the scan for further examination....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:41 am

Then again Richard Reed and the undie guy were both set up to fail to keep our attention on plane plots instead of the real planned attack.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:24 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I think blasting caps have metal in them. The reason the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber failed, at least in part, is because they are trying to create an explosion with a device that is free from detection by the metal detectors when they board. Without a casing of some sort they aren't getting any compression on the material they want to explode.

Just how small of a piece of metal will the detectors sense? Some blasting caps are very small.

Will Robinson wrote:If they ever find the right components the scanners will be a better way to find them although this inevitability is leading headfirst toward the first tampon bomber and then the scanner operator who wants to start pulling all the women out of line who show a 'suspicious string' in the scan for further examination....

Well, there's another hole in the body down there and it's been tried once already.

I-RED

The new pediophilia

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: