Comments on: Busted: TSA making up its own myths?

By: SuzieQ

SuzieQ — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:41:38 +0000

Actually the technology for scanning water bottles is already in use… in Japan!
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7342/

By: mystic_eye_cda

mystic_eye_cda — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:09:15 +0000

Let’s assume I’m a smaller breasted woman than I am, and I want to sneak some kind of gel explosive on the plane. I’m going to buy a bigger bra and I’m going to make natural looking breast pads similar to the water bra and similar you can already buy. Or maybe I will buy a commercially made water bra and use a syringe to empty it and refill it. Then maybe I also make butt and hip pads out of more explosive so I look more proportionate.

Or maybe I’ll make a fake pregnancy belly.

Are they going to search my bra? Doubt it? Demand to see my bare belly, doubt it. Check my but for plastique but pads?

If someone really, really wants to get explosives on the plane they will find a way.

(PS I’m not a fanatic and killing a bunch of people really doesn’t appeal to me, and I’m unlikely to fly anywhere anytime soon.)

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:47:42 +0000

There are no terrorists. Just the ones we have created.
We have allowed ourselves to be robbed of our basic rights under the threat of losing security that was never there to begin with.
If a group of people wanted to sneak a binary liquid explosive on a plane, it could still be done even WITH the 3-1-1 policy. All you have to do is have multiple people carrying the liquids. Done.
This threat doesn’t exist. Period.

By: Andy M.

Andy M. — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:01:53 +0000

Thank you, lazarus. Someone eventually had to jump in with a textbook example of the fallacy of the false alternative. I am glad you were here to oblige and get it out of the way.

By: lazarus

lazarus — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:32 +0000

For all you people complaining about things that are beyond your grasp:

Why don’t we just get rid of TSA and post a “fly at your own risk” sign at every air terminal. Maybe that will help you sleep better at night.

By: Cat

Cat — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:39:31 +0000

Actually, the “experts” you refer to about lighters are the United States Congress.
Oh yes. It’s true. They passed a law first banning lighters from aircraft. Thus, the dreaded “Lighter Ban”. Then, because taking lighters was ridiculous, Congress then added to another law this prohibition. The TSA cannot spend money enforcing the previous law.

So, Lighters are *still* prohibited from the cabin of passenger aircraft. But the TSA cannot take them away. Because the screener salaries are money the TSA spends, and it can’t pay a screener to take it away.

You think things are ridiculous? Don’t blame the grunts for enforcing the ridiculous idiocy of Congress.

And Rob, you’re applying rational thought to people that strap explosive vests to themselves, and are happy to blow themselves and as few as one other person to hell. Killing a few hundred isn’t a numerical victory, but it’s still a victory to the suicide terrorist mind.

By: Michael T

Michael T — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:39:07 +0000

I think we’re crazy to let even naked people with no luggage onto the airplane. It’s been well-established that people with the right diet are capable of spontaneous combustion. Certainly this would be disastrous if it happened during a flight.

The only truly secure method of stopping the possibility of terrorist bombings on airplanes is it not let anybody on the plane at all, not even the pilot.

It’s not even safe to send the plane up into the air. Obviously, without a pilot at all, that could be potentially dangerous. Even some computer-controlled autopilot isn’t safe. (What if those evil hackers took remote control of the autopilot and had him crash the plane into something?)

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:04:53 +0000

We can look past all the crap about security technology vendors and marketing scams. We can even look past the DoD reports from before all of this nonsense stating that binary liquid explosives are simply not a threat because of the time, care, and fumes involved in making them viable.

The real question I have is why do we care about explosives on planes? After 9/11 our assumptions about hijackers have changed. It is now understood that if hostile individuals are able to take over a plane, that everyone on that plane and a good number of people on the ground will die. Therefore it no longer makes sense to hand over control of the plane to a bomb-wielding individual. (Clearly some sort of timed lock on the airplane cabin door would resolve any emotional conflicts the crew might have about weighing potential deaths against actual.)

Bringing a bomb onto a plane, which used to be an effective alternative to a gun or other device which might be more obvious in scanning, no longer makes sense. The best the attacker could hope for is dying, while killing a few hundred people in a manner no different than an accident. In fact it could even be dismissed as an accident removing the entire terrorist message. It makes more sense to target populated areas with substantially less security. I am sure with a little creativity you can think of many such targets, most of which would be impossible to dismiss as an accident and would strike far more fear into middle America, which is the goal, right?

By: David

David — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:17:42 +0000

If you point out to the beloved TSA that 4-5 of those 3oz containers can fit in your ziptop bag and that a reasonable chemist could fashion a harmful device from such, the asshats at the TSA will ban all liquids/gels. Shortly thereafter they’ll ban shoes since an incendiary device was once concealed in a shoe. Then some bright government star will realize clothing is just a method of concealing prohibited items, and then we’ll all be flying in the nude.

Luggage? Oh my, no, can’t put that on a plane; much too easy to conceal something dangerous there.

Terribly sorry, but only naked people with no luggage will be allowed on this flight.

Oh, and sir, you’ll have to lose that erection before you board the plane – it might go off at any moment!

By: Britt

Britt — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:19:04 +0000

The liquids ban has always perplexed me. You can fit at least 4-5 of those 3oz containers in your ziptop bag. I’m sure some chemistry student could come up with a harmful combination that doesn’t require more than 15 oz of liquid. How come no one ever points this out?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:40:47 +0000

TJ – I think it depends on the airport, but at Detroit’s Metro (DTW), the liquids to be sold (water, juices, etc.) are run through the same X-ray machines as our luggage is. It always amazed me to see the delivery person load up the conveyer belt with boxes of liquids to go through the same X-ray machines that apparantly can’t determine if my factory-sealed water bottle is safe.

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:36:42 +0000

And who is checking the bottled water and toothpaste being delivered to those vendors on the “air” side of security?

By: Jasper

Jasper — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:44:23 +0000

I was striken by your comment in one of your earlier columns: The TSA want to be busy keeping tooth paste and drinks of planes in stead of chasing down the terrorists.

It would be nice though if you could show a link between the airport drink vendors and the TSA. I am quite surprised quite frankly that no drinks vendor has yet said soomething stupid on the subject.

Perhaps you could investigate how much the revenue of ‘after security’ beverage vendors has oncreased since the ‘no-liquids policy’ started. After all, all those extra drnks are just as much an extra cost to the traveller as the security taxes and fees we pay these days.

By: morty herman

morty herman — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:38:57 +0000

don’t be absurd. If they let you carry water bottles aboard the financial loss to the vendors on the “other side” of security would lose their shirts.

of course the TSA could allow anyone carrying a bottle of water to take a sip before going through…(who would drink an explosive?)