Blog

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 8, 2010

Not only does the government want to see your naked body in full,
living color, they also want to read your mind. “A would-be
terrorist tries to board a plane, bent on mass murder. As he walks
through a security checkpoint, fidgeting and glancing around, a network
of high-tech machines analyzes his body language and reads his
mind,” reports the Associated Press.

An Israeli company is developing a system that matches high
technology up with and behavioral psychology. It’s called WeCU,
short for “We See You” (the same way Big Brother sees you).
It projects images on a wall and monitors reactions of people.
“If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your
mother, Givon explained, you couldn’t help but respond.” Or
if you were a terrorist, the logic goes, you’d respond to a
terror group logo or other familiar imagery. The reaction to these
images could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a
nervous twitch or faster breathing, said company CEO Ehud Givon.

If the system observes suspicious behavior, a person is detained and
interrogated. “One by one, you can screen out from the flow of
people those with specific malicious intent,” Givon said.

Okay, now the problems begin to arise. We are told the underwear
bomber and the shoe bomber and a number of other would-be bombers (all
of them in fact false flag patsies) are from al-Qaeda, an organization
without formal structure and no branding or logo (unlike Hezbollah or
Hamas). The only readily identifiable image associated with al-Qaeda is
the face of the late Osama bin Laden.

If a large photo of Osama was plastered on the wall at the airport,
what would your reaction be? You’d certainly dart your eyes. You
may even stand there with your mouth open. You’d likely get
special treatment by TSA goons.

How about a lie detector test? The Ministry of Homeland Security has
actually proposed this. “One system being studied by Homeland
Security is called the Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST,
and works like a souped-up polygraph,” reports the Associated
Press. “It would subject people pulled aside for additional
screening to a battery of tests, including scans of facial movements
and pupil dilation, for signs of deception. Small platforms similar to
the balancing boards used in the Nintendo Wii would help detect
fidgeting.”

FAST project manager Robert Burns said the system could be made to
work passively, scanning people as they walk through a security line.

How many false positives such a harebrained idea would produce is not addressed.

U.S. officials are considering the Israeli model for airport
security. Israel practices profiling. “At Ben-Gurion Airport,
Jewish Israelis typically pass through smoothly, while others may be
taken aside for closer interrogation or even strip searches.” In
other words, if you are an Arab or a Palestinian, you will be strip
searched and be subjected to body cavity searches.

Imagine the predictable result of this: thousands of people who look
like Arabs pulled aside with the ultimate result of producing chaos in
airport operation. Don’t count on the dim bulbs hired by the TSA
to be capable of telling the difference between Arabs and Mexicans.

This idea, however, thrills the neocons. Blogger and concentration
camp apologist Michelle Malkin went on Fox News the other day and said
Arabs should be profiled and get the same sort of treatment Arabs
endure in Israel.

Finally, the Cato Institute believes airport security should be
privatized. Jim Harper, director of information policy at Cato,
“concedes that privatizing airport security is probably wishful
thinking, and the idea has not gotten any traction.”

Of course it has not gained any traction. Because the idea is not to
catch supposed terrorists (who are demonstrably false flag patsies) but
is rather part of a government effort to condition the public that it
is normal (even patriotic) to submit to unreasonable, dangerous, and
invasive “security” measures. Airports are incubators for
tyranny and the emerging police state. It has nothing to do with your
safety and security. It’s all about conditioning you to submit to
government.

Incremental erosion of freedom will ensure victory for terrorism

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jan 8, 2010

It is Christmas 2012 and I have a story to tell.

Three years ago on a cold Christmas day in 2009, a Nigerian national
without a passport was aided on board a plane from the Netherlands
bound for Detroit by a mysterious sharp dressed man.

The Nigerian had a small amount of explosives in his underpants which he attempted and failed to detonate.

Two weeks later the U.S. government ordered the Department of Homeland Security Department to acquire $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment, including naked imaging body scanners, for screening passengers at airports, pushing all foreign governments to do the same.

Previous efforts to ban the use of such invasive technology
suddenly became secondary to a mass media driven effort to champion the
scanners as the grand solution to future security breaches at airports.

Dissenting citizens were told to “Shut up and get scanned already” and the machines became commonplace by the end of 2010 in all airports despite fierce opposition from freedom advocates.

Now everyone, including children must step through the naked imaging machines, not only in airports, but also at other public places, such as train stations, stadiums and any other large public gatherings.

In early 2011, however, the naked body scanners failed to stop a man
of Yemeni descent being escorted onto a plane by another sharp dressed
man in an American airport and attempting but failing to blow it out of
the sky. The man said he was seeking revenge for attacks on his country by U.S. military forces.

By the end of 2011, governments all over the world had implemented, in all public places, mind reading technology, which had been in development since the mid 2000’s.

Now, under something called “Project Hostile Intent”,
everyone is remotely screened by passive scanners that pick up brain
waves in order to to determine whether they intend to commit violent or
terroristic acts.

Almost all forms liberty have been replaced by a greater need for safety against terrorism and America has adopted wholesale the Israeli model of security.

But alas, now on an extremely cold Christmas day in 2012, I have
just read that the mind readers have failed to stop a man without a
passport being helped on board a plane bound for New York and trying to
blow it up.

Now the media and the government are calling for traceable microchip implants for everyone.

Oh how I wish more people would have stood up to the freedom stripping technology in 2010 before it had gotten this far!

Coming tomorrow: Notes from 2016 on the mass implementation of
placing everyone in sealed pods in response to the failed Christmas day
“escorted onto a plane by yet another sharp dressed man”
bomber.

OK, that’s not coming tomorrow, but you get the idea.

Lewis Page
The Register
Friday, January 8th, 2010

As the smoke clears following the case of Umar Farouk Abdul
Mutallab, the failed Christmas Day “underpants bomber” of
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 fame, there are just three simple points
for us Westerners to take away.

First: It is completely impossible to prevent terrorists from attacking airliners.

Second: This does not matter. There is no need for greater efforts on security.

Third: A terrorist set fire to his own trousers, suffering
eyewateringly painful burns to what Australian cricket commentators
sometimes refer to as the “groinal area”, and nobody seems
to be laughing. What’s wrong with us?

We’ll look at the first part to begin with.

In order to destroy an airliner and kill everyone on board, one
needs to do a certain amount of damage to it: a lot if it is on the
ground without much fuel in it, not so much if it is fuelled up, less
yet if it is flying at low altitude, and least of all if it is flying
high up.

Formerly there was the option of gaining access to the flight deck
– perhaps using the aircraft as a weapon, as on 9/11, perhaps to
carry out a hostage strategy – but those days are gone. The 9/11
hijackers have seen to it that the best and most effective ways for
terrorists to employ airliners are no longer open to them. Pilots will
never open flight deck doors again, no matter the threat to hostages in
the cabin; passengers will not permit themselves to be dominated; armed
sky marshals are back. If all these fail, following the bloodbath at
Ground Zero fighter pilots will not hesitate to shoot.

So the damage must nowadays be done by other means than crashing,
most practically by detonating a charge of high explosives on the plane
while in flight. This doesn’t need to be too big, especially if
the jet is at cruising height so that the explosive effects will be
enhanced by depressurisation. This is why airliners are a favourite
target: because a fairly small amount of explosive can potentially kill
a large number of people in one go, which is not the case under most
circumstances.

It is an unfortunate and pretty much unavoidable fact that the
necessary amount of explosives can easily be carried through any
current or likely-future airport security regime, short of universal
strip + cavity searches and a total ban on carry-on luggage.

Let’s consider, for instance, a future security check
involving backscatter X-ray-through-clothes perv scans – much
more effective than millimetre wave – and X-raying of carry-on
bags as is already normal. There are several ways to beat this.

Firstly, detonators and firing devices can be disguised within
permitted electronic equipment such that they will pass through
X-raying without trouble. An AA battery casing full of
hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine (HMTD) – or some similar
sensitive primary – with a flashbulb filament in it is almost
impossible for an X-ray operator to pick out from among others, and can
be triggered by the flash circuits of any camera.

The difficult bit is the main charge, which needs to be a decent
weight and volume of acceptably stable high explosive. But it’s
not that difficult. Here are just a few ideas:

• Several terrorists – only one of whom would need to go aboard
  the target flight – could carry permissible amounts of liquid
  explosives through security, combining them later in the air-side
  lavatories.
• Readily available plastic explosives can be rolled out into flat,
  uniform sheets – they can actually be bought in this form, for
  instance under the name “Sheetex” – and cut to shape
  with ease. Such sheets can easily be inserted into luggage, where they
  won’t look noticeably different from normal cardboard or plastic
  structure, partitions etc under X-ray if they aren’t too thick.
  There are many other ploys along these lines; a sensible and
  well-resourced terror group could probably buy an X-ray machine and
  develop a bag containing a charge, detonator and firing circuit which
  looked entirely legit under scan.
• Reasonable amounts of main charge can be carried stuffed into body
  cavities, undetectable by any body-scan. They would need to be removed
  before use in order to escape the pronounced dampening effect of the
  human body, and probably combined with other such payloads to get a
  bang sure to do the job, but again teamwork and lavatories will see to
  this.
• There’s more scope still for the use of checked baggage. US and many other airports nowadays X-ray this,
  but there are airports which don’t. You can easily find out, as a
  terrorist organisation, routes on which a checked bag won’t be
  X-rayed by packing some unexposed film and making some flights. Once
  you have identified an airport that doesn’t X-ray checked bags,
  simply put a large time- or barometrically-triggered bomb into a
  suitcase and have your suicide operative check it before boarding.

The list goes on – and on. Any reasonably competent terrorist
organisation, with access to funds, capable technical experts and a
small number of operatives able to move about the world freely can blow
up airliners in flight. You wouldn’t even necessarily need
suicide volunteers to carry the bombs, if you were cunning: dupes might
be convinced that they were smuggling drugs, money or other contraband,
or IRA-style “proxy bombers” could be forced to do your
bidding by seizing and threatening their families.

Full article here

Dutch News.nl
Friday, January 8, 2009

Rotterdam police are trying to develop a portable scanner which will
allow them to see through people’s clothing and look for
concealed weapons, the NRC reports on Friday.

The force has been given a €500,000 government grant to develop
the mobile weapons detector, which would use similar technology to the
scanners being introduced at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, the
paper says.

The aim is to develop a prototype ready for production within three years.

The paper bases its claim on a confidential document which suggests
the scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body
searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the
search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people
suspected of carrying concealed weapons, police spokesman Paul De
Kruijf told the paper.

The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out
long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football
matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer
detector which would analyse an ‘air sample’ from a suspect
for traces of drugs or explosives, the paper says.

Full story here.

Claim that devices did not show details of genitals exposed as a lie

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 8, 2010

The full body scanners that President Obama last night
authorized to be rolled out in airports across the country at a cost of
over $1 billion dollars not only produce detailed pictures of your
genitals, but once inverted some of those images also display your
naked body in full living color.

And you don’t need to be a graphics wizard using
a $600 software suite like Photoshop to pull off the trick –
inverting a photo is a simple process that takes one click and is an
option available even in the most basic image editing software.

We were sent examples of the process by readers and
then tested it for ourselves to confirm that simply inverting some of
the pictures produced by the body scanners creates a near-perfect
replica of a naked body in full color. (SOURCE OF IMAGE).

It is important to stress that this is a low resolution image. Airport
screeners will have access to huge high definition images that, once
inverted, will allow them to see every minute detail of your body.

The inversion trick doesn’t work for all the
sample images produced by body scanners, but with or without its
application, every image will still show details of your sexual organs.
Even without being inverted, the images already break child porn laws in the UK.

Reassurances that airport screeners won’t be abe
to save the images will provide little comfort to parents who know that
the crystal clear image of their naked son or daughter being ogled by a
TSA thug can merely be snapped with a handheld camera for their
enjoyment later.

Apologists for the scanners have routinely described
the images they produce as “ghostly” or
“skeletal” in an effort to downplay the intrusion of
privacy they really represent.

As we reported yesterday, claims that the body scanners
did not provide details of genitals were disproven after a London
Guardian journalist who was present at a trial for the machines earlier
this week reported that the devices produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible.”

German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, “show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises”.

Indeed, as was admitted when the scanners were first
being rolled out over a year ago, they don’t function properly if
areas of the body are blurred out.

A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

“It will show the private parts of people, but
what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those
out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said
Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.

TV news reports have been deliberately misleading viewers by
blurring out faces and genitals of people in images produced by the
scanners. When it comes to the real thing, your sexual organs and those
of your children will be on full display to officials sat alone in back
rooms, and with a simple inversion trick, your daughter’s naked
body in full living high definition color will be there to be enjoyed
by screeners.

Fox News
Friday, January 8th, 2010

This is a rush transcript from “Your World With
Neil Cavuto,” January 6, 2010. This copy may not be in its final
form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Authorities in Dublin are trying to get to the
bottom of an incident in which live explosives made it on to a
passenger plane. Have you heard about this? Only, this really
wasn’t about terrorism. Get this. This was actually a security
test.

Apparently, a passenger unwittingly carried real bomb parts in his
luggage from a flight from Slovakia — the pilot deciding to fly
even after being told an explosive was in the checked luggage.
Generally, that is not good. The incident comes as the president
prepares to release a review of airline security tomorrow. But will
that review go far enough?

Exclusive reaction now from airline industry legend Bob Crandall, the former CEO of AMR, the parent of American Airlines.

Robert, good to have you. Happy new year.

ROBERT CRANDALL, FORMER CEO, AMR CORPORATION: Hi, Neil. How are you?

CAVUTO: Very good.

What do you make, first off, of this airport incident in Ireland? I
mean, we have seen a lot of this kind of stuff going on lately. Do you
feel safe flying?

CRANDALL: Oh, I feel safe enough, Neil.

But I just think we’re doing lots of things wrong. Maybe the
first thing we’re doing wrong is, we’re paying way too much
attention to the things that go on an airplane, and we’re not
paying not nearly enough attention to the people.

We’re not executing well. We’re not differentiating
between low-risk and high-risk, and we’re not using technology
very effectively. And for all those reasons, the system isn’t
nearly as good as it should be and could be.

CAVUTO: Still, I guess the latest salvation for us are these so-
called body scanners that show you in your complete birthday suit and
all of that. And that seems to be the solution for a lot of folks.

CRANDALL: No. Well, I think…

CAVUTO: What do you think of that?

CRANDALL: I think, look, the body scanners, in the first place, you
can’t use today’s body scanners, because they take 40 to 50
seconds per person. There aren’t enough body scanners. And if you
tried to body scan everybody, you would simply diminish the ability of
the airline system to operate.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with body scanners.

CAVUTO: We should say that the scanner’s maker says that that
figure’s overstated. It would add at best a half-a-minute. But
you’re quite right.

CRANDALL: Well…

CAVUTO: If you add all of that together times the number of people waiting, it’s substantial.

But continue.

CRANDALL: Well, but the real — I think the real issue, Neil,
is this. Most of the people that go through security don’t need a
full body scan.

Certainly, if we had a trusted traveler program, where people had
been with a — had been — gotten a thorough examination, a
background check before they got to the airport, we don’t need to
put those people through a body scanner.

What we need to do is, we need to differentiate between those people
who are a risk and those people who are unlikely to be a risk.
Let’s put the high-risk people through the body scanners. That
— now we will have enough body scanners, and, in fact, we will
have enough much more expensive body scanners.

You know, a body scanner is about $150,000. An X-ray machine is
about $10,000. You’re not going to use — you cannot useful
full body scanning on everything. And doing so is silly. It’s
just a waste of resources and a waste of money.

If you look what the Israelis do, the Israelis use layered security,
four or five layers of security, all of it focused on the people, not
on the things. And they use technology. For example, if they see a bag
that might have a bomb in it, they put it in a bomb box.

If in fact they spot a bag at the ticket counter that might have a
bomb in it, they’re encapsulated within an area. They don’t
have to evacuate the whole terminal, the way we did at Newark the other
day.

Full article here