These People Make my Head Hurt

[Shibumi]

Ummm... it's not that far of a stretch from an already-attempted terrorist plot.

Quite frankly, acting like a pompous brat towards airport security says more about you than the TSA. I know you think you're clever, but I guarantee you that they hear the same "but why should the rules apply to me" whining from dozens of people each and every day.

I know that it is fashionable to bash airport security, and indeed it is a pain compared to what it used to be, but it is their a$$ on the line if someone gets through. It is clunky, inefficient, and imperfect today, but has and will continue to get better as technology and techniques continue to evolve - and may well be phased out to some degree if the threat from Islamic extremism diminishes. It took El Al years to refine that airline's sophisticated security apparatus, and under far more favorable conditions.

I try to work with them instead of against them. They're just trying to keep me safe, after all. Trust me, they don't want to be handling your nasty flip flops any more than you want to take them off.

Shoe bombers shoes:


As a sidenote - do note that that carried explosives enough to give him a bad burn. Would not do much to an aircraft though.

Flipflops:



Now where would you hide a bomb?

It is quite cute that you defend one of the biggest scams in modern history - the theaters of airport security. But it is a bit mislead when you try to do it just to spite me - against all common reason.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I would suppose that it's possible the interior of the flip-flop (the sole) could be hollowed out and packed with C-4 or some other explosive, then pieced gently back together.

A professional could make a bomb out of almost anything, really.

[Shibumi]

I would suppose that it's possible the interior of the flip-flop (the sole) could be hollowed out and packed with C-4 or some other explosive, then pieced gently back together.

A professional could make a bomb out of almost anything, really.

ATPG, I have the deepest respect for your achievements in TWMII, and I generally bow when you post in here. In this case however, you are more than utterly wrong.

Yes of course you could hollow out the sole of a flip flop and fill it with C4, you could even make a big enough blast to blow out an aircraft window!

If you held it to someones face, you could possibly sacrifice your hand to (not def.) kill him/her (just like you could with stuff from the tax free store).

You are obviously a guy above average intelligence, fight with me on this.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm not saying it's right or wrong that we have security measures to prevent against such threats, but threatening to blow someone's head apart with C-4 is a powerful enough threat to be a security risk. It's also possible the C-4 could be used against a cockpit door or something.

I'm generally on your side that the security is overboard. All I'm saying is, and it doesn't have to be C-4, but anyone with average intelligence could make a bomb out of your flip-flop. One that could be lethal or at least present the appearance of a threat, or a possible security risk anyway.

That's all I was pointing out.

[Shibumi]

I'm not saying it's right or wrong that we have security measures to prevent against such threats, but threatening to blow someone's head apart with C-4 is a powerful enough threat to be a security risk. It's also possible the C-4 could be used against a cockpit door or something.

I'm generally on your side that the security is overboard. All I'm saying is, and it doesn't have to be C-4, but anyone with average intelligence could make a bomb out of your flip-flop. One that could be lethal or at least present the appearance of a threat, or a possible security risk anyway.

That's all I was pointing out.

You could also buy a vodka bottle at the tax free store after the control - breaking it at the handle - and threaten someones face.
Or you could buy 10 bottles - spill it out in the cabin - ignite the carpet and you would get quite a fire.

Two hollowed out flip flops with military C4 could in the worst case scenario make a dent in a cockpit door. In the average case scenario it would leave a burn mark that is REALLY hard to wash away - meaning hours of extra labor for the janitor detail. Oh the horror.

[PanzerJaeger]

Now where would you hide a bomb?

In the soles of course, which appear to be less than an inch shorter than Reid's.

Here's a better question. Do you honestly believe the TSA has the time and resources availible to carefully analyze each every pair of shoes that pass through the airport for a) the ability to create a bomb out of them and then b) the blast radius and lethality of said bomb before they ask people to remove them?

It is quite cute that you defend one of the biggest scams in modern history - the theaters of airport security. But it is a bit mislead when you try to do it just to spite me - against all common reason.

I wasn't trying to spite you. You're post came off as genuinely arrogant and lacking in understanding of the unenviable position airport security is in - trying to stop the very real threat of terrorism while operating under arduously strict procedures (no profiling) and attempting to respect passenger privacy concerns. The fact that you've admittedly been dragged into interrogation rooms at least three times seems to indicate that the problem resides with you and not the TSA.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You could also buy a vodka bottle at the tax free store after the control - breaking it at the handle - and threaten someones face.
Or you could buy 10 bottles - spill it out in the cabin - ignite the carpet and you would get quite a fire.

Two hollowed out flip flops with military C4 could in the worst case scenario make a dent in a cockpit door. In the average case scenario it would leave a burn mark that is REALLY hard to wash away - meaning hours of extra labor for the janitor detail. Oh the horror.

Okay. Military weapons knowledge isn't my forte, and that's one of the many reasons I'm just a pizza delivery man.

I don't suppose there are explosives more powerful that could in fact be threatening to life or limb? The 9/11 hijackings were carried out with box cutters, iirc. Threatening to literally blow someone's head to pieces right in front of everyone could be more than a little coercive, if people were afraid of rushing people with tiny blades.

I already agree with you that what is too dangerous to be let on a plane seems arbitrary to the lay person, but I suppose they judge the likelihood of certain kinds of threats being lethal or dangerous on a plane and go with their judgments on it, right or wrong. Someone is going to do that job, and the reason why is because people need to earn money to make a living, and the government is going to want to cover its own butt if something bad goes down. Further, the reason why we have such beefy security now is because whenever there's a crisis everyone panics and demands maximum security. This is the end result.

I'm not saying I agree with it. And since I don't know, and most people don't know what is or isn't threatening (look at how they feel about guys dressed as Imams. Lots of terrorists forget about disguises and go plan their attacks dressed as clerics....), someone makes that assessment for us and it makes some people feel safer, and that allows some of them to fly on planes, and that allows airlines to make money, and flights remain within an affordable range for common people, I guess.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't suppose there are explosives more powerful that could in fact be threatening to life or limb?

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate is the weapon of choice for would-be suicide plane bombers.

[Shibumi]

Okay. Military weapons knowledge isn't my forte, and that's one of the many reasons I'm just a pizza delivery man.

I don't suppose there are explosives more powerful that could in fact be threatening to life or limb? The 9/11 hijackings were carried out with box cutters, iirc. Threatening to literally blow someone's head to pieces right in front of everyone could be more than a little coercive, if people were afraid of rushing people with tiny blades.

I already agree with you that what is too dangerous to be let on a plane seems arbitrary to the lay person, but I suppose they judge the likelihood of certain kinds of threats being lethal or dangerous on a plane and go with their judgments on it, right or wrong. Someone is going to do that job, and the reason why is because people need to earn money to make a living, and the government is going to want to cover its own butt if something bad goes down. Further, the reason why we have such beefy security now is because whenever there's a crisis everyone panics and demands maximum security. This is the end result.

I'm not saying I agree with it. And since I don't know, and most people don't know what is or isn't threatening (look at how they feel about guys dressed as Imams. Lots of terrorists forget about disguises and go plan their attacks dressed as clerics....), someone makes that assessment for us and it makes some people feel safer, and that allows some of them to fly on planes, and that allows airlines to make money, and flights remain within an affordable range for common people, I guess.

There are most def explosives you could hide in a sole of a flip flop shoe that is as harmful as a box cutter or a broken glass bottle.

My point however is that the amount of time, energy, and money wasted on protecting us from hypothetical threats could be way better spent elsewhere. And as a side note - that probably should be a main point - terrorists win when they affect the lives of the average guy. An idiot brought explosives enough to threaten a window - kaboom everyone around the world has to take any kind of footwear off.

It is like giving the terrorists a walk over (I generally hate sport terms). When it comes to impact divided by means (ability) - the shoe bomber must be the most efficient terrorist in history. But only so because the government nods, and the blind masses follow.

Have you had a look at the security industry? And yes, it is quite and industry these days - worth billions of billions. They have lobby groups - those like us feeling insecure. There are also political gains in having the population feel insecure.

Me? I prefer to live in a world where people can pass through security with flip flops, and where they can say the name Voldemort without fear.


PJ

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate is the weapon of choice for would-be suicide plane bombers.

Do you often make random assumptions based on what I can only believe to be ill-read book knowledge - or do you save those moments for this forum?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh, if you're talking about money wasted, then security and certain military actions taken do total in the trillions.

That was Bin Laden's plan, to cripple us economically like the Soviets, overreacting to the threats he posed. He was right about that much, we are in much worse financial shape, and the military/security industries are thriving at the expense of basic necessities. The illusion of security is not the same as security, I agree.

Stuff gets past security and it destroys hundreds of lives, prompting even more security, until it does become ludicrous. I think security on airplanes should be opt-in.... if you're in a hurry and don't want to pay extra, fly "gutsy". You agree to not hold the airline responsible in the event of a terrorist attack or a madman on the plane. In return, you pledge to tackle anyone who acts like a jackass. You're also on the plane where, if it gets hijacked, the military shoots it out of the sky before approaching a city.

If you're a security-minded type, you can go on the plane where everyone is checked twice, every thing is checked twice, and you pay for sky marshals and all the security bells and whistles. And it will take you 2 hours longer to get anywhere. Fine. That's choice, and I support choice.

[Shibumi]

Oh, if you're talking about money wasted, then security and certain military actions taken do total in the trillions.

That was Bin Laden's plan, to cripple us economically like the Soviets, overreacting to the threats he posed. He was right about that much, we are in much worse financial shape, and the military/security industries are thriving at the expense of basic necessities. The illusion of security is not the same as security, I agree.

Stuff gets past security and it destroys hundreds of lives, prompting even more security, until it does become ludicrous. I think security on airplanes should be opt-in.... if you're in a hurry and don't want to pay extra, fly "gutsy". You agree to not hold the airline responsible in the event of a terrorist attack or a madman on the plane. In return, you pledge to tackle anyone who acts like a jackass. You're also on the plane where, if it gets hijacked, the military shoots it out of the sky before approaching a city.

If you're a security-minded type, you can go on the plane where everyone is checked twice, every thing is checked twice, and you pay for sky marshals and all the security bells and whistles. And it will take you 2 hours longer to get anywhere. Fine. That's choice, and I support choice.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ


Do you often make random assumptions based on what I can only believe to be ill-read book knowledge - or do you save those moments for this forum?

Are you speaking broadly, or implying that my statement about PETN is a 'random assumption'?

[PanzerJaeger]

Are you speaking broadly, or implying that my statement about PETN is a 'random assumption'?

Also, as much as I disagree in principle with the formation of the TSA and especially with the replacement of private workers with unionized ones, it should be noted that the agency's annual budget, which covers not only air travel but security for highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, pipelines, and ports, is ~8 billion, comprising .00223% of the national budget. As bloated as it may be, airport security is not bankrupting the nation.