-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
TSA Going Soft?
- Thread starter Bob Maxey
- Start date
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Here in the US, you can get away with carrying just about any blade. Gets trickier if it's concealed. Strap a 2 ft machete to your back and you're all good. Hide it under your overcoat and it's a different question.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
Well, there is a way to guarantee 100% that you will not come to harm while doing something: just don't do it.
While it may seem to be a Good Thing to shoot for 100% safety (accomplishing as much safety as humanly possible), what about other factors, such as liberty? Yes you might be a tiny percentage safer if you're held as a prisoner, at the mercy of the airline. The thing is...some people don't care to be treated as prisoners for some reason. And since liberty is a Constitutionally protected right here in the US and safety is not, I think they'd be in the right for wanting to retain some level of liberty while on a commercial aircraft. IJS
Likewise there's common law giving broad-ranging powers to the captain of a vessel, including airliners. No matter what the TSA allows, the pilot in charge of your flight can confiscate pocket knives, or deny boarding to people who have them. I know; I had my Swiss Army Knife confiscated for the duration of the flight when I went to camp in Colorado circa 1974. I was 12.
Given the events on 2001-09-11 I'm inclined to continue packing my gentleman's folding knife (that would be a large stretch to call a weapon) for the greater good. But I would like to be able to go to the airport without first having to scour all of my carry-on baggage to make sure that I haven't left behind a harmless computer screwdriver, for example. There can be, and should be a middle ground here.
A good place to start is by letting people keep their shoes on as long as they don't set off the metal detectors. Face it, the one and only reason why the TSA made us take our shoes off, commencing fully five years after the single failed shoe-bomb attempt, is to FUD us.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Actually, in the UK they do only make you take your shoes off if you trigger the detector - last w/end I didn't have to take off my trainers but my missus had to take off her zipped boots.
Not quite sure why the metal matters - I don't think the shoe bomber had metal in the explosive he tried to ignite. I think I saw something that claimed he only had enought explosive to hurt himself and maybe the passenger right next to him anyway.
Not quite sure why the metal matters - I don't think the shoe bomber had metal in the explosive he tried to ignite. I think I saw something that claimed he only had enought explosive to hurt himself and maybe the passenger right next to him anyway.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Until you are caught then it becomes very complicated.
sntaylor
Android Expert
That is a very complicated case, it is under Scots law that we have compassion.....at discretion of course!
In his instance there is a lot of contradictory evidence suggesting he may be innocent, even people who have family members that died as a result, feel he may have been innocent!
As he was tried under Scots law, and served in our prisons, it is only fair we release him under the same terms as others, granted, he lived for longer than was anticipated, but if he was innocent this is no bad thing.....
besides, we still had airport terrorists who were stopped, without needing the use of any guns, or other weapons for that matter!
huh
Android Expert
I recently returned from a flight and realized I had a razor and razor blades in my carry on..I thought that was not allowed..changes every week I swear! Actually it is different at every airport! I was talking to a TSA agent about it at one of the airports..he agreed it was ridiculous..shoes on?shoes off? lighters? yes no..seperate bin for tablets and computers or no...it's crazy and it slows everything down....he was saying some people get all Pissy because they don't have to do this at their airport and blah blah blah...
and no matter how hard I try
...they always just let me walk on by never bother to stop or check me or give me the stink eye..nothin!
maybe because I'm friendly...hmmm
still..should at least have set standards across the board at every airport would help...
and no matter how hard I try
...they always just let me walk on by never bother to stop or check me or give me the stink eye..nothin!maybe because I'm friendly...hmmm
still..should at least have set standards across the board at every airport would help...
Bob Blaylock
Well-Known Member
The problem was not that the terrorists had weapons. The problem was that only the terrorists had weapons, leaving the passengers and crew unable to fight back. Well, that, and that up until 9/11, hijackings nearly always ended in ways that left most of the passengers alive, leading to a mindset that the
Bob Blaylock
Well-Known Member
This wasn't the
huh
Android Expert
It's almost a dark comedy... an absurdity.. It wasn't,t even a possibility in people's brains that hijackers would slaughter people with box cutters and crash jets into buildings 10 + years ago.. .. I mean really?? wt what... But now.. Its... a reality ... :/
Oh ...
and I can take someone out with nothing but a hair pin... And I would too...
if I had to
Wait...
What?
Never mind
Carry on
Oh ...
and I can take someone out with nothing but a hair pin... And I would too...
if I had to
Wait...
What?
Never mind
Carry on
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
remanifest
Android Expert
Do any of you really believe that 9/11 was carried out with box cutters? I would beat the living hell out of anyone who tried to attack me with a box cutter, and you're seriously not questioning the official narrative at all if you think an entire plane would stand down to some dudes walking around with box cutters.
copestag
Android Expert
I dont think its unbelievable at all...... you could hijack a plane with a plastic fork or a paperclip among many many other silly little items
I stand up behind the flight attendant and grab her from behind holding a box cutter to her throat....... you arent going to look my direction more than once if I threaten to slice her throat........ one move shes dead and you know that
youre going to let me do whatever I want...... no questions asked........ all I need is 20 seconds to get to the cockpit...... where my the crew is either going to also comply with my demands.... or my accomplices are going to remove them from the picture
which is exactly how I see what happened playing out
of course youre certainly entitled to see it happening in a differet manner........ some still believe it never happened... there are probably those still planning to see the towers on vacation
kungfu grip GIJoe or Jackie Chan neither one could have stopped them and neither could/would a normal person......... maybe Chuck Norris but he cant be on every plane
I stand up behind the flight attendant and grab her from behind holding a box cutter to her throat....... you arent going to look my direction more than once if I threaten to slice her throat........ one move shes dead and you know that
youre going to let me do whatever I want...... no questions asked........ all I need is 20 seconds to get to the cockpit...... where my the crew is either going to also comply with my demands.... or my accomplices are going to remove them from the picture
which is exactly how I see what happened playing out
of course youre certainly entitled to see it happening in a differet manner........ some still believe it never happened... there are probably those still planning to see the towers on vacation
kungfu grip GIJoe or Jackie Chan neither one could have stopped them and neither could/would a normal person......... maybe Chuck Norris but he cant be on every plane
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Well, given that the official narrative is consistent with the facts I don't see why not. You'd be surprised how few people are willing to challenge someone with a box cutter who has just slit the throat of a stewardess and you have to step over her dead body to get to him.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
I don't see any reason to question it.
You have to remember that no-one on those planes believed they were going to be crashed in to buildings. On the one plane where the passengers found out, they apparently resisted.
Before 9/11, if a plane was hijacked it was generally flown to an airport you weren't planning on visiting but other'n that, passengers were rarely actually hurt.
Standard OP was comply with hijacker's initial instructions and allow the security forces to take care of things once the plane was on the ground.
9/11 may not have changed everything, but it did change that.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I would direct "truthers" to this vid - Luke's Change: an Inside Job - YouTube
Please note the similarities in the arguments they use and the ones used by "truthers".
Please note the similarities in the arguments they use and the ones used by "truthers".
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Unfortunately I can't access YouTube at the minute ..
What do you mean by 'truther'?
What do you mean by 'truther'?
Lets agree to disagree. If you want to be safe travel by train.
If you really want to commit a terrorist attack you will figure a way. With or without knife.
You can take care of someone just by hitting them hard to the side of their head between an eye and ear.
We should send box of blue pills to TSA so they would be hard as a rock. No more softness.
If you really want to commit a terrorist attack you will figure a way. With or without knife.
You can take care of someone just by hitting them hard to the side of their head between an eye and ear.
We should send box of blue pills to TSA so they would be hard as a rock. No more softness.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
remanifest
Android Expert
Have you read the 9/11 commission report?
You need to keep in mind how many military members were aboard those flights. Myself being former military, I guarantee you that nobody would hold me hostage with a boxcutter.
Why was WTC Tower 7 intentionally detonated? When were those explosives placed, and why was it done on that day? Further, why did the news media report WTC 7 as having collapsed, when it was clearly in the camera's view, only to have it detonated several minutes later?
Why did Larry Silverstein take out such a large insurance policy on the WTC Complex in the weeks leading up to 9/11?
Why was Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco told not to fly? What about John Ashcroft? Benjamin Netanyahu?
Why did the fires that were so hot that they could melt 47 steel frames to molten rock not burn paper passports and ID cards?
Why was the evidence of the attack (namely, the rubble and molten rock) removed from New York, when there was an opportunity to have a real investigation as to what brought those towers down? You have to remember that those towers were engineered to withstand a hit by a fully-loaded Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time.
If someone can explain to me, mathematically, the physics of a building collapsing at free-fall speed due to structural damage at the 95th story, I'll be satisfied. You're talking about 15 stories collapsing 94 stories at free fall speed, implying no resistance whatsoever. Again, show me how that is mathematically possible, and I will be happy.
The official narrative of that day is a well-constructed (rehearsed) lie with ridiculous holes in it.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
A conspiracy theorist!
Excellent!
Nope.
It wasn't blown up, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has conclusively proved the collapse was caused by fire.
Because he only won the lease for WTC on July 24, i.e. in the weeks leading up to 9/11.
In other words, he would not have been able to insure WTC any earlier.
There's no evidence he was.
Plus it doesn't make sense: he was due to fly from San Francisco so was in no danger. If the call was from someone with knowledge of the attacks, then they plainly didn't know very much.
I'm no scientist, but paper does have a habit of floating away ..
Well, two things: first, the entire world saw the planes hit the towers so there wasn't any doubt about what brought the towers down (and there's still no doubt, BTW) and second, they spent weeks meticulously searching the rubble for remains, so they had plenty of time.
Clearly they weren't - QED.
Also, 747s went into service in 1970. The first of the twin towers wasn't built until 1972.
You don't need math: if something is unsupported in will fall, accelerating until it's hits terminal velocity, aka free fall.
So please point some out that don't take approximately 30 seconds of minimal research to totally refute.
Excellent!
Nope.
It wasn't blown up, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has conclusively proved the collapse was caused by fire.
Because he only won the lease for WTC on July 24, i.e. in the weeks leading up to 9/11.
In other words, he would not have been able to insure WTC any earlier.
There's no evidence he was.
Plus it doesn't make sense: he was due to fly from San Francisco so was in no danger. If the call was from someone with knowledge of the attacks, then they plainly didn't know very much.
I'm no scientist, but paper does have a habit of floating away ..
Well, two things: first, the entire world saw the planes hit the towers so there wasn't any doubt about what brought the towers down (and there's still no doubt, BTW) and second, they spent weeks meticulously searching the rubble for remains, so they had plenty of time.
Clearly they weren't - QED.
Also, 747s went into service in 1970. The first of the twin towers wasn't built until 1972.
You don't need math: if something is unsupported in will fall, accelerating until it's hits terminal velocity, aka free fall.
So please point some out that don't take approximately 30 seconds of minimal research to totally refute.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I'll hate myself for doing this in the morning. Heck, I'll get a head start and hate myself now. Well, I would except I've already got a lot of self-loathing going on at the moment so I may have to put hating myself on the backburner and do it next week some time. I will hate myself though. Of that much I am sure.
Yes. As recently as a few months ago in fact as part of some research I was doing.
And there were no former military members on any other hijacked flights ever? Why would they assume their lives were in danger? As previously noted in every other plane hijacking the hijackers landed the plane somewhere and negotiated with authorities. Why would anyone think this was going to be any different?
It was not intentionally detonated. No explosives were placed. News media reports inaccurate crap all the time especially when a big story is happening and they're trying to scoop each other.
Umm, because he owned it and it had been targeted by terrorists in the past and it was worth a large amount of money? Do you have insurance on your house? Why would you do such a thing unless you were planning to burn it down? You must be guilty of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.
They were not told not to fly. Nor were any of the others. Netanyahu wasn't even in the US. Why in the world would he be told not to fly?
The fires didn't melt steel and no one except conspiracy theorists claims they did. Ever walked through a house fire? How did a fire that was hot enough to burn down a building leave things like pictures and family portraits behind in the rubble? Must be a conspiracy!!
Umm, cleanup efforts? In any case whether the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a fully loaded 707 or not is irrelevant (and debated quite hotly between NIST and the architects/builders of the tower). The towers did indeed withstand the hit of the 767s. The subsequent fires coupled with the damage from the planes is what brought them down.
Who says they collapsed at free fall speed? And why wouldn't they? You realize that skyscrapers are possible because the vast majority of the building is air.
Yes. As recently as a few months ago in fact as part of some research I was doing.
And there were no former military members on any other hijacked flights ever? Why would they assume their lives were in danger? As previously noted in every other plane hijacking the hijackers landed the plane somewhere and negotiated with authorities. Why would anyone think this was going to be any different?
It was not intentionally detonated. No explosives were placed. News media reports inaccurate crap all the time especially when a big story is happening and they're trying to scoop each other.
Umm, because he owned it and it had been targeted by terrorists in the past and it was worth a large amount of money? Do you have insurance on your house? Why would you do such a thing unless you were planning to burn it down? You must be guilty of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.
They were not told not to fly. Nor were any of the others. Netanyahu wasn't even in the US. Why in the world would he be told not to fly?
The fires didn't melt steel and no one except conspiracy theorists claims they did. Ever walked through a house fire? How did a fire that was hot enough to burn down a building leave things like pictures and family portraits behind in the rubble? Must be a conspiracy!!
Umm, cleanup efforts? In any case whether the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a fully loaded 707 or not is irrelevant (and debated quite hotly between NIST and the architects/builders of the tower). The towers did indeed withstand the hit of the 767s. The subsequent fires coupled with the damage from the planes is what brought them down.
Who says they collapsed at free fall speed? And why wouldn't they? You realize that skyscrapers are possible because the vast majority of the building is air.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Here is the thing, as they say.
Lots of people say what they would do if faced with something like an armed terrorist. Chances are, what you say you would do is likely not what you would actually do if faced with a serious issue thousands of feet in the air.
It matters very little because the next attack will be totally unexpected and we will start banning things left and right. We will toss tens of millions of dollars at protecting this next whatever.
Terrorists are not at all stupid
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Well, yes and no. They're certainly good at the cat and mouse game with security. Not so bright on the bigger picture stuff.
For example, Bin Laden had a personal fortune estimated to have been around $300 million in the mid-90s.
The total spend in the 96 US election was around $400 million.
With a little financial jiggery pokery - or by taking US citizenship, which he'd have easily gotten given the contacts his family had in all administrations - Bin Laden could have bought the president. With money to spare. The US system obliges it's politicians to be bought and paid for, so buy 'em!
Instead of blowing people up, he should have followed the supremely successful example of the Israeli / Jewish lobby and spent his $300 mil on ads and chicken dinners and he'd have had the US president eating out of his hand. Again, look at the Israeli example: the US is Israel's b*tch.
And it goes further: the Jewish lobby spends a few million dollars a year supporting politicians in the US. Israel gets $3 - or is it $4 - billion dollars a year in aide. If Bin Laden had spent his cash on lobbyists instead of Kalashnikovs, the places he purported to want to help would have gotten it back 10 fold.
Now tell me terrorists aren't dumb as bricks