TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @11:50AM from the thanks-for-the-tip dept.

coondoggie writes "Some of the travel recommendations posted on the Transportation Security Administration's blog seem stupefying obvious. This week's, entitled: 'Leave Your Grenades at Home' seemed like a no brainer, but alas. The TSA wrote about grenades in particular: Year to date, the agency's officers have discovered: 43 grenades in carry-on baggage and 40 grenades in checked baggage."

378 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:52 · Score: 0

Phase Rifles?
1. Re:What about by rsilvergun · 2013-09-11 12:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anything below 40 watts should be fine.
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
2. Re:What about by PPH · 2013-09-11 12:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Lasers not in the company of sharks appear to be OK.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:What about by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-11 13:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Lasers not in the company of sharks appear to be OK.
  Well duh. Sharks need more than 3 ounces of water. And if there's one thing I've learned from traveling, it's that more than 3 ounces of water is dangerous and only a terrorist would try to bring that though an airport checkpoint.
4. Re: What about by jxander · 2013-09-11 13:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ahhh but water, much like the atom, will completely lose power when split.
  That 6 oz. water container is hazardous and must be banned, but if split into 2 3oz bottles, the danger is gone.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
5. Re: What about by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-11 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh but water, much like the atom, will completely lose power when split.
  That 6 oz. water container is hazardous and must be banned, but if split into 2 3oz bottles, the danger is gone.
  Yeah, but the last time I checked, you cant cut a shark in half and expect it to live. Pus they don't do to well in 6 oz of water either. ;-)
6. Re: What about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  >Yeah, but the last time I checked, you cant cut a shark in half and expect it to live.
  I'll bet you learned that from Sharknado. :-)
7. Re:What about by xQx · 2013-09-11 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well duh. Sharks need more than 3 ounces of water.
  
  The words of somebody who hasn't seen Sharknado!
8. Re:What about by Notabadguy · 2013-09-12 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I typically have a bottle of water when I go through airport security. I present it to the screeners and explain that I have a medical requirement to stay hydrated due to oral steroid use.
  Most often, they let it pass. Less often, they sniff it and let it pass. Even less often, they pour a bit on a sterile pad and do a chemical analysis. They've never taken it away.
9. Re:What about by maliqua · 2013-09-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Lets not get started on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide
10. Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well duh. Sharks need more than 3 ounces of water.
  Sure, we know that now .
11. Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-13 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  No, you don't have it right. It's not the water that's dangerous - the reason why you can't bring more than 3 ounces of water is just to make sure you won't be able to get a living shark on board!
12. Re: What about by Z00L00K · 2013-09-13 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  They are worried about the critical mass.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
wait...even the Holy ones? by MoFoQ · 2013-09-11 11:53 · Score: 4, Funny

wait...even the Holy ones?
What about the foam ones? or the ones that are really balloons (but not filled up with anything yet)?
1. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by todrules · 2013-09-11 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Holy hand grenades are fine, since you have to count to three before they explode. Not one. Not two. But three.
2. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by TrekkieGod · 2013-09-11 15:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  four is right out.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
3. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by BlueStrat · 2013-09-11 17:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Obligatory movie quote:
  Cleric: "And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number to be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."
  On topic, I'd like to see a phone app along somewhat similar lines to ride-sharing and flight-booking combined, only with private charter flight services, to coordinate people traveling to/from the same or near-enough locations to share costs and save money and time, not to mention one's civil rights.
  The more popular it becomes the more flight volume for the charter services in frequency and flights seated to capacity, and therefor charter services whose aircraft are in the air with full seats earning money steadily and reliably have the ability to negotiate larger bulk fuel contracts, tires, engines and other parts, etc etc at lower costs. All those lower average costs plus competition will tend to lower passenger fees.
  Heh, instead of a "flash-mob", one could have a "flash-flight", minus the groping! Groups of otherwise unrelated individuals from random backgrounds suddenly booking a charter flight together as a group might throw some wrenches into TLA surveillance/data algorithms.
  You could choose the flight that irradiates, strip-searches, and cavity-searches all passengers, or choose an "open-carry" flight, smoking, non-smoking...whatever.
  Wouldn't it be nice, since this is supposed to be the "land of the free" and all, to have a choice!?!?
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
4. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  five is right out
  goddamn troll, made me reply
5. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by ArsenneLupin · 2013-09-12 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Except that charter flight passengers (or even "general aviation") need to go through checkpoints too...
6. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  hmm, daddy likes!
7. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by GigsVT · 2013-09-12 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe that's the case, at least not at many airports. I've read an article that says that air taxi service is getting popular because it does avoid TSA.
  
  --
  I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
8. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Because the aircraft themselves on your theoretical open-carry flights could be used as weapons just like the aircraft on other flights?
9. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see the checkpoint at an unmanned field.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
10. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by BlueStrat · 2013-09-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Because the aircraft themselves on your theoretical open-carry flights could be used as weapons just like the aircraft on other flights?
  I don't think they're too worried about "terrists" hijacking a twin-engine Beechcraft or even a Cessna Citation or Gulfstream and turning it into a kinetic WMD.
  It takes an aircraft on the size/mass scale of a 4-engine passenger jet to be effective as a kinetic WMD. Otherwise, it's simply another small plane crash.
  I don't know of many private charter services operating 4-engine passenger jets.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
For those of you that don't RTFA... by OrangeTide · 2013-09-11 11:53 · Score: 5, Informative

a majority of the confiscated grenades are fake, replicas or otherwise inert.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 12:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A majority, but not all.
  Of course, once in the air, circumstances may arise where the only way to tell is to see if it will go off. Not many people want to do that.
  Hijacking using bombs, or a threat of a bomb (what's a fake?), was a popular pastime in the 1960s-70s.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  a majority of the confiscated grenades are fake, replicas or otherwise inert.
  So why have them at all?
3. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  TSA prohibits you from carrying items that merely look dangerous.
4. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  My wife uses a perfume called Flowerbomb. It comes in a glass container shaped like a grenade. I could imagine this causing an issue at airport scanners.
5. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by KillAllNazis · 2013-09-11 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  Classy lady.
6. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by icebike · 2013-09-11 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Glass. You can see through it. Scanner Xrays pass right through it.
  Just not a problem.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  The others were for fishing.
8. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 12:42 · Score: 2
  
  Is that a clever way of telling us that your wife is "da bomb"?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
9. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-11 12:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And yet, it still then didn't add up to a statistically significant enough threat to bother with additional security.
  Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
10. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-11 12:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why not have them? Why have bunny slippers? Since when should people have to justify why they want to have their own personal items?
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
11. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 12:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.
  Because no terrorist would want to bring a grenade on a plane?
  If the existing security is finding the grenades they don't need additional security.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
12. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by MrDoh! · 2013-09-11 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, most of those glass perfume containers are leaded glass that also look opaque on the screen. "If it looks like a threat, treat it like a threat"
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
13. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by supersat · 2013-09-11 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're right -- liquids over 100ml are still not permitted through the checkpoint.
14. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-11 13:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because terrorists are so rare that they are not even worth worrying about, and never were.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
15. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by wbr1 · 2013-09-11 13:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over and fly it into populated areas or buildings. That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
16. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by larry+bagina · 2013-09-11 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  They found 83 grenades ... do you know how many grenades they didn't find? When tested, they miss over half of handguns.
  PS: you an stick a grenade up your asshole.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
17. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  With grenades you can remove the fuse body from the shell to render it inert.
18. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by icebike · 2013-09-11 13:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, no.
  Leaded glass does not have enough lead to make that much of a difference to xrays of the strength used to scan luggage.
  Its not the same high lead content glass you find in radiation shielding items.
  Further, nobody wastes leaded glass on perfume bottles any more, which is why all of the
  old ones are becoming such collector's items.
  Finally, anything you put in or on your body would/should not be stored in leaded glass.
  You might drink wine or bourbon from a leaded glass, but you should never store it in such.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
19. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  I would describe a secondary explosive without it's fuse as "stable", not "inert".
20. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Deadstick · 2013-09-11 13:51 · Score: 2
  
  This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over
  You can open a pretty sturdy door with the right explosive...
21. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Cyberax · 2013-09-11 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's inert. Even if you put it on fire exactly nothing exciting is going to happen - explosives will simply melt, flow out of the casing and slowly burn.
22. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Dan667 · 2013-09-11 13:56 · Score: 2
  
  so still no actual security from the tsa. Just security theater for people that are afraid anytime they leave their home and when they are home.
23. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by JWSmythe · 2013-09-11 14:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ... and a quick Google search says your wrong.
  The presence of lead or other heavy elements was not required for visualization. Fragments as small as 0.5 mm were easily detected if there was no overlying bone.
  And a somewhat NSFW link with some glass objects that shouldn't be there.
  Density makes a difference. It won't jump out like metal, but it should be visible. here are some examples and notes
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
24. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  When their personal items look like they might blow up that's generally a reason. I'm not necessarily in favor of banning hand grenades that aren't able to go off, but there's more to the issue than you make it sound like. Not MUCH more, but if you're going to argue that the decision is totally stupid then you have to consider it in full first.
25. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by JWSmythe · 2013-09-11 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  The way checkpoints have been enforced just about everywhere I've gone, it's not the volume of the liquid contained, but the potential volume of the container...
  If you have a 1 gallon container with 1oz of liquid remaining, they'll still seize it.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
26. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-11 14:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Here's your solution, then. Make the sturdy doors ugly.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
27. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-11 14:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So, no laptops running Windows ME?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
28. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by phantomfive · 2013-09-11 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  And the rest were either smoke, flare, riot, and flash bang grenades. Not a single true grenade in the lot.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
29. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by omnichad · 2013-09-11 14:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Furthermore, if I'm reading the numbers right, 1 live grenade out of 84 found - and that one was an accident by a travelling solider. The rest were completely inert and only look dangerous.
30. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by jamesh · 2013-09-11 14:18 · Score: 2
  
  This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over
  You can open a pretty sturdy door with the right explosive...
  Not being an explosives expert, I have to ask can you compromise the armored cockpit door without making the plane unflyable via either compromising the airframe, or blowing the door through the pilots?
31. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by chrismcb · 2013-09-11 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because no terrorist would want to bring a grenade on a plane?
  Uhm, pretty much. Just like you won't find many terrorists trying to bring a two handed long sword on a plane. A grenade isn't exactly the weapon to use in close quarters. And chances are wouldn't do significant damage to the plane itself.
32. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AK+Marc · 2013-09-11 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  I had a gun confiscated once. It was 4 inches long, flourescent pink, and translucent plastic. It looked like a real gun about as much as holding up a drawing of one on paper looks like a functional gun.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
33. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by LordNimon · 2013-09-11 14:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.
  
  Obviously, that is not true. There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
34. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-11 14:43 · Score: 2
  
  A grenade other than WP, frag, HE etc. is still a grenade. that's why they're still called grenades.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
35. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by BlueStrat · 2013-09-11 14:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You're right -- liquids over 100ml are still not permitted through the checkpoint.
  Can't you just see the hilarity that would ensue if a passenger (or nearly all passengers for extra "Keystone"-factor) urinated into a >100ml container (besides the onboard holding tank) while in-flight, let it be known to the attendants/crew, and video recorded what happens?
  So sick of the security theater. Even a good number of the people who, up till a couple of years ago, have been supportive of the TSA silliness are waking up and becoming ever-more disillusioned, angry, and disgusted. Hopefully enough will finally awake to change things sooner rather than later.
  I say that, instead of putting all those TSA employees out of work, we simply re-task them to a more useful and productive role in society.
  Picking up litter along all public roads, streets, and highways. Hell, have 'em clean alongside passenger railway lines, too. Take away their security toys and give them trash bags, buckets, rakes, & brooms. They wouldn't even need to change the agency initials.
  "Trash and Sanitation Authority"
  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
  I bet those fleets of nifty huge TSA SUVs and armored vehicles can move a lot of litter!
  I'd even thank them for their hard work in that case, unlike now. At least it would be a respectable and useful job that actually benefits everyone and the environment at the same time it puts low-skilled people in stable jobs. It could also be a way to immensely reduce inmate recidivism rates by transitioning paroled prison inmates through such a job to a non-criminal, employed, and productive life with hope & opportunity.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
36. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-09-11 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.
  Obviously, that is not true. There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
  and the underwear bomber failed and every-other wouldbe highjacker/bomber since we put locks on the cabin door
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
37. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 14:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm afraid your lovely theory is ruined by the history of hijacking.
  El Al Flight 426 hijacking
  Richard Floyd McCoy, Jr. - Aircraft Hijacking
  Hijacked Iraq Jet Crashes, Killing 62 : Two Hurl Grenades, Force Airliner Down in Saudi Arabia
  There are more.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
38. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-09-11 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, no.
  Leaded glass does not have enough lead to make that much of a difference to xrays of the strength used to scan luggage.
  Its not the same high lead content glass you find in radiation shielding items.
  Further, nobody wastes leaded glass on perfume bottles any more, which is why all of the
  old ones are becoming such collector's items.
  Finally, anything you put in or on your body would/should not be stored in leaded glass.
  You might drink wine or bourbon from a leaded glass, but you should never store it in such.
  then why do they use leaded glass windows (between the technicians station and the room the x-ray machine is in) to block radiation in the x-ray rooms of hospitals?
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
39. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  You're talking about a piece of machinery that basically detects the differences in a material's density, and does a fine job of it. It can tell cloths from plastics, thicknesses of electronics devices, and the differences of peanut butter from all of the above. It can vary the amount of power to further distinguish types of objects. Incidentally, peanut butter, toothpaste and some other common things people like to pack have a density nearly indistinguishable from certain things which go boom.
  I wouldn't be surprised if a good operator could tell the difference between plain glass and crystal ware, your other points notwithstanding. They're that sensitive.
40. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Imrik · 2013-09-11 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because you didn't read the line that immediately follows the one you highlighted.
41. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The 9/11 tragedy became possible for two reasons: easy access to cockpit and expectation that the hijackers will be using hostages for negotiations (as it was before 9/11). However, 9/11 showed to everyone that the 21st century hijackers might not be interested in negotiations. This immediately changed the rules of the game for everyone on board the plane. Now it became safer to fight the hijackers than try to follow orders hoping for a release after negotiations. This is the biggest reason why underwear or shoe bombers failed: passengers took an active role in fighting them and succeeded.
  And yes, armored cockpit doors helped as well. Sad that you can't watch pilots flying anymore though.
42. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you can fit one.
43. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, friend - day doesn't matter. 3,000 people died on September 11, yes, and that was a terrible tragedy.
  However, that number is vanishingly small compared to the over two billion (yes, with a B) person-trips taken in 2012: http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/US_Travel_Answer_Sheet_March_2013.pdf
  Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that people should be allowed to take hand grenades on a plane. I'm saying that security theater (TSA's intent to make us 'feel safe' rather than actually help make us safe) is stupid.
44. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Hadlock · 2013-09-11 15:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Plane hijackings and bombings are so notable because they're so exceedingly rare. I think in the entire history of flight the total number of documented cases is under 100. Worldwide.
  
  Hyping up a climate of fear over something that's less than a rounding error isn't productive, but I congratulate you on your patriotism.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
45. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  You should continue your research to determine what the trend was before and after they starting taking more serious security measures. A raw count isn't going to do that. I think it is likely that you will find some inflection points as various nations took more effective airport security measures, usually as a result of an incident, or a string of incidents.
  I'm not interested in a "climate of fear." I'm interested in keeping the incidents of terrorism & hijackings under reasonable control which is a rational goal. Fear adds nothing to that. Intelligence and effective security measures do.
  I think you may have missed the point of some of what I wrote: the problem is relatively limited in some nations because it is kept under control*, not because there is some natural low level that makes it uniformly rare. It is certainly something that is subject to change. You could ask the Iraqis on that point. They are currently regretting that the US left and have extended some feelers about bringing some US forces back. Terrorism was largely under control in the last years of US presence, but the rate and death toll has shot up again over the last year or so. Iraqi pride didn't allow them to reach a position allowing any US military presence. When the US left it look some capabilities that the Iraqis sorely miss now, and which it will likely take them some years to develop. Even then they may not be as good as the US was at some of it. The Iraqi military tried to tell their government, but politicians pursue their own goals.
  *For which there are many influencing factors beyond just good intelligence and police work, including the nature of the society.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
46. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cbhacking · 2013-09-11 15:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  More people died that day 12 years ago in car crashes than have died in all terrorist attacks within the USA *ever*. The TSA has killed more people than the terrorists did by making flying less pleasant so people take the far less-safe option of driving (actually, the break-even point for deaths from the Sep 11 attacks vs. deaths from TSA asshattery was passed over seven years ago).
  I'm not saying it shouldn't be prosecuted or anything like that, but you (and well-meaning idiots like you, along with plenty of less-well-meaning people out to make a buck or grab some power) have blown the whole thing massively out of proprotion. How many people have died as a *direct* result of the US's response to those terrorist attacks, huh? Hell, how many of just US citizens? How many billions of dollars of military materiel? How many government expenditures on things like increased survellance and provably-ineffective airport scanners (strap a knife to your side; they can't see it)?
  Let's assume that those $100 billion were all *directly* attributable to the terrorists (and not to, for example, re-routing planes all across the continent, shutting down airports, etc.). Wow, that sounds like a lot of money! Now, let's look at the damage to the US economy from the 2008 sub-prime mortgage collapse. The terrorists are all dead, and we spent a fuckton more money to go hunt down everybody connected to them. How about those bankers, though?
  You go mourn your few thousand. Those of us who try to not let logic override our sense will fight the bigger threats to society, such as people who massively overreact to terrorism and do more damage to the country than the terrorists themselves could ever have dreamed of causing. Please stay the fuck out of our way.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
47. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by davester666 · 2013-09-11 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  1. they both succeeded in getting the explosives on board, undetected
  2. both had extremely small amounts of actual explosives, such that they had the choice of killing one person OR blowing out a window.
  OK, blowing out the window causes a huge hassle, and can, if the circumstances are right, possibly suck a person out [would you mind if I use you to hold my shoe against the window?], the only purpose I can see in them doing these things was to get the TSA to make us do ridiculous things to prevent these pointless "attacks" in that exact same fashion again.
  I can't wait for the next one. He'll be known as the "ass-bomber", and the TSA will have to stock up on rubber-gloves.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
48. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Aonghus142000 · 2013-09-11 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong question. It should be, How can I make this plane unflyable without having to compromise the armored cockpit door? Seems to me that tearing a large hole in the fuselage should do the trick nicely, bonus points if you do it over the wing, (you know, where airliners carry their fuel?)
  Long gone are the days when we worried about "This plane is going to Cuba." or "Release our brothers you are holding or we will start killing passengers." Given that most of the plots that we've been made privy to involve some variant of sneaking an explosive on to the plane, (The Shoe Bomber, The Fruit-of-Kaboom Guy, the Great Toner Cartridge Debacle,) worrying about someone trying to smuggle a grenade onto a plane seems like a prudent thing to do.
  Don't get me wrong, I've watched too many of the TSA's little stunts to be entirely comfortable with any plan they come up with, but when they say something that actually makes sense, maybe it's worth taking notice of.
  After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
49. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by xQx · 2013-09-11 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Others were dangerous, but not hand grenades.
  They were "live smoke, flare, riot, and flash bang grenades".
  Sure, it's not going to make a hole in the cabin, but I bet it would cause a bit of a stir if used at 36,000ft.
50. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by mdielmann · 2013-09-11 16:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I also think you picked a rather ironic day to make that statement, the anniversary of an attack that killed 3,000 people and did $100,000,000,000 damage to the US economy.
  Every year, ten times more have their lives abruptly cut off from car accidents alone. That means, as of this anniversary, the deaths from the greatest terrorist attack on American soil cost 1% of the lives as the outcome of something people happily (and not-so-happily) do every day, with little or no concern for their safety. If each of these people had $100,000 insurance, we would be about a third of the way to the same economic cost as the terrorist attack, assuming the only burden their death brought was the insurance payout.
  Face it. There are only two reasons you care about this event. First, it's an affront to your (false) sense of security. To assuage that, you do other things to improve your sense of security. The evidence indicates they only return you to that false sense of security. Second, they all died in one small area over a short period of time. Kill each of them, with 9 of their friends each, over the span of a year, and it's just a somewhat upsetting fact of modern living. That's an emotional response with no logical basis on the safety of the average citizen. And yes, that means that a vehicle safety improvement that reduces risk of death by 10% will save more lives than those lost in the Twin towers. Each year. So, which one seems a better use of our resources, and yields a better quality of life?
  
  Contrary to the myopic view of some people, the point isn't to spread fear, or to get people to live in fear, but rather to take reasonable precautions. Keeping hand grenades off planes is a reasonable precaution.
  Well, I can hardly disagree. So that explains about 70 confiscations per year that the TSA has performed. Now, please explain to my why this applies to nail clippers, but not a nice pen with a reasonably sharp tip and a nice long metal body? Or 3 ounces of fluid? Even breast milk in a baby bottle, accompanied by said baby?
  I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't a tragedy. It certainly was. All the daily activities in my life stopped for about 2 hours, as it did for everyone else in the office where I was working. And I was half a continent and a different country away. And I'm not saying reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken. It's the myriad unreasonable ones I'm frustrated with, and the attitude that there is no such thing as too much intrusion in order to stop the next really big terrorist attack, even though it took about 40 years of hostage takings on planes to get one of this significance. I swear, people won't be happy until airplanes look like they did in The Fifth Element (which was actually a spaceship, but the form factor and purpose was identical).
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
51. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by dbIII · 2013-09-11 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  There will be nothing but a lock or locks on one edge of the door so there's the point far weaker than the entire frame.
52. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by osu-neko · 2013-09-11 16:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you want to see what a country looks like where it isn't under control, think back a few years to Iraq.
  Picking a country essentially in the midst of a civil war is naturally going to paint an unrealistic picture. If you want a picture of how big a threat terrorism is to the average American air traveler without all the extra security precautions we added after 9/11/2001, look at the average number of deaths per year caused by it up until those additional measures were implemented. If you want to talk about terrorism in general, leave out the "air travelers" part. Even if you just look at the stats for 2001 alone, a banner year for terrorism in the US, it was a less serious cause for concern than a lack of rubber mats in bathrooms. Anything that kills people is something we ought to look at reducing, the question is how do we prioritize our resources to most effectively save the most people without wasting inordinate amounts of money on problems that don't warrant that level of expenditure when more serious problems could use the money more effectively to save more people.
  
  I'm interested in keeping the incidents of terrorism & hijackings under reasonable control which is a rational goal.
  Good. And the person you're replying to is pointing out that the problem is under reasonable control and always has been. You can cite all the examples of successful attacks you like, the facts are that it all adds up to an actual problem of significantly smaller proportion that a few hundred other potential causes of loss of life or injury that we spend far, far less time and money worrying about today. To pretend otherwise is fear-mongering.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
53. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  Someone I know works in the administration at an airport, and for a while frequently got asked to test security because she normally didn't work or interact with the security employees. This included trying to carry fake guns and grenades in a carry-on, so they do test for that thing. In her case, those always got caught, and it was knives on she carried on herself that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of getting through. Someone, somewhere might have actual statistics across all testing for that kind of thing, besides just for the fake guns.
54. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by fnj · 2013-09-11 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have the slightest concept what inert means.
55. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You go mourn your few thousand. Those of us who try to not let logic override our sense will fight the bigger threats to society,... Please stay the fuck out of our way.
  So, you are one of those people then? Lets test that.
  
  More people died that day 12 years ago in car crashes than have died in all terrorist attacks within the USA *ever*.
  In the US in 2001 there were 42,196 traffic deaths. Averaging that out it comes to 116 deaths per day. 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people, so you didn't get that right.
  
  The TSA has killed more people than the terrorists did by making flying less pleasant so people take the far less-safe option of driving
  It appears that it wasn't the TSA that did it, but people's reaction to the attacks. The law authorizing the TSA to even exist wasn't signed until November 2001 and the excess deaths started earlier. So, it looks like you didn't get that right either.
  Driving Fatalities After 9/11: A Hidden Cost of Terrorism*
  
  We show that the public’s response to terrorist threats can have unintended consequences that rival the attacks themselves in severity. Driving fatalities increased significantly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, events that prompted many travelers to substitute road transportation for safer air transportation. After controlling for time trends, weather, road conditions, and other factors, we find that travelers’ response to 9/11 resulted in 344 driving deaths per month in late 2001. Moreover, while the effect of 9/11 weakened over time, a total of about 2,170 driving deaths may be attributable to the attacks.
  --------
  
  How many people have died as a *direct* result of the US's response to those terrorist attacks, huh?
  US and coalition forces have been responsible for only a minor percentage of civilian deaths in these conflicts. Most of the civilian deaths are a result of terrorist attacks or various forms of internecine warfare, such as the tribal and faction based warfare in Iraq. So, I don't think you've got a good understanding of that either.
  
  Now, let's look at the damage to the US economy from the 2008 sub-prime mortgage collapse.
  A big part of the sub-prime scandal was a political problem. A string of US presidents and other US politicians tried to use the regulatory power of government to force public and private lenders to make more loans to various poor and minority groups to try to increase home ownership under the theory it would benefit society. Unfortunately that meant forcing the lenders to make loans to people that couldn't pay back the loans, but the lenders didn't have much choice. The government regulators made it clear there would be consequences to the lenders if they didn't make the loans. That resulted in a lot of bad loans which were ultimately going to damage the lenders. Spreading risk is traditional way of managing risk in business. Unfortunately there were enough bad loans they were a big problem. The problem got worse when the loans were bundled and sold as securities. Add to that the craze for house flipping and real estate speculation and even more fuel was added to the fire. It was a huge problem. Although you don't directly state a view, since you are focusing on the bankers so heavily it seems likely to me that you probably don't have this right.
  
  The terrorists are all dead, and we spent a fuckton more money to go hunt down everybody connected to them.
  Actually no, they aren't all dead. Al Qaida and its affiliates were badly damaged, but they keep trying to rebuild and will be around for a long time to come. The more general problem of Islamic extremism won't be going away soon. The unrest the in the Middle East continues to add fuel to the f
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
56. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Sarten-X · 2013-09-11 16:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As a professional paranoid*, I must ask whether you also had a permanent black marker in your possession, or could have had an accomplice carry one for you.
  A few minutes in the bathroom completing a hasty art project makes a passable prop, and some convincing theatrics will make the passengers swear you had a full-size semi-automatic pistol aimed right at their head. Ask for anything, and you can probably get it.
  The danger the TSA is looking for isn't what you have, but rather what you can do. Unfortunately, people can do anything, including lying about what they can do with what they have, and ultimately that lets unscrupulous people do whatever they want.
  * I work in IT, with a focus on security. I have a well-honed sense of paranoia.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
57. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by networkBoy · 2013-09-11 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  \owned
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
58. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by networkBoy · 2013-09-11 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  soooo If I have one gallon of liquid in a 1 oz container, that's ok?
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
59. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by fzammett · 2013-09-11 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  "There is no good reason to have facsimile hand grenades on a plane." Yikes... so now you want to make FACSIMILES verboten? Come on.
  Clearly a *REAL, LIVE* grenade has no good reason to be on a plane (a civilian plane obviously we're talking about)... but a facsimile? A completely inert piece of metal that just HAPPENS to look like something dangerous?
  Come. On. You've GOT to see that's ridiculous. Please, tell me you do.
  
  --
  If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
60. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 17:09 · Score: 2
  
  A hand grenade is in essence a bomb. There have been plenty of hijackings committed in the past that relied on the threat of a hijacker to detonate a bomb. You don't know if the bomb is real or fake until it explodes, or doesn't. (And if it doesn't, are you sure it isn't simply a misfire that might yet explode?) The general stand taken when there is a threat of a bomb is to take actions so that the bomb doesn't explode as threatened. That means complying with the hijacker.
  Simple enough? Contemplate this for a while.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
61. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Drill.
62. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by tlhIngan · 2013-09-11 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over and fly it into populated areas or buildings. That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.
  Armored cockpit doors are useless if the explosive has ripped the plane in half. There isn't much metal separating the inside of the plane from the outside, and uncontrollability is only a few severed cables away.
  The armored door keeps unwanted people out. But a hand grenade going off can easily make the entire plane go down - either by tearing a big hole in the fuselage (or causing the pressurized cabin to overpressure and explode because to the huge pressure differential), or by severing critical control cables (or hydraulics), or causing fires from fuselage fuel tanks.
  And yes, airplanes have redundant equipment, but they're designed to protect against individual systems failure (e.g., one hydraulic system fails). They aren't designed to handle a case where an explosion sends shrapnel that disables all the systems.
  Heck, in the 80s, they came up with bombproof luggage cans, and the FAA was considering making them mandatory. But the airlines lobbied against it.
63. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  The issue in this case is "where can you have them," not "why not have them."
  A fake grenade can still be used to make a threat since a grenade is a bomb, and nobody on an aircraft in flight really wants to find out if your bomb can explode. Experience has shown that real or fake bombs on airplanes are a bad thing. Leave the fake bombs at home, or ship them by package delivery service. As a consolation you can bring the bunny slippers.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
64. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-11 17:51 · Score: 2
  
  You should continue your research to determine what the trend was before and after they starting taking more serious security measures. A raw count isn't going to do that. I think it is likely that you will find some inflection points as various nations took more effective airport security measures, usually as a result of an incident, or a string of incidents.
  Lol the trend! The trend here is easy to see.... the trend is people not blowing up planes or hijacking them...that is, and always was the overwhelming trend.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
65. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  How about all those who succeeded?
66. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-11 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  Oh please your "proof" that they were terrorists is from where again?
  And what is the "official" response for why Building 7 magically collapsed again?
  --
  TSA: groping children since 2001
67. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  No, the 9/11 tragedy became possible, because the American's and the Russian's destroyed Afghanistan, then walked away as if 20+ years of destruction to the country was nothing.
68. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm afraid your lovely theory is ruined by the history of hijacking.
  El Al Flight 426 hijacking
  Richard Floyd McCoy, Jr. - Aircraft Hijacking
  Hijacked Iraq Jet Crashes, Killing 62 : Two Hurl Grenades, Force Airliner Down in Saudi Arabia
  There are more.
  ...and how many flights are there that AREN'T hijacked every day? What do you suppose the percent is? I don't know the answer, but I'm certain there are a lot of zeros after the decimal point.
69. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a little rushed for time, but here are a few thoughts.
  First, if you want to accept the "more people get killed by accidents" argument, then the US should not have entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. There were something like 40,000 people killed on the highways that year, and only 3,000 at Pearl Harbor. The instrumentality wasn't that different - planes flying to kill people. Like the attack on Pearl Harbor the attack on New York and the Pentagon are only a small part of a much larger conflict. Just as it would have been a mistake to ignore Pearl Harbor, it would have been a mistake to ignore 9/11. In fact, it was the ineffective response to previous attacks by al Qaida and actions by the US perceived as weak in other recent military confrontations that made the 9/11 attack more attractive to al Qaida. Confusing willful human action - terrorist attacks - with random chance accidents is morally confused thinking. Build me a case why bank robbery should be ignored until it reaches the body count of traffic accidents and I'll be glad to take a look at it.
  
  Face it. There are only two reasons you care about this event.
  You're playing junior psychologist there, probably without a license, and getting it wrong. But lets turn part of it around. Suppose the 19 hijackers from 9/11 had instead driven around in a couple of vans and committed the murders, the 10 / day that you suggest. Do you think that there would be no uproar after a few days? Especially if it was known that it was al Qaida terrorists on a murder spree? There would be an enormous manhunt after only a few days. I can't even imagine what it would be like if they got even so far as a month on a daily murder spree like that. An attack like that would still be pretty certain to draw an armed response. If they managed to kill 3,000 again, I would be unsurprised if it was the same one.
  The death toll from automobile accidents could be cut enormously right now by cutting the speed limit to no higher than 30 kph everywhere. Do you want to take up that fight? After all, saving lives from accidents is more important than stopping mass murder based on the number of lives saved, right?
  As to the question about nail clippers, pens, and fluids, I assume it is based on a risk assessment of what likely damage could be inflicted by various items. I won't argue that they haven't made some odd choices, some bad choices, and occasional bouts of bad local behavior.
  9/11 wasn't a tragedy, it was an atrocity. It was willful mass murder, not just some unfortunate, sad thing.
  The overall burden of the counter-terrorism measures for most people have been rather limited. There is some imposition on privacy, but less than there was in WW2.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
70. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  So what? Terrorist attacks are highly unlikely, and if they bring the whole plane down, the chances of another 9/11-type attack happening are infinitesimal.
71. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-11 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Your security theater is not a reason. There's nothing more to the issue; it's just a violate of people's rights.
  
  --
  Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
72. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  Thousands? Really? And btw all examples of people that you can find that have been caught getting explosives on a plane succeeded, what did not succeed was their usage of said explosives.
73. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  So is that your argument for letting people take hand grenades onto airplanes??
74. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cbope · 2013-09-11 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what the inert grenades look like today, but the one I had when I was a kid had a huge hole bored out of the bottom of the grenade and you could fully see inside that it was empty. There is no way anyone handling one of these would think it was live... oh wait, we're talking TSA agents here, most of which are about as smart as a brick. And that's an insult to bricks.
  Yeah, I'm no fan of the TSA, but I've got close to 2 million miles under my belt over the past 23 years and I've seen them repeatedly do very stupid things for very stupid reasons. If anything, a typical TSA agent is ignorant and under-trained.
75. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-11 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  I mean no disrespect to the people who died, but twice that many people died today. Most of that economic damage was self-inflicted as we shot our own feet Barney Fife like. Consider the number of excess deaths due to people taking more dangerous forms of transportation since 9/11 to avoid the TSA.
  It's not like we did nothing, we hunted Osama down and killed him. I just wish we had kept to that mission and not thrown a few bazillion dollars down the toilet on other actions under the excuse of "but 9./11".
  ,p>As for your links, read the articles more carefully and with a critical eye. 4 dudes saying "Death to America" while shooting paint balls at each other? Really? Thank God we stopped them! If anything, THAT is an insult to the 3000 dead in the attack.
  I don't know how or when I might die, but I do know it is my sincere wish that my death not be used as an excuse to trample the freedoms of my surviving loved ones.
76. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-11 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  I know how many of those not found grenades turned out to be an actual problem. It's a nice round number.
77. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-11 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  But he DID get explosives on a plane. In spite of the TSA. It turns out that even that holey grail or terrorism is no guarantee of success. Ordinary citizens stopped him at no cost.
78. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-11 18:43 · Score: 2
  
  In a world where a crime novel with a picture of a bomb on the cover is a problem, yes, a clear glass 'grenade' might be a problem.
79. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by runeghost · 2013-09-11 18:49 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, terrorism is rare. You can worry about them it if you want, but doing so is about as useful as worrying about slipping in the bathtub, getting hit by lightning, or being shot by law enforcement officers. If you want something to worry about, try cancer or heart disease (which kill over half a million Americans per year, each), or the 30,000+ people dying in car accidents every year.
  Sure, have law enforcement take reasonable precautions. Spending trillions of dollars over the course of a decade on something that is about as dangerous as home accidents is not reasonable, it is insane. When a group of people in power continually hype a small threat to justify their actions, that is a textbook exampe of fear-mongering
  And while you're remembering the slightly less than 3,000 people killed on 9/11/2001, don't forget the 600,000+ dead in ongoing violence in Columbia, the half-million plus dead in the (still ongoing) Somalia death-spiral, and the quarter-million plus killed to date in the Terrific War.
80. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by runeghost · 2013-09-11 18:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So would a bottle of high-proof alcohol, set on fire by a lighter. (Both of which were easily purchasable once past TSA security the last time I flew.)
81. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  Look, I know after 12 years there's no reasonable way I'm going to pull out the killer argument you've never seen. You're wrong and you're convinced that you are not wrong.
  But you need to produce a theory for Building 7's collapse that is less ludicrous than the official response. For instance, in an inside-job scenario, why would they collapse Building 7? Also note that the official response was not "magic". If you're going to claim it destroyed the evidence, you need to say what evidence, why the evidence wasn't all in the big towers that got plane crashes, and why we should suppose this evidence exists to be destroyed anyway.
82. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  Sad that you can't watch pilots flying anymore though.
  Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
83. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 19:04 · Score: 2
  
  And what is the "official" response for why Building 7 magically collapsed again?
  It wasn't magic, it was physics. I suppose to some people it might seem like magic. I threw in a few extra links - figured they might be useful to you.
  NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
  World Trade Center Disaster Study
  The Theory vs. the Facts
  Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
84. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Because terrorists are so rare that they are not even worth worrying about, and never were.
  They aren't rare. They are pretty crisp usually. You don't stay rare if you fail building a bomb.
85. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by NoKaOi · 2013-09-11 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  If anything, a typical TSA agent is ignorant and under-trained.
  That's exactly the point. Their job is not think, because then they could be outsmarted. Their job is to follow a set of protocols. If the protocol says, "Stop and detain anybody carrying something that looks like it could be a grenade" then that's what they do, it doesn't matter whether or not they'd know if it was live if they chose to think about it. When you have an organization that bloated, that's just how it works. It's like how the greeter at Wal-Mart doesn't really have any say in product purchasing decisions, even if they can see that people would buy more Pringles if they carried Ranch flavor.
  It's not the individual grunts being broken that's the problem. The problem is that the organization is broken.
86. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 19:24 · Score: 2
  
  The actual trend is that there have been significant changes in the rates of hijacking, and you apparently don't know what the hell you're talking about.
  The Contagiousness of Aircraft Hijacking
  
  In the mid-1960s there were only a handful of hijacking attempts, including several attempts to and from Cuba and some isolated hijackings in Hawaii, However, ... the hijacking rate in the United States increased dramatically in 1968 and remained high through 1972, A similar increase occurred in hijacking attempts outside the United States. There were two peaks in the rate of U.S. hijacking activity during that period, one early in 1969 and one in 1972 ... The first peak consisted primarily of hijackings by individuals seeking transportation to Cuba, whereas the second consisted primarily of extortion attempts. ...
  The hijacking rate in the United States began to decline in late 1972 and never again reached the high level of the period 1968-72. In the 10-year period 1973-82, there Was an average of only 9.3 hijacking attempts in the United States per year, compared with 29 attempts per year for 1968-72. Foreign hijackings also decreased after 1972, though not as sharply as U.S. hijackings.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
87. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Neil+Boekend · 2013-09-11 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  A relatively life like fake grenade is just as useful as a real one if you wish to capture a plane. People will react the same to them.
  
  That's completely aside from the fact that the TSA is a ridiculous feel-secure farce to begin with.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
88. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there's a very different reason hijackings are given a special place (IMHO). It's the fact that planes can be turned into missiles. That is what 9/11 demonstrated. The WTC was a high profile civilian target, but just think how it could easily have been a strategic military target.
89. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  you are no good at comparing apples to oranges
90. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by pspahn · 2013-09-11 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  For his birthday, will someone please get fzammett a fake grenade so he can take it on a plane and start screaming "durka durka!!!" while waving it at random mid-western passengers?
  That's some comedy gold right there.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
91. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AK+Marc · 2013-09-11 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  IT was about a 1/10th scale rifle toy watergun. It would have been easier to dismantle an airplane seat and make it into a functional gun than to make that toy look like anything that could be confused with a real gun.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
92. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Xest · 2013-09-11 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  "I also think you picked a rather ironic day to make that statement, the anniversary of an attack that killed 3,000 people and did $100,000,000,000 damage to the US economy."
  I think this proves his point. Those figures look awful, but the subsequent decision to go to war in response to those figures resulted in 3x more dead Americans and 10x more cost to the US economy.
  The point being that even the worst terrorist attack in US history is really small fry compared to the amount of lives lost and money burnt by other decisions.
93. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by gnasher719 · 2013-09-11 21:27 · Score: 2
  
  First, if you want to accept the "more people get killed by accidents" argument, then the US should not have entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. There were something like 40,000 people killed on the highways that year, and only 3,000 at Pearl Harbor.
  
  I don't think the USA entered WW2 because of the number of people killed at that location and at that point in time. First, after that attack the USA didn't enter the war, they were already in a war. If they had done nothing, they would have lost the shortest war in history. Second, not fighting back would have meant that Japan's position would have become stronger and stronger. In 1945 the fight _would_ have been about Los Angeles if they had done nothing. (Maybe not, but a possibility).
94. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  It's a stupid issue to bother with. Think terrorists will obey TSA reminders that are "inconvenient"?
  
  Perhaps the TSA should remind terrorists to not travel aboard planes while they are at it.
95. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by shikaisi · 2013-09-11 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  It means that it's not ert.
  
  --
  No left turn unstoned.
96. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by JustOK · 2013-09-11 22:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  no, it's a nert with rounded corners.
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
97. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Let's look at that from a slightly different perspective: 9/11 was possible because a nation full of weak people had been trained for generations to not do anything about bad guys, but to just sit back and cooperate with the nice hijackers/bank robbers/muggers/etc. and wait for authorities to do something. That went well. The training and conditioning was of course courtesy of government and corporations that want obedient, compliant, easily controlled people who don't assert themselves. A decent number of the people who died in the towers did so because they obeyed instructions to stay put after the attacks, except of course those who had no choice due to building damage. Those who were physically able to leave and who chose not to obey those nonsensical instructions made up a large population of the survivors. Nobody likes to talk about that. It might start people thinking.
  Now we have a nation of weak people who are STILL trained to be passive, except if somebody's trying to hijack a plane. An improvement I guess, but we still have a government and corporations that want easily controlled and compliant people.
  All of which shows the TSA and the other freedom grabbing measures are pretty much as useless as those of us who think know they are. As for the fearful: you'd gladly give up your rights to gain nothing but a feeling of safety without any actual improvement in safety. That's your concern, but you also will gladly give up MY rights to achieve that feeling. You destroy freedom, you stand for everything our founders were against, and it disgusts me that you're Americans.
98. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by xQx · 2013-09-11 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  (Let's get this thread on the NSA watch list)
  Combine that with a bottle of spray-on deodorant and you've got a real show.
  I don't think you could pour it on seats, people would notice, but if you poured your duty-free high-proof alcohol down the isle while walking towards the front of the plane, then set fire to it with your deodorant-lighter flame-thrower - it would cause quite a show.
99. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  I also think you picked a rather ironic day to make that statement, the anniversary of an attack that killed 3,000 people and did $100,000,000,000 damage to the US economy.
  Though honestly, most of that damage was self inflicted.
  If the US hadn't gone all paranoid and started a few wars in the process, the amount would have been far, far lower.
100. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by liamoohay · 2013-09-11 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is not true in my experience. I sent a leaded glass piece through the luggage scanner recently. It showed up on the monitor as a large black disc. I had to remove it from the luggage so they could rescan the bag.
101. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  But the shoe bomber and underwear bombers were not stopped by the locked cabin door. Both were stopped by their device not working. There is no need to get into the cabin if you want to kill anywhere from a couple dozen to couple hundred people, which is what the majority of terrorist attacks amount to, if that.
102. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  In their defence (as much as it pains me), if a guy pulls something which looks like a grenade during a flight, I don't really want to find out if it's real or not.
  I agree the TSA could verify that the grenade was fake, and allow it to go in the checked-in luggage, but disallowing you from bringing a realistic weapon simile into a crowded place (morover one you can't really escape from) is something I have to agree with.
  Hell, even if I'm on the street and someone pulls a grenade-shaped device, I'm starting to run in the other direction, not considering the likelihood of it being inert.
103. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by MrDoh! · 2013-09-11 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I have to call you out on this I'm afraid as you're incorrect.
  The type of leaded glass used especially with these perfume bottles shaped like grenades is not only leaded but also very thick. They /are/ opaque and the training given to TSA screeners is 'If it looks like a threat, treat it like a threat' even if the shape/appearance wouldn't match the real item, if it has the shape, the screeners are trained to act as though it is. There may be other brands that do these terrible bottles, but the 2 grenade shaped perfume bottles I've captured from an x-ray (one Rapiscan, one Heimann) are very dense and x-ray opaque. I'd guess some east european maker who doesn't care about health and safety, and no markings denoting who or where they were made.
  I agree leaded glass shouldn't be used to store food/drink, but it IS often carried through airports because people wouldn't want glass in checked luggage, and a big lead crystal decanter will need visual inspection, but that's not only because it can appear very dense but the fluid inside might be difficult to distinguish as being booze/water/something with a bit more bang.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
104. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-11 23:40 · Score: 2
  
  All this is academic now. Hijacking an aircraft is now nearly impossible thanks to locked cockpit doors.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
105. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  If a grenade-shaped device falls out of your backpack during a flight, you can bet I'll be pretty freaked out until you're able to show me the hole in the bottom.
  You might even receive a few swift kicks in the jaw before you're able to do that from me and my fellow passengers, as we're damn sure not going to let you reach for it.
  Why would the TSA allow anything which looks like a real weapon on a plane? A terrorist would only have to show the fake grenade to get what he wanted.
  Fuck man, now you're making me defend the fucking TSA assholes!
106. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  So now you have to smuggle bombs and a drill onto the airplane.
  Starts to get more and more complex...
107. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-11 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  US and coalition forces have been responsible for only a minor percentage of civilian deaths in these conflicts. Most of the civilian deaths are a result of terrorist attacks or various forms of internecine warfare, such as the tribal and faction based warfare in Iraq. So, I don't think you've got a good understanding of that either.
  That's still the fault of the coalition. Iraq, while a somewhat brutal dictatorship, was stable before the invasion. Most people lived relatively normal, peaceful lives. We went in guns blazing but with no plan and created an environment where factions could fight each other and most people's lives were worse.
  While I'm not arguing that eventually Iraq may be better off with democracy, it's our fault that the transition has been so bloody.
  
  The more general problem of Islamic extremism won't be going away soon.
  Why do you think they want to attack us? It isn't because they hate our way of life. I mean, they do, but not enough to go jihad over it. They would be fine letting us live our godless immoral lives if only we didn't keep messing with them and the countries they live in.
  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. They keep telling us that is the reason in plain language.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
108. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-12 00:44 · Score: 2
  
  If I were a terrorist, I would pop the pin in the terminal and toss it toward the crowd. Hundreds dead and wounded. A belt with several and a string tied to the pins would work wonders too. Hell, a belt tied to the pins, pull it out from under the jacket and give a good hard swing and grenades go everywhere!
  Why would a terrorist want to bring a grenade on a plane?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
109. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by BitZtream · 2013-09-12 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  No. Ordinary citizens sat on their ass while a select few did the right thing and stopped him from getting much done.
  And to be clear, his bomb was a dud to begin with. Perhaps because of those citizens he was unable to fix/detonate it.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
110. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by crakbone · 2013-09-12 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  They did target a strategic military target. The passengers took out the terrorists and crashed the plane rather than let the military target get hit.
111. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by usuallylost · 2013-09-12 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they stopped allowing lighters on board? The alcohol on the other hand is often readily available on the plane.
112. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a professional retard, or just a gifted amateur?
113. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  People keep telling me WTC7 wasn't even on fire (...) and that buildings don't drop straight. I keep telling them that, as not-an-engineer and never having studied this, my internal physics modeling engine (I like to simulate physics in my head, it's ... odd) shows very, very poor projections for continuously applied stress on anchoring points in a building of that construction. The only real way to build a high rise is to build it so that it stands straight, so that the building's lowest energy state is a straight drop--it should not be "leaning" and held in place because it's bolted the fuck down.
  The easiest way to do that is to build the building such that the major outside parts are more inclined to collapse inward; but you ideally want it just stable, not "constantly trying to collapse in on itself" either. Still, if it's stable and flat and you disrupt it, it's going to collapse toward the disruption... so if an internal support collapses, the building will naturally start to collapse inward. I've tried this a lot of ways in my head and this is the best way to build a really fucking tall building if you don't want it to eventually just topple over from the wind. They always collapse inward. If the main supports fail, even if they fail unevenly, the building drops straight.
  But people are convinced that a building would just sag and flop over unless it were dropped by a skilled demolition team. Demo teams go through a LOT of effort to make sure buildings drop straight; they don't need to, but they want to make damn sure something that massive doesn't flop on itself. That doesn't preclude the building being designed to collapse straight barring huge effort to make it do something else; it just means the risk is too god damn high because the consequences are severe, so we pay good money to have really smart people make sure these things come down exactly the way we want them to. We also pay good money to have really smart people build them to both stand up and not topple over if they do fail to stand up.
  It's all insanity. I can't come up with any non-stupid design that wouldn't self-stabilize in a collapse. It just wouldn't stand for long.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
114. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by BitZtream · 2013-09-12 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see the container that would hold 1 gallon of LIQUID in a 1oz container. I'd seize it just so I can show the world the awesome device you had that could withstand that sort of pressure.
  Where'd you get it from, a neutron star?
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
115. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you get tired of being such a dickhead?
116. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by Crosshair84 · 2013-09-12 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me you're trolling Hairy and not that stupid to believe the troofer nonsense. You're better than that
  
  If the Gov was gonna stage 9/11 they would have put a van of explosives in the basement like they did in 93. All they would have to do is pay a structural firm to run an analysis, under the guise of preventing another such attack, and then have two or three guys build and plant the bomb.
  
  You're gonna tell me that the gov that can't keep the NSA wiretapping thing under wraps and can't stop wikileaks has managed to keep this stuff quiet? Go to any number of the troofer debunking websites and you'll find more than enough answers to their claims. All the claims you make were answered by people who know what they are talking about, and not some dimwit playing with chicken wire, a few concrete blocks, and video camera, more than a decade ago.
  
  Oh SURE they exploited what happened and did their best to cover the incompetence of the FBI etc from catching them, but actually pulling it off? Please.
117. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there are four reasons he cares about this event. In addition to the two you mentioned:
  3) He loves the taste of state spooge,
  4) He loves being a traitor.
118. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  we hunted Osama down and killed him.
  He died non-violently in December 2001, of kidney failure.
119. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  down the isle
  down the aisle
120. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  I get your point, but even if a real terrorist managed to get a real hand grenade onto a real plane, the threat today is pretty much limited to them blowing up that one plane. Which is a tragedy, admittedly, but not on the scale of a 9/11 again. The locked cabin doors should prevent the planes from being used as large flying bombs to hit targets on the ground. In addition, post 9/11, most people's attitude (certainly mine) to a terrorist with a hand grenade would be, "if I'm going to die either way, I'm not letting this bastard take over the plane" and rush him.
  So sure, there are terrorists out there, but the damage they can inflict is really quite limited. Meanwhile, since 9/11, 300,000+ Americans have died in car crashes. I feel like we should divert 50% of the Homeland Security budget for the next 10 years to autonomous car r&d, and see how many more lives we can save vs security. My bet is it's an order of magnitude.
121. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  if you want to accept the "more people get killed by accidents" argument, then the US should not have entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. There were something like 40,000 people killed on the highways that year, and only 3,000 at Pearl Harbor.
  You do realize that the government knew in advance that the Japanese were to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen. That was probably the reason why they put so many ships in a single place. They knew that after this attack there would be support for the war against Japan.
  So what exactly was your argument?
122. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by usuallylost · 2013-09-12 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  He did however get the explosives onto the plane. As did the underwear bomber. They ran into the 2nd most important security change post 9/11, after sturdy locked doors, which is passenger and air crew attitudes toward, and reaction to, hijackers. Pre 9/11 the mantra was OK don't make any trouble for the hijackers. Post 9/11 the reaction of passengers and crew has been to vigorously restrain such people. The presumption with any security measure shoudl be that it will eventually fail. Somebody will find a way to get past security. Somebody will try to light something off on the plane, draw some manner of weapons or try to find a way into the cockpit. This is why you want defense in depth if you can get it.
123. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by orgelspieler · 2013-09-12 01:46 · Score: 2
  
  No I think that's his argument for disbanding the TSA.
124. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  a whole 29 attempts per year wow.... thats so staggeringly.... oh wait, thats nothing compared to the size of our population or amount of travel people do. I yawn at your statistics.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
125. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Which, as much as I think terrorism is a complete and utter non-issue, actually makes sense. Yes, you want the people in charge of flying the massive passenger toting missile to be protected against the actions of random passengers in the back. The ONLY change that actually made sense.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
126. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Bombs can be made to look like anything. He could hold up an empty handbag and say its a bomb.
  The problem here, as much as anything, comes down to base rate fallacy. Yes a grenade CAN be used to hijack a plane or blow it up. However, as is clearly shown by these numbers, the presence of a genade or its replica, has a piss poor true-positive rate for stopping terrorists. Compared to its false positive rate which, at this point, is at 100%, and even if it happens once, will not even bring the false positive rate down to 99%.
  This means it is: An ineffective measure.
  If you proposed a screening of this effectiveness to a doctor, he would happily lecture you about the real and life threatening consequences of those false positives.... which is exactly what should be happening here.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
127. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by GigsVT · 2013-09-12 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  None of them were actual grenades. The blog post says some were smoke grenades or flash bangs, which don't even look at all like the explody kind. Still wouldn't be fun to have a smoke grenade go off on a plane, but it's not a very credible hijacking threat.
  And besides, I doubt even the threat of a grenade would get a hijacker far these days. 9/11 made planes pretty difficult to hijack on a mere threat.
  
  --
  I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
128. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by GigsVT · 2013-09-12 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the TSA turned the trend around, it was the actions of the 9/11 hijackers themselves, who turned the standard advice of "comply with hijackers and wait it out" into "fuck that, swarm the fuckers and stand on their throat until they die".
  
  --
  I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
129. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  This right here.
  Look at real conspiracies, people at the top shaking hands in back rooms. They make deals to move arms around, or sell political support. Things that can be hard to prove, or can be easily brushed under a rug.
  Having a team of people, enter buildings, and place precision explosives over so many floors, not only would it take months or years, which is months or years of not being discovered, but it would take several operatives.
  There are just too many smoking guns laying around when you do that. It quickly becomes absurd, how do you even recruit? Shit I look pretty dimly on the military and, as I like to call it, signing up to murder at the whims of congress, but, there is a fair distance between signing up to go do big morally questionable things on foreign soil while being lied to about the reasons, and mounting a massive murderous false flag attack on civilians in your own country.
  Nope, I don't believe for a minute that they could hope to pull that off. Its too complex and involves too many people. Complexity is for money laundering the payments for the conspiracies, the real conspiracies themselves tend to be quite simple.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
130. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by 45mm · 2013-09-12 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
  He WAS on the plane, but his explosives failed to detonate. Same thing happened to the underwear bomber - failed to detonate, just burned the hell out of his private areas.
  Both were subdued by passengers, which I'll argue is much more likely to happen now that we know the attackers' intent is to take over the plane and fly them into buildings. It used to be that the hijackers just wanted something so they'd hold everyone hostage. That made passengers compliant to demands - their lives weren't in imminent danger.
  I'd argue we should go the other way - arm the pilots, arm the stewards, let the passengers be armed. It's widely known and statistics prove that attackers favor "soft" targets. It's also less-widely known but statistics prove that in a life-or-death situation, with seconds to decide, the police are often minutes away. We need to take personal security seriously and stop being sheep. Nobody can protect you from a person willing to do you and others harm ... except yourself.
131. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Only on the outside, the inside is still cool and a bit purple, which is quite rare. Well done is when the meat is cooked all the way through, which takes more of the heat, and less of the shock wave.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
132. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't the shoe bomber ON THE PLANE when people noticed him trying to light his shoe?
133. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · 2013-09-12 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  > The issue in this case is "where can you have them," not "why not have them."
  Actually I think "why not have them" is more appropriate because the onus should always be on those advocating in favour of restriction to justify why their restriction is needed and will work to address that need.
  All those people grenades can't be a new situation, I suspect that many and more travelled with passengers in the past, I mean, its not like the grenade is even remotely new technology. Its not like some guy in 2005 suddenly thought "I can pack explosives into a hand-held shell with a simple pull pin and lever to activate the fuse" and now poof, we have grenades everywhere.
  Those grenades were always there. So why the change? If people have been travelling with their grenades without incident for all these decades now, what is the issue? Because somebody imagined that a grenade might be used to hijack a plane? Why should real people be inconvenienced because of the actions of imaginary ones?
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
134. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Another thing to consider:
  
  December 11–13, 1941
  Nazi Germany and its Axis partners declare war on the United States.
  
  September 2, 1945
  Having agreed in principle to unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945, Japan formally surrenders, ending World War II.
  
  We stopped attacking just Japan 4 years after they attacked us. 9-11 was HOW long ago now?
135. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  I would put the number lower than thousands that want to BE on the plane at the time. That said, I thought that most of those bombers actually got past the TSA, because they are inept, and only failed to blow the plane up because they too were inept.
136. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Hillgiant · 2013-09-12 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  While I suspect you are joking, even "high-proof" alcohol is only about 50% alcohol by volume. The other 50% is "stuff that doesn't burn all that well". Which is why your average Molotov Cocktail is made with gasoline.
  And, for the record, I have never seen a bottle of Everclear in a duty free shop.
  
  --
  -
137. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Listen slick... We shouldn't HAVE to RTFA if the posters on Slashdot would get their facts straight in the first place!! I think if the majority were fake grenades, that it should be mentioned in the Slashdot posting. That would take like hmmm one sentence ?? Definitely an important piece of info.
  So, you just GFY!
138. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  That is ridiculous. A credible threat of a bomb on board is still going to pose the same threat that it ever did, and plenty of aircraft have been hijacked on that basis.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
139. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  A meaningless change with the prospect of a bomb onboard the aircraft. What are hand grenades? Bombs.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
140. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but all that does is change the strategy for the attack. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the 9/11 hijackers picked nearly empty flights partially as a means to help maintain better control during the hijacking until they could hit their targets. Without that requirement they could simply pick 4 full flights on large aircraft, such as a 747, and kill 2,000 people if they can take down the aircraft. That would be 2/3 of the body count of 9/11. Some of the plots that have been interrupted have had a goal of taking down as many as 10 aircraft in one attack. So I don't think your plan is going to work. Besides, no real budget or technology is required to cut the deaths by automobile accident. All you need to do is drop the sleep limit to ~ 20 MPH / 30 KPH and the rate will plummet. I doubt that will happen. Some other proposals that people have here are about equally as likely.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
141. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  The figure that I quote has nothing to do with the wars that followed. That is purely a consequence of the attack.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
142. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by triffid_98 · 2013-09-12 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's OK, matches are still allowed. However, per TFA, "Realistic Replicas of Incendiaries" are not.
143. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by Notabadguy · 2013-09-12 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's a magical container known as a "container of holding."
  How do you think all of us wizards get around with a huge array of spell components and reagents?
144. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  In the US in 2001 there were 42,196 traffic deaths. Averaging that out it comes to 116 deaths per day. 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people, so you didn't get that right.
  Well, if you're going to quibble, GP didn't restrict traffic fatalities to the US. Traffic fatalities worldwide are over 3,000 per day.
  
  A big part of the sub-prime scandal was a political problem. A string of US presidents and other US politicians tried to use the regulatory power of government to force public and private lenders to make more loans to various poor and minority groups to try to increase home ownership under the theory it would benefit society. Unfortunately that meant forcing the lenders to make loans to people that couldn't pay back the loans, but the lenders didn't have much choice. The government regulators made it clear there would be consequences to the lenders if they didn't make the loans. That resulted in a lot of bad loans which were ultimately going to damage the lenders. Spreading risk is traditional way of managing risk in business. Unfortunately there were enough bad loans they were a big problem. The problem got worse when the loans were bundled and sold as securities. Add to that the craze for house flipping and real estate speculation and even more fuel was added to the fire. It was a huge problem. Although you don't directly state a view, since you are focusing on the bankers so heavily it seems likely to me that you probably don't have this right.
  Actually, the loans to poor and minority groups were among the best and most stable loans throughout the subprime crisis. It turns out that the loans weren't being denied before because it's risky to lend to poor and minority groups and evil Uncle Sam made banks shoulder that risk - in fact, they were quite capable of paying their loans and had just been systematically discriminated against. The worst and most pervasive of the subprime loans were loans to corporate and commercial entities.
145. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-12 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a hijacking if the bomb is on the aircraft. Once the bomb is detonated it can't be hijacked any more, so the threat is meaningless. Besides which people now assume that hijackers may be intending to crash the aircraft into a building anyway, so will fight to the death to prevent that happening.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
146. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  yep locked doors really were the only security measure added that has done anything other than infuriate passengers. I just hope one day north america has viable alternative to air travel like europe does, our trains are poop
147. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Citation please.
148. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  29 is 15% of the fleet of Jet Blue. If all those attempts took place on Jet Blue, it would be quite significant to them.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
149. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Pentagon wasn't a strategic military target?
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
150. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
  You ever seen a grown man naked?
151. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  How do you tell the difference between a real one and a replica? Is there some marking (which could be removed or added)?
152. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  More people died that day 12 years ago in car crashes than have died in all terrorist attacks within the USA *ever*.
  On a typical day, 100 people die in car accidents in the US, 3300 worldwide. Sept. 11 + Pearl harbor = 5400.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
153. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Have you read the Koran? Islam is an aggressive religion that does not tolerate the existence of anything but Islam.
  Islam and civilization are incompatible. At most one will survive.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
154. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by chris.m.greenman · 2013-09-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  A military target WAS hit. Remember the Pentagon?
155. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by mcgrew · 2013-09-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I congratulate you on your patriotism
  Cowards aren't patriots, and he's not only a coward but an irrational coward. He talks about the 3000 deaths a decade ago when 45,000 people die on the highways every year in the US. He isn't just a coward, he's an idiot. He's no patriot, patriots don't give up rights for the illusion of safety.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
156. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  There's plenty of flights which go over cities, so pick the largest plane on that route and not only do you get most of the passengers you'll take out a chunk of the city. Get four people doing it at the same time and you'll cause enough panic to shut down air space for days.
157. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Can't posibly go through security - has a liquid inside, which makes it doubly dangerous. Looks like a grenade and contains several oz of liquid.
158. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a hijacking if the bomb is on the aircraft.
  That makes no sense whatsoever.
  Yes, it is a hijacking if the bomb is on the aircraft. The bomb is used as a threat to coerce the pilot to fly the plane to the intended destination. Since there have been examples of hijackings since 9/11 in which the plane was diverted, it appears the assumption you claim is not universal.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
159. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by runeghost · 2013-09-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen Southern Comfort in duty-free shops (100 proof, iirc). And I know from experience that the 80-proof vodka and gin they sell burn reasonably well.
160. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that hijackings continue to occur suggests that is nonsense.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
161. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Can't you just see the hilarity that would ensue if a passenger (or nearly all passengers for extra "Keystone"-factor) urinated into a >100ml container
  
  Interesting! I hadn't thought about it before, but why are people allowed to fly? A typical adult human body is a container for 45-50% liquid by weight. If you really want to get liquids on a plane, a baby is the way to go which may have up to about 75%.
162. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  In 1941 something like 40,000 people died on the highways and yet the US went to war with Japan due to a trifling 3,000 casualties at Peal Harbor. According to your reasoning that shouldn't have happened. It appears to me that there is something defective in your approach, and in your thinking on this matter. Apparently you think it is patriotic to allow mass murder of your countrymen by foreign forces, and doing nothing. How is that patriotic? The long tradition of the United States has been summed up as, "millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute." Would you see that reversed?
  What are all of these rights you claim are being given up? Did someone take away your right to vote, or go to church?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
163. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Have you read the Koran? Islam is an aggressive religion that does not tolerate the existence of anything but Islam.
  Islam and civilization are incompatible. At most one will survive.
  Have you read the Quaran? According to Wikipedia:
  It speaks well of other books (the Torah and the Gospel) and attributes their similarities to their unique origin and saying all of them have been revealed by the one God. It recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Eber, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Jethro, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Aaron, Moses, Zechariah, John the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned in the Quran as prophets of God. In fact, Moses is mentioned more in the Quran than any other individual. Jesus is mentioned more often in the Quran than Muhammad, while Mary is mentioned in the Quran more than the New Testament.
164. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-12 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
165. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The US stock markets had not yer opened when the first building was hit, and they stayed closed all week. If someone in the Pentagon was dumping American Airlines stock, he would have had to have done it on a European market, assuming AA even traded there. He would have been in for a world of hurt when he was caught, and he would have been a fool for not trading it days earlier. In short, bullshit.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
166. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Those citizens who stopped him were ordinary citizens. They were not granted special authority by the government and they were not (to my knowledge) bitten by radioactive spiders.
167. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Consider the number of excess deaths due to people taking more dangerous forms of transportation since 9/11 to avoid the TSA.
  The Democrat_Party-caused recession has lowered the traffic fatality rate by 20% (2007-2009). To improve this desirable trend, we should follow Obama's plans and plunge the whole nation into abject poverty. If only the lordly rulers can drive, there will hardly be any accidents.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
168. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ChrisMaple · 2013-09-12 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  And how many cars don't crash every day? Therefor all traffic laws and automobile standards should be ended.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
169. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · 2013-09-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  How quickly you forget that the recession started during the Bush administration. Did you forget or do you allege that Obama is a time traveler>?
170. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Back in 1991 my grandmother flew my brother and I out to Pennsylvania from California to visit relatives. The flights had a layover in Chicago (O'hare) and while waiting for a cart to drive my grandma to the gate the security agent on duty asked me if I would put a fake grenade in my luggage so she could test the screening agent. I refused to do so (too scared), but I could see that the security person had a fake grenade and a fake bomb (simply cast-metal objects) sitting in her podium to use for such purposes.
  I could imagine some punk kids these days trying to prank one another by putting such things in their freinds luggage.
171. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-12 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  > It wasn't magic, it was physics
  No shit, sherlock. What was the _cause_ ?
172. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, it still then didn't add up to a statistically significant enough threat to bother with additional security.
  Using similar logic, we used to always carry a bomb with us, when flying back then. After all, the odds of one bomb showing up on a plane were ridiculously small. What do you think the odds of two on the same plane would be?
  So, yeah - we felt safe, knowing our bomb would never be detonated.
  After all, what could go wrong?
173. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-12 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's no threat at all because the only option for the hijacker when the pilot refuses is to die. If the hijacker wants to go somewhere then death is a total failure, and if they want to crash the aircraft into something then again death is a total failure and the pilot might as well refuse to let them murder even more people.
  All the examples since 9/11 have been where the aircraft didn't have a locked cockpit or where the crew failed to secure it properly.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
174. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Deadstick · 2013-09-12 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
175. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by OrangeTide · 2013-09-12 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  If the journalist had juicy information about us being in actual danger, it would have been introduced after the sensantialist headlines.
  No, the examples were of soldiers who forgot that they had left equipment in their packs. Annoying for screeners, but nothing new and nothing alarming, at least not to me.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
176. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  About 150,000 people die in the world every day. So when the post says "not worth worrying about" I think he means it literally that there are more serious issues to worry about.
177. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  If the hijackers die that means the bomb(s) has gone off which means that the pilot is probably dead too, and/or the plane has taken serious damage which will likely lead to a crash. Plenty of hijackers over the years have been willing to do that. Plane crashes have a tendency to kill most if not all of the passengers. And you count that as success? You're defending an absurd position. Or do you have something to add?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
178. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  True, and that reinforces my point about why aircraft security is given special consideration. After all, you could achieve mass casualties by.. I don't know bombing a shopping mall or something, but you don't see such high levels of security there.
179. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by hairyfeet · 2013-09-12 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about demo charges? If you know a nutter is gonna crash a plane into X and you just...ohh...say weaken the supports some? You still get the results you want and you even get some nice nutters to blame it on. I think where they fucked up is the third tower, i have NO doubt, none whatsoever, that the plane the passengers crashed in PN was fated to hit that tower and somebody said "Oh shit, now what? Well the supports already weakened, plenty of flammable material put in the janitors closets to help spread the flames, set a fire and we'll say the second plane took it out"
  But lets hear your brilliant explanation of how you take out THREE unconnected buildings with TWO planes, because this should be good. remember the Empire State building got hit by a fully loaded BOMBER and that sucker didn't drop, you telling me some flaming debris from a thin as tissue paper passenger jet managed to take out a tower more than a fricking block away? And what about the fighters? what about the air defense? you telling me that the POTUS has ZERO protection from attack? Does this not strike you as unbelievable, even in the slightest? That plane came within blocks of the fricking white house for God's sake!
  I'm sorry but ONE irregularity? yeah that could happen, two? Possible, but you have event after event that frankly would either mean the POTUS has NO security AT ALL, even less than some banana republic, our buildings are made of cheap rebar and crap, or something was fishy...your choice but considering this is the same government that only recently admitted that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a "non event", AKA a false flag that got over 58,000 Americans sent home in body bags? Well WTF makes you think the same kinds of guys that would rack up that big a body count would have any problem with three thousand nobodies?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
180. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by JWSmythe · 2013-09-12 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's some serious pressure. Do you make coal into diamonds in your spare time? :)
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
181. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by BlueStrat · 2013-09-12 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Can't you just see the hilarity that would ensue if a passenger (or nearly all passengers for extra "Keystone"-factor) urinated into a >100ml container
  
  Interesting! I hadn't thought about it before, but why are people allowed to fly? A typical adult human body is a container for 45-50% liquid by weight. If you really want to get liquids on a plane, a baby is the way to go which may have up to about 75%.
  It illustrates the typical logic-fail rampant throughout the premises and policies of the entire US domestic security apparatus as they've been presented to the public.
  That's simply because the very last thing the current domestic security theater (of which the TSA is only one part) really exists for is to catch foreign terrorists or enhance airline/train/bus passenger safety.
  It's about incrementally extending, expanding, and strengthening control over people and every aspect of their lives, including even their thoughts & beliefs, by government.
  This is not related to any particular political party or ideology. This is the elite ruling class in D.C. of both parties. These people don't see the world the way most people see it (as it's been spun to them for decades), as differing parties with differing ideologies battling. They see the few who rule (themselves) and everyone else that either submits or dies.
  Once the hammer falls, so to speak, you're either already one of "them" or you can choose to submit or fight and possibly die. The internment camps will be filled with people of all ideologies and political parties...anyone who is already on a government list, who might resist, object, or present any potential to become a possible future threat.
  Think "Hunger Games"...you're either already part of the elite ruling class by holding an existing position and/or by birth/marriage/familial relations etc, or you're not and never will be regardless of former political party and/or ideological/religious beliefs.
  They view people in general as sheep. A rancher would never think to invite one of his herd into the house for Sunday dinner unless said herd-member WAS dinner. (other possible reasons are not relevant to my post and I leave to the perverts...you know who you are!)
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
182. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by mpe · 2013-09-12 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, it still then didn't add up to a statistically significant enough threat to bother with additional security.
  Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.
  
  Or possibly some are in the hands of terrorists who's only interests in planes is as a means of transport.
183. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by Icarium · 2013-09-12 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you're aware that there's no prohibition on carrying liquids in containers exceeding 100ml onto planes, only through the airport security checkpoint. Once through that checkpoint you can quite happily buy and carry on liquids in pretty much any volume you choose. Apart from being unsanitary and degrading to the crew, you're not going to get the reaction you seem to be hoping for when you inform a flight attendant that you're carrying a container with more than 100ml of liquid in it...
184. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by matfud · 2013-09-12 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  If a foriegn state openly attacks you it is not terrorism it is a declaration of war.
185. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by mcgrew · 2013-09-12 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  In 1941 something like 40,000 people died on the highways and yet the US went to war with Japan due to a trifling 3,000 casualties at Peal Harbor.
  We were attacked and declared war. That was the right thing to do. Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, we should have declared war but simply waging it was 2nd best (Iraq was a mistake, we had no business there). But in neither case was martial law declared. We should not have interred Americans of Japanese descent* and the NSA should not be spying on Americans.
  What are all of these rights you claim are being given up?
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  Today's papers are digital. My right against unreasonable search is being violated by the illegal NSA wiretapping and TSA screenings. I'm not the enemy, don't treat me like one. I didn't volunteer for the USAF in 1970 (despite being virtually draft-proof) just to be in a surveillance state, that was what we were supposedly fighting against.
  * The Japanese internment was purely racist. My late friend Ralph Weibe's parents were born in Germany, moved to Russia where Ralph was born to escape WWI, then moved to Oklahoma to escape communism. Ralph spoke no English when he went to 1st grade, only German; they sent him home with a note pinned to his shirt "learn English."
  Rather than being interred when WWII came, Ralph fought against the Germans in the US Navy. German didn't matter, he was white.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
186. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cbhacking · 2013-09-12 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  In fairness, I should have considered that Pearl Harbor would be lumped into the second category and made it two days of car crashes. Also, if you take world-wide terrorism then (aside from the difficulty in deciding exactly what does and does not constitute terrorism) it's probably a good bit worse than that... but compare the security measures at countries that can actually legitimately claim to have a terrorism problem, and compare them to the security measures here, and theirs are more effective, less expensive, and less disruptive to society. A lot of that, of course, is because much of to deterrence is political, which the US government seems incapable of understanding no matter which major party is in office (though Obama sure talked like he understood it during the 2008 campaign, sigh...)
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
187. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cavreader · 2013-09-13 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Iraq was stable because Hussein killed anybody who dared to criticize him and he also killed the family and friends of the dissenter to make a point. Stability can be enforced if you just kill all of your opponents. North Korea is also stable because they imprisoned and killed any dissenters since the day the country was born.
  The terrorists are not going away anytime soon. The US is lucky because the vast majority of terrorists are on another continent. The day after 9/11 the whole world denounced the terrorists world wide and promised to work with the US to accomplish it. A few days later that consensus was fractured as some world leaders found out they might actually have to backup their rhetoric by military action. The current situation in Syria could have been avoided if Russia, China, and Iran had condemned Syria for killing their own citizens to maintain their regime and announced they would stop supporting Syria with weapons and political cover. All it takes is for one country to support Syria to give a lifeline to Assad.
Fuck Network World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Link to the fucking TSA blog, not the idiotic morons at Network World: http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/09/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-leave-your.html . Please do not click NW links, and if you must, be sure to have your ad blocker on.
Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The TSA:
1) Allows ex convicts to grope your children.
2) Takes and stores full 3d scanned naked images of you using tech for which the cancer-risk has not been adequately assessed.
3) Steals valuables from your luggage.
4) Costs taxpayers a fortune.
and in return:
5) Has foiled exactly zero terrorist plots.
6) Fails to make you safer in any way.
Just sayin'.
1. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The TSA sounds a lot like my exwife!
  Badumtish!
2. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-11 12:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, they might have foiled a terrorist plot without our ever finding out about it, because if or when a system is working as intended, the tendency is only natural to not notice what it is doing. The lack of any evidence to show that they have foiled any terrorist effort, therefore, is logically insufficient basis to presume that they have not actually possibly done so. You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact. (Indeed, technically only definitive ineffectiveness can be shown if or when a terrorist attempt that in hindsight should have been detected by the systems in place occurs).
  You'll get no argument from me on your other points, however.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Complete Failure by DerekLyons · 2013-09-11 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  Precisely - it's called deterrence, and it's very hard to determine it's effectiveness.
4. Re:Complete Failure by cavreader · 2013-09-11 12:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hijackings were pretty rare in the US at the time of 9/11 and the security at the time did make it hard to smuggle in a gun or bomb. Before 9/11 I never heard of case where a gun was successfully smuggled onto a plane in the US. The hijackers on the planes on 9/11 bluffed everyone with threats of a bomb and box cutters for weapons. If this same scenario happened today the first people who stood up and announced they have a bomb and brandish a little knife would most likely get the ever living shit kicked out of them by the passengers. It was passengers who subdued the guy with underwear bomb. The guy who tried to light his shoes on fire to set off an explosion was also subdued by the passengers. Sure some passengers could get injured or even killed in the fight but that's still a whole lot better than killing everyone by crashing the plane.
5. Re:Complete Failure by dido · 2013-09-11 12:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
  Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
  Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
  Homer: I see.
  Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
  Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
  
  --
  Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
6. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  So a lack of evidence does not automatically imply that no plots were foiled. But neither does it imply that any plots were foiled. A theory that explains its own lack of evidence remains a theory that lacks evidence.
  The tremendous costs, in terms of dollars, dignity, and abuses, need to be justified by something better than an explanation of why no evidence of success should be expected.
7. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well, let's try a little rigorous thinking:
  1) Very few ex cons, or cons, or even regular people, for that matter, are pedophiles. I'd worry much more about ex cons being waiters and taking my credit card information. Of course, a lot of waiters are actors, and I worry about giving THEM my credit cards. In fact, if I had young children, I'd worry a LOT more about my priest, with whom they spend time on a regular basis, than about a possible ex-con with whom they spend exactly 90 seconds.
  2) Well, anyone who sees my naked body deserves the nightmares they will have for days afterward. The cancer risk, yeah, that's a problem, but some people won't believe there's no cancer risk with any given thing, no matter how much research. Look at the whole cell-phone brouhaha.
  3) Yes. True, and terrible.
  4) Don't know about a "fortune", but they certainly spend tax money. I would like to see actual figures on how much per passenger is spent on the TSA.
  5) How can you know that? As far as I'm concerned, every gun/real grenade/big knife they take away is a danger removed. If you believe that because nobody starts shouting "Allahu Akbar" or whatever it is we suppose terrorists shout, when the TSA takes away their box-cutters, that they haven't foiled any terrorist plots, then... wait. I've lost track.
  6) And how can you know that? I think it probably does make some people feel safer. I guess if by "you" you mean YOU, then I guess you're right.
8. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  badumtish? fabulous.
9. Re:Complete Failure by Scutter · 2013-09-11 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  9/11 changed the stakes dramatically. Prior to 9/11, hijackings almost universally meant "fly this plane to Havana and we'll let you all go". As soon as the hijackers upped the ante to "we're gonna plow this thing into the nearest building, killing all of you", they forever ensured that no box cutter would stop the passengers from beating them into a paste.
  
  --
  
  "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
10. Re:Complete Failure by fustakrakich · 2013-09-11 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Complete failure"? For whom? I mean, somebody making money from this...You all should know by now. The only thing to ponder is, cui bono. That is the most direct way to find who puts these things in place.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
11. Re: Complete Failure by supersat · 2013-09-11 13:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Deterrence is easy to measure if you're wiretapping everyone.
12. Re:Complete Failure by consorting-with-daem · 2013-09-11 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, wait. Anonymous Coward. You will be here all week!
  
  --
  Sent from my Amiga 500
13. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  1. Your priest probably doesn't grope your kids as part of his job. And even so, the fact that an ex-con somewhere else might be worse doesn't make an ex-con at the TSA acceptable. And you can dispute fraudulent credit card charges easily.
  2. The onus is on the TSA to demonstrate safety before they start putting people in these machines, which they have not done. And just because you don't mind the government forcing you to pose nude for a camera doesn't mean it is ok to impose this on everyone who actually has a sense of dignity.
  3. Indeed! Just like all these other points!
  4. "I haven't seen the numbers" is not a counter-argument. Someone (probably me, but am too lazy) should look them up.
  5. Based on what has been reported, all the stuff they have removed were in the possession of ordinary Americans who thoughtlessly included it in luggage, and posed no threats. In order to justify the expenses of the TSA, they must show solid evidence of their success. Since that evidence has not been shown, the backwards "well you wouldn't know anyway" argument is weak justification for a very heavy-handed set of policies.
  6. Making people "feel" safer is not worth the costs of the TSA. If the level of safety they provide cannot be determined, then the whole program is a dog and pony show. A very expensive one, at that.
14. Re:Complete Failure by Tablizer · 2013-09-11 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  She's a Priest?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
15. Re:Complete Failure by DaHat · 2013-09-11 13:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It was passengers who subdued the guy with underwear bomb.
  Correct... but only AFTER the detonator failed to ignite the explosive material... but instead ignited his pants and resulted in no boom.
  
  The guy who tried to light his shoes on fire to set off an explosion was also subdued by the passengers.
  Correct... but only AFTER he was unsuccessful at lighting the fuse.
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
16. Re:Complete Failure by Jason+Levine · 2013-09-11 13:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Besides passengers fighting back instead of sitting back and letting a hijacking happen, the only worthwhile security that happened after 9/11 was the locked, reinforced cabin doors. That ensures that the hijackers can't get into the cabin before the passengers take them out. Other than that, pre-9/11 screening (checking for guns, knives, etc) would have been enough. Yes, it let the hijackers through, but the "increased TSA security" has also let through people with weapons.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
17. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  The TSA sounds a lot like my exwife!
  Badumtish!
  Badumtish!? That sounds like a terr'st name if I's ever heard one! Strip 'im boys!
18. Re:Complete Failure by phantomfive · 2013-09-11 13:32 · Score: 2
  
  That's a good point, the airport security before 9/11 was already good enough to stop an attack. There was no need to increase it significantly.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re:Complete Failure by crunchygranola · 2013-09-11 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Gun smuggled on an airline.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
20. Re:Complete Failure by Dan667 · 2013-09-11 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  I am saying you have foiled every attempted ufo invasion since 9/11. Keep up the good job.
21. Re:Complete Failure by Nidi62 · 2013-09-11 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hijackings were pretty rare in the US at the time of 9/11 and the security at the time did make it hard to smuggle in a gun or bomb. Before 9/11 I never heard of case where a gun was successfully smuggled onto a plane in the US
  I work for a major US airline, and I have heard stories from several coworkers that, back 15 or so years ago before our company outsourced cabin cleaning and the agents would do it themselves, they routinely found things like handguns, drugs, and money (large amounts, not small) that had been stashed or lost on airplanes. Just because you never heard about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things like that just never hit the news because it wasn't as big a deal as it is now.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
22. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · 2013-09-11 14:33 · Score: 2
  
  You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact
  They are having an impact all right. They cost us money and time. Anecdotal evidence suggests some tourists aren't coming to American because of them. And evidence suggests driving has gone up, and because driving is statistically less safe than flying, more people have died has a result.
  So we can't tell if TSA has deterred anyone (would it really? What we did previously didn't stop anyone, why should the TSA) but evidence has suggested they failed to stop some terrorists, like the underwear guy and the show guy (well that one isn't on TSA, but still)
23. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · 2013-09-11 14:35 · Score: 2
  
  Is it really hard?
  Prior to 9/11 there random searches and metal detectors with xrays. That didn't stop people. Why should a little more stop anyone? There are LOTS of ways to get into an airport. Supposedly the guys that planned 9/11 spent a long time planning it. They are going to let a little deterrence stop them?
  TSA isn't about deterring anyone. It is about controlling the population and keeping them in fear.
24. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · 2013-09-11 14:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
25. Re:Complete Failure by drkim · 2013-09-11 15:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
  Not technically correct in either case:
  The "Underware bomber" (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) was coming from Amsterdam.
  The "Shoe Bomber" (Richard Colvin Reid) was inbound from Paris.
  So neither one had been screened by US TSA.
26. Re:Complete Failure by taj · 2013-09-11 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  You are right but it's not worth it. Let us take our guns on the air ship and watch terrorist go away. An armed society shows respect to each other. An unarmed society shows fear of each other.
27. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, they might have foiled a terrorist plot without our ever finding out about it, because if or when a system is working as intended, the tendency is only natural to not notice what it is doing.
  You know who else might have foiled a terrorist plot without your ever finding out about it?
  Batman.
  Absence of evidence is absence of evidence, not some fucked-up opportunity to say that it must be working because we can't see it working.
28. Re:Complete Failure by DerekLyons · 2013-09-11 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you'd never been to an airport before 9/11?
  Because it's either that, or you're a complete fool, or so hopelessly clueless one wonders how you can function in daily life.
29. Re:Complete Failure by mdielmann · 2013-09-11 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they might have foiled a terrorist plot without our ever finding out about it, because if or when a system is working as intended, the tendency is only natural to not notice what it is doing. The lack of any evidence to show that they have foiled any terrorist effort, therefore, is logically insufficient basis to presume that they have not actually possibly done so.
  Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
30. Re:Complete Failure by Sarten-X · 2013-09-11 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  "A little deterrence" means the terrorists need to do more planning, and involve more people, and take more risks - and ideally that means more chances for the NSA or CIA to find them.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
31. Re:Complete Failure by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-09-11 16:58 · Score: 2
  
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  A major point: even if the bombs had went off, it's not a given that even most the people onboard would have died. There have in fact been multiple bombs on planes where the plane was successfully landed. In fact, the reinforced pilot cabin door makes that scenario more likely as it greatly increases the chances of pilots being able to retain control--and yes, this presumes the bomb isn't sufficiently big enough to cause massive damage to the fuselage or the wings, but then that's what luggage checking is for.
  Of course, all of the above misses the point. The reason for the TSA and all the security theater wasn't because of a plane being blown up. Plenty of planes were blown up in the 60s and 70s. What changed things was the plane became itself a bomb upon ground targets. To that end, no amount of blowing up the plane (except possible on the tarmac) is likely to be of any real use of the plane as a weapon. And even then, that's likely more to terrorize than to actually kill.
  And that really highlights the point that all the people in the plane are effectively considered expendable and the real fear is killing a lot of people (on the order of thousands, not hundreds) for which a plane full of people just doesn't count. The really sad part, then, is how easy it would be to kill a lot of people in a lot simpler ways (biological warfare* in the subways comes to mind) which are basically unpreventable. Yet, I can only imagine the TSA's grip on subways if such a successful attack were to occur.
  *I discount chemical weapons because they're too fast acting in general to kill thousands--look no further than the whole Tokyo Sarin Gas attack---, nuclear dirty bombs because increasing your cancer risk as badly as smoking cigarettes doesn't have the same sort of instant impact you really aim for in terrorism, and nuclear weapons because they're just too hard to construct and possibly even harder to buy. Biological attacks are trivial by comparison.
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
32. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-11 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I never once said that it must be working... I only said that given the stated intended purpose for it, and in particular the natural tendency to not necessarily recognize the operation of a system that *IS* actually working as intended, the absence of evidence that it is working is not sufficient logical basis to presume that it is *NOT* working.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
33. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-11 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apples and oranges... foiling ufo invasions is not a part of my expected function.
  My point, you see, is that when a system is operating as intended, the very fact that it is doing anything useful actually ends up being completely invisible to people around it.... it's the failures that people notice - when things go wrong, and the inconveniences caused by the TSA's operation are examples of that.
  But the intended function of the TSA's function is security... and it's to be expected that if they are performing that duty well enough, that there would be little to no reason for anyone to ever be aware that they were doing anything useful in that regard unless one actually had a behind-the-scenes view in the first place.
  So given that there's a perfectly plausible explanation for why we aren't seeing any reports about all the terrorist plots that the TSA may have foiled, the absence of such stories is not sufficient logical basis to presume that no such events have ever occurred. I'm not saying that it happens often, but it's not logically justifiable to conclude that they haven't done any good at all.
  Not that I think the good they may have done was worth all the shit they've been pulling... not for one instant. I'd speculate that there's nothing that the TSA might have stopped since 9/11 which passengers would not also have, given how 9/11 has forever altered the mindset of fliers with regards to their chances of survival if they just go along with the hijacker.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
34. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-11 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't necessarily imply that any plots were foiled, but given that is part of the TSA's intended function, the absence of any evidence that they have foiled any such plots in particular has a perfectly plausible explanation that fits in very naturally with how people view their surroundings when things are operating as intended.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
35. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-11 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably true... but the poster to whom I responded suggested the TSA haven't stopped any... to which I alleged that there is insufficient basis to conclude such a point.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
36. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:44 · Score: 0
  
  Hijackings were pretty rare in the US at the time of 9/11 and the security at the time did make it hard to smuggle in a gun or bomb. Before 9/11 I never heard of case where a gun was successfully smuggled onto a plane in the US. ...
  During the late 1960's, I walked on to an United Airlines cross country flight from New York to San Francisco at the last minute and bought a ticket with cash without showing any identification from one of the stewardesses; who, after returning a couple of minutes later from her station, gladly gave me my change.
  Under my jacket, I was wearing was a .38 caliber special revolver. Nothing related to my job, it was just a typical situation for the way things were at the time.
37. Re:Complete Failure by sjames · 2013-09-11 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Wanna buy my tiger repelling rock?
38. Re:Complete Failure by runeghost · 2013-09-11 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Their acronym should stand for Terrorism and Sexual Assault.
39. Re:Complete Failure by runeghost · 2013-09-11 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, which is why the government should buy 200,000 of my highly sophisticated terror-repelling rocks at the bargain price of $149,98 each. (Plus Shipping and Handling. Professional anti-terror rock installation not included.)
40. Re:Complete Failure by runeghost · 2013-09-11 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA and the CIA are far too busy snooping on domestic traffic to worry about anything as inconsequential as potential terrorists. Besides, most domestic US 'terrorists' are sub-morons being run by the FBI to scare funding out of Congress.
41. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 20:19 · Score: 0
  
  ... lack of any evidence ...
  
  I have given you a tiger-repelling rock. The reason you can't see any tigers is because the rock works. Should you be attacked by a tiger, it is your fault the rock didn't work. In such a situation, please find a tiger and operate the rock correctly.
  
  ... there's no way to be certain ...
  
  That's why trials and tests were developed. To see if the equipment responded to an expected problem. I think the TSA's own trials showed an even chance of bored screen attendants failing the test.
42. Re:Complete Failure by jittles · 2013-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
  Not technically correct in either case: The "Underware bomber" (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) was coming from Amsterdam.
  The "Shoe Bomber" (Richard Colvin Reid) was inbound from Paris.
  So neither one had been screened by US TSA.
  You have obviously never traveled internationally since 9/11. You get dumped out at Immigration in the US. You go through the immigration desk. You collect your bags, and then you proceed to either A) Leave the airport or B) go through security to move on to your next flight. You cannot even board another international bound flight without going through customs and security. At least this has been my experience at SFO, DC, Atlanta and Chicago airports.
43. Re:Complete Failure by jittles · 2013-09-12 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  You have obviously never traveled internationally since 9/11. You get dumped out at Immigration in the US. You go through the immigration desk. You collect your bags, and then you proceed to either A) Leave the airport or B) go through security to move on to your next flight. You cannot even board another international bound flight without going through customs and security. At least this has been my experience at SFO, DC, Atlanta and Chicago airports.
  Oh yes and DFW as well!
44. Re:Complete Failure by BitZtream · 2013-09-12 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I'm okay with domestic spying, but lets think for a second. Every person that was involved in 9/11 had been in country for MONTHS, some YEARS. None of them were fresh off the boat.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
45. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  And Mohammed Atta's (the ringleader of 9/11) visa was renewed 6 months after 9/11)
46. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Last I checked, and I know is true at least at YVR (Vancouver, BC, Canada), the TSA and US Customs have workers at foreign airports to screen passengers and luggage that are inbound to US destinations before they board the plane.
47. Re:Complete Failure by thoromyr · 2013-09-12 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  biological weapons might have a chance in a subway, but the reason they have not been broadly developed is that they are both unreliable and ineffective. Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are both reliable and effective.
  The reasons for this are several, but consider:
  biological agents simply do not have good longevity. They are not shelf stable (which is a problem for stock piling munitions). They require special storage to preserve viability. They are prone to being killed off by ultraviolet light (i.e., outside during the day). They do not have consistent potency. Their effect on a given individual varies considerably.
  Chemical agents can have good longevity. They can be shelf stable. Storage concerns are more about accidental leaks than loss of potency. They are equally good at night and day. They have consistent potency. Their effect on individuals is relatively constant.
  I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up the Tokyo sarin gas attack. You say that it was *less* effective because it was so lethal? Is your argument then that you could seed some mythical biological agent and keep dispersing it but no one would know until you had exposed more people? If that is indeed your point I can see where your coming from, but it relies on things that simply aren't true for biological weapons.
  Longer exposure would be *required* to even have a chance at affecting anywhere near the same number of people. If you rig a biological weapons container to slowly output its contents so as to provide continuing exposure in a region then you are also increasing the likelihood of its discovery simply because it is present. On the other hand you could improve coverage of a chemical attack simply by not limiting it to a single location. If you are willing to risk discovery of the weapons containers (which shouldn't be an issue if willing to accept biowarfare) then the devices could be pre-planted and triggered simultaneously, or staggered via timers, remote activation, whatever.
  In short, biological warfare is not seen in practice because it is expensive, unreliable, and generally ineffective. Chemical weapons are often cheap to manufacture, are generally reliable and often quite effective.
48. Re:Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  If the TSA has actually foiled or dissuaded any terrorist plot, why would they have not simply turned their attention away from airplanes and toward any other "soft" gathering of people? Such as the huge line waiting to be frisked/irradiated/robbed by the TSA? Or crowds a the local shopping mall?
  No matter where actual security is put in place, the terrorists can always turn somewhere else. The fact that they haven't, except in cases where the police themselves recruit, train, and supply the "terrorists" before busting them to great fanfare, says to anyone halfway awake that there -are- no significant numbers of terrorists in this country, and that all that effort is wasted. (unless the -real- purpose isn't the safety of the public, but jobs and power for the security agencies, in which case its working wonderfully)
49. Re:Complete Failure by drkim · 2013-09-12 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
  Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
  Not technically correct in either case:
  The "Underware bomber" (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) was coming from Amsterdam.
  The "Shoe Bomber" (Richard Colvin Reid) was inbound from Paris.
  So neither one had been screened by US TSA.
  You have obviously never traveled internationally since 9/11. You get dumped out at Immigration in the US. You go through the immigration desk. You collect your bags, and then you proceed to either A) Leave the airport or B) go through security to move on to your next flight. You cannot even board another international bound flight without going through customs and security. At least this has been my experience at SFO, DC, Atlanta and Chicago airports.
  Actually I have. Recently coming to US from UK (Heathrow) as far as I could tell all security was conducted by Brits. By the time I got to US security, I was already on the ground in the US.
50. Re:Complete Failure by drkim · 2013-09-12 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, and I know is true at least at YVR (Vancouver, BC, Canada), the TSA and US Customs have workers at foreign airports to screen passengers and luggage that are inbound to US destinations before they board the plane.
  Can't speak for Vancouver (or Amsterdam, or Paris, for that matter) But coming to US from Japan, Germany, Vietnam, UK, etc. as far as I could tell all security was conducted by Locals. Germany (Berlin-Schönefeld) seemed more strict than any US screenings.
  You may be right if there was some "behind the scenes" screening going on...
51. Re:Complete Failure by houghi · 2013-09-12 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  If they would have gone of, you would have gotten a bombing, not a highjacking.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
52. Re:Complete Failure by jittles · 2013-09-12 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I am misremembering but didn't the underwear bomber get into Detroit, go through TSA and then try to ignite his payload on another flight? It's been so long, so if I am mistaken, then please accept my apologies.
53. Re:Complete Failure by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-09-12 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  biological agents simply do not have good longevity. They are not shelf stable (which is a problem for stock piling munitions). They require special storage to preserve viability. They are prone to being killed off by ultraviolet light (i.e., outside during the day). They do not have consistent potency. Their effect on a given individual varies considerably.
  The former of which are important to, say, smuggling out dangerous biological sample strains and keeping them alive long enough to deploy. For terrorists, I can readily imagine that the actual time from theft or culture (there are wild strains of viruses and bacteria that could be used) to usage would be small, so while certainly there are specific points to consider about their usage, at least part of what you say may not apply when terrorism is involved. For the last part, that's a key part of what terrorism is all about.
  
  Chemical agents can have good longevity. They can be shelf stable. Storage concerns are more about accidental leaks than loss of potency. They are equally good at night and day. They have consistent potency. Their effect on individuals is relatively constant.
  And they have limited potency. If x gallons of Chemical Agent X are used, you have an upper bound on those affected and the time frame upon when those affects are reached.
  
  I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up the Tokyo sarin gas attack. You say that it was *less* effective because it was so lethal?
  "In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo subway, killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others." -- Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. I wouldn't call that "so lethal"*. In fact, it would seem to be nearly as effective as releasing the flu.
  
  Is your argument then that you could seed some mythical biological agent and keep dispersing it but no one would know until you had exposed more people? If that is indeed your point I can see where your coming from, but it relies on things that simply aren't true for biological weapons.
  Put on gloves soaked in a flu virus from a few years ago that was particularly virulent (yes, keeping a flu virus alive for that long is by far the hardest part) and actively touch every handle, every door knob, every turnstile, etc you can during morning and evening rush hours. Have about five or ten people do it, making sure they repeatedly resoak their gloves every few minutes (or I guess just have them carry a gel mixture in a tube with hoses to the gloves and have them pump that gel bottle regularly--so, yea, requires that this be in winter or later fall). Keep doing this activity for days (it'll take perhaps a week or two before people get sick and the cause is linked presuming the people involved don't get caught early). And yes, I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but that's the general gist of it.
  
  Longer exposure would be *required* to even have a chance at affecting anywhere near the same number of people. If you rig a biological weapons container to slowly output its contents so as to provide continuing exposure in a region then you are also increasing the likelihood of its discovery simply because it is present. On the other hand you could improve coverage of a chemical attack simply by not limiting it to a single location. If you are willing to risk discovery of the weapons containers (which shouldn't be an issue if willing to accept biowarfare) then the devices could be pre-planted and triggered simultaneously, or staggered via timers, remote activation, whatever.
  And yet producing enough chemical agent and releasing it even in confined spaces to produce enough exposure is apparently non-trivial. I mean, you're
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
54. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · 2013-09-12 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  >blockquote>I have given you a tiger-repelling rock. The reason you can't see any tigers is because the rock works. Should you be attacked by a tiger, it is your fault the rock didn't work. In such a situation, please find a tiger and operate the rock correctly.
  False analogy, there is nothing inherent in the geological formation of rocks that could even in theory, while keeping commensurate with known laws of physics, keep away such creatures.
  The TSA's measures, annoying as they may be, at least in theory are supposed to actually deter and prevent terrorist attacks, and given that's pretty much their entire reason for existing, it is not outside of reason to speculate that the TSA's measures have had some positive influence in this regard.
  Not that I think that their additional measures are worth the inconveniences that are caused... I'm only pointing out that it's logically flawed to say that they have foiled *zero* terrorist efforts, which was the only point to which I had originally responded.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
55. Re:Complete Failure by drkim · 2013-09-12 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I am misremembering but didn't the underwear bomber get into Detroit, go through TSA and then try to ignite his payload on another flight? It's been so long, so if I am mistaken, then please accept my apologies.
  This is /. no apologies necessary...
  You were close:
  He first flew from Nigeria to Amsterdam.
  In Amsterdam he transferred to a flight heading towards Detroit.
  About 40 minutes out of Detroit, he tried to activate.
  However, he did leave us with the fabulous catchphrase:
  Is that 80 grams of pentaerythritol tetranitrate and triacetone triperoxide in your pants...
  ...or are you just happy to see me?
56. Re:Complete Failure by thoromyr · 2013-09-13 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  a good comment and I think we basically agree, but you appear to overrate the lethality of influenza. Further, with many chemical agents it isn't just a matter of their lethality, but permanent damage. Someone who had significant exposure and survives nerve gas is never right afterwards.
  From a military stand point this is as good or even better than being lethal as the ongoing cost to the enemy can exceed that of simple death. From a terror stand point having people who are, effectively, permanently crippled in some way can also be a good way of delivering the message of fear.
  This is just hard to achieve with biological agents. The only significant use of biological agents against people I can think of was by colonists against American Indians, and even there it isn't clear how wide spread or effective it was [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox] and despite isolated (and largely ineffective) attempts to use agents like anthrax there seems to be no significant use of it. [http://aarc.org/resources/biological/history.asp]. That references the "rashneeshee" terrror attack which had localized impact at best, no fatalities and the attackers failed to accomplish their objective [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack].
  I've had salmonella poisoning and it is *not* fun. But you recover from it. I've also seen, but not personally experienced (thankfully) the effect of nerve agents. I'd much rather bad guys pursue biological warfare.
And of those grenades... by Dunbal · 2013-09-11 12:03 · Score: 0

So, TSA, how many of those grenades were actually real grenades as opposed to fake, dud, decoy, joke grenades? Do you still shut down the entire airport "out of abundance of caution" for a novelty cigarette lighter shaped like a grenade?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:And of those grenades... by thegarbz · 2013-09-11 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  So, TSA, how many of those grenades were actually real grenades as opposed to fake, dud, decoy, joke grenades? Do you still shut down the entire airport "out of abundance of caution" for a novelty cigarette lighter shaped like a grenade?
  The answer is ..... RTFA.
2. Re:And of those grenades... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 12:10 · Score: 3
  
  Just out of curiosity, are you arguing with the "no grenades" policy?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:And of those grenades... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  fuck yeah, maybe it's because it's not actually a no grenades policy - it's a no-scary paperweights policy. I like the way America used to be, where real grenades, flares, weapons etc did not make the flight and a paper mache brass knuckles didn't make people shit themselves.
4. Re:And of those grenades... by Dunbal · 2013-09-11 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  No I'm arguing against security theatre. My daughter almost cost us a flight one day because she was wearing a necklace in the shape of a tiny, tiny gun. Because it was "gun shaped" they had to call their supervisor to see if we could be let on the airplane or not. I can imagine having a picture of a gun can also get you in trouble. I was mocking the TSA - I know damned well that even if a grenade isn't real they're going to treat it as if it was, call the bomb squad, shut down that part of the airport, etc. It doesn't matter if you tell them it's a toy or a cigarette lighter.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:And of those grenades... by Jason+Levine · 2013-09-11 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not one to agree with the TSA, but confiscating any grenade, even one that the owner insists is a dud, seems to be a good security policy.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
6. Re:And of those grenades... by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that sounds stupid. But we live in an era of stupidity, don't we?
  Student suspended for shaping Pop-Tart into gun
  And yet government keeps growing....
  I hope your next flight goes better. Cheers.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
7. Re:And of those grenades... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  Just out of curiosity, are you arguing with the "no grenades" policy?
  Yes. Second Amendment rights, bitch.
8. Re:And of those grenades... by Hentes · 2013-09-11 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, how's a man supposed to go fishing without 'em?
9. Re:And of those grenades... by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-11 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. It's also not a good policy to have in a free country.
  
  --
  Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
It isn't just grenades that they find by cold+fjord · 2013-09-11 12:04 · Score: 1

TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports, with number continuing to rise since 2007
If it is all just "security theater," the "patrons" seem a bit over-armed.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Greyfox · 2013-09-11 12:09 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Like that scene from Airplane, they should just give you a gun if you don't have one when you check in at the gate. That'd make the whole process a lot easier...
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
2. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by amiga3D · 2013-09-11 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm shocked it's that low. 4 guns a day nationwide is pretty small. You've got to figure out of the millions pouring through airports daily at least a tiny percentage are bat shit crazy. Maybe not even such a tiny percentage. I remember reading about one guy who freaked out on a flight and his fellow passengers got so frightened that they killed him. This was before 911.
  http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118734&page=1
3. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Do those stats include things that are just confiscated representations of guns such as toy guns, water pistols and charm bracelet charms shaped like pistols. (Yes, all of those things have been confiscated by the TSA in the past.) The TSA is just conditioning people to passively submit to the authority of a police state. Don't believe me? Pay attention as the role of the TSA gets expanded to buses, trains and sporting events. Remember I told you so when you find you no longer have the freedom to travel without papers and a great deal of patience as you are harassed by petty tyrants in TSA uniforms.
4. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by mjwx · 2013-09-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports, with number continuing to rise since 2007
  If it is all just "security theater," the "patrons" seem a bit over-armed.
  As much as I agree with you, the TSA is overkill.
  
  Airport security should be able to detect guns without 3D scanners and "enhanced pat downs". Same with terrorist plots, airport security is the absolute last line of defence, we shouldn't arm it or treat it as the first line.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't really matter _what_ you allow on the plane; it matters _who_ you allow on the plane. From what I've read, most guns in luggage tend to be from military or police types, or people with valid carry permits who forgot that they left the handgun in their duffel bag from the day at the range. In those cases you would probably be _safer_ on the plane if they had their gun with them.
6. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  From what I've read, most guns in luggage tend to be from military or police types, or people with valid carry permits who forgot that they left the handgun in their duffel bag from the day at the range. In those cases you would probably be _safer_ on the plane if they had their gun with them.
  Major Nidal Hassan would probably disagree
7. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by LMariachi · 2013-09-11 13:35 · Score: 2
  
  Guns which would almost certainly have been found using the pre-9/11 security procedures.
8. Re: It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  The fucking POG, psychiatrist who turned traitor? He bought his first pistol mere weeks before the incident. Furthermore, it's just Nidal Hassan. He has been dismissed from the Army along with his conviction.
9. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by ae1294 · 2013-09-11 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  yes travel by air is totally a great reason to give up your basic freedoms as a citizen to own a legal necklace or any other legal item.... Your trolling is laughable...
10. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by runeghost · 2013-09-11 19:13 · Score: 2
  
  Since an average day of commerical fight in the US sees about 1.5 million passengers, that means about 0.0000026% of them are carrying firearms. Seems a lot closer to "random accident" than "over-armed". I suspect there isn't another demographic on the planet that is so lightly armed.
11. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is when one of the 0.0000026% that are armed is armed, they are 100% armed, not 0.0000026% armed. If they made it on the plane with the weapon they could hijack it if they so choose.
  That "random accident" is almost indistinguishable from a plot. You might be good at math, but your analysis of the results leaves something to be desired.
12. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  yes travel by air is totally a great reason to give up your basic freedoms as a citizen to own a legal necklace or any other legal item.... Your trolling is laughable...
  It isn't trolling, and it isn't asking people to give up owning any legal items or rights or "basic freedoms". It just suggesting one use common sense when they travel by air. Having to follow rules when you do certain things is a fact of life. You're not making any statement when you carry something guaranteed to provoke the TSA other than that you're deliberately out to provoke the TSA, probably so you can martyrize yourself when complaining of the ordeal you went through.
  The amount of crap people carry when they travel is astonishing. Here's a clue, they have stores in almost every airport city in the US now! It is easier to not drag all that crap through airports if you don't have to do so.
  I suspect the TSA agents are tested fairly frequently by undercover TSA agents bringing forbidden items through. If the items are not stopped the agents get in trouble with their superiors. So anything close gets questioned.
  What is laughable is people thinking they are so entitled that they should be able to disregard rules that are in place, whether you agree with them or not, because they believe they have some special right that allows them to do what they want.
13. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by ae1294 · 2013-09-16 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  You speak of common sense yet you fail to require the same from the TSA. Do you not see the illogic in that? Have they really gotten to you so completely that you see them as your masters? They make the rules, they must be right?
  Making a statement? YES! that is the point... freedom.... A t-shirt saying "I'm the bomb" or a gun neck-less requires no mention from the tsa. If it is a box cutter that's one thing but that is not what we are talking about now is it?
  I'm sure they are tested but if I had their job I wouldn't "follow orders" people are free to be assholes you know???? It's not for you or anyone else to judge (control). If they are being disruptive and whatnot well that's something different. Simply wearing something isn't grounds to take it and I wouldn't give it to them. I'd rather go to jail but then I really have no life left to fear being stripped from me...
  Let them train you to be a good little minion.... I'm sure they will reward you for it after they have taken everything from us and we are all guilty by default.
But how... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:08 · Score: 0

how are we going to 9/11 the NSA if they confiscate our toys ?
No grenades were found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:09 · Score: 0

Year to date, the agency's officers have discovered: 43 grenades in carry-on baggage and 40 grenades in checked baggage.
No they haven't. They've discovered 83 spheres of inert metal made to look like grenades. They are replicas; fakes.
1. Re:No grenades were found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, some of the grenades were real. RTFA.
2. Re:No grenades were found by omnichad · 2013-09-11 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  One.
In another announcement: by Hartree · 2013-09-11 12:13 · Score: 3, Funny

The US Postal Service would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to get your letter bombs in the mail early this year.
Thank You,
Handgrenades count? by RedHackTea · 2013-09-11 12:15 · Score: 0

If I chop off my hand and paint it green and stick a pin in it, does that count as a hand grenade?

--
The G
1. Re:Handgrenades count? by linear+a · 2013-09-11 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  Nah, that'd be a hand greenade.
2. Re:Handgrenades count? by jbeaupre · 2013-09-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  You planning on winning the big race and shaking the presidents hand?
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
3. Re:Handgrenades count? by Tablizer · 2013-09-11 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not buying Girl-Scout Cookies from you.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Handgrenades count? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Are they made from real Girl-Scouts?
5. Re:Handgrenades count? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. I've found that nubile virgin girls give the best taste.
6. Re:Handgrenades count? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  No arms allowed.
7. Re:Handgrenades count? by runeghost · 2013-09-11 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not unless you paint it silver and change your name to Frankenstein.
Still use Post-It Notes for these things by puddingebola · 2013-09-11 12:17 · Score: 1

Reminder... No... Grenades. Thank you TSA.
applicable quotes by hguorbray · 2013-09-11 12:25 · Score: 1

What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public -Tommy Boy

No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. H.L Mencken

improperly attributed to him as:

No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American Public

-I'm just sayin'
Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:40 · Score: 1

I was thinking of getting some of that for my wife...
1. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by larry+bagina · 2013-09-11 13:15 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I recommend jizz bomb for the special ladies in your life.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.sephora.com/
  Be prepared to pay for it.
3. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by davester666 · 2013-09-11 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Don't. The woman I made out with last night had it on, and it smelled terrible.
  It was still worthwhile...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
4. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  sounds like a good trade.
5. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by kelemvor4 · 2013-09-12 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking of getting some of that for my wife...
  Right.. like we are going to believe that not one but two slashdotters have wives. Nice troll, buddy.
6. Re:Flowerbomb - is that AKA Eau d' Paintball? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  I was thinking of getting some of that for my wife...
  Why? You think she's not classy now?
Who... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:40 · Score: 0

Who in the world could ever possibly think it's a good idea to carry a grenade on board of a plane...
1. Re:Who... by Tablizer · 2013-09-11 13:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Who in the world could ever possibly think it's a good idea to carry a grenade on board of a plane...
  To counter the snakes, of course.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
O Really? by sci-fi+fantasies · 2013-09-11 12:41 · Score: 0

Wow. Who will even bring hand grenades on a plane. P.S My dad says Two people: 1. People who like to have hand grenades around with them. 2. People who want to blow up the plane. LOL. TSA Guy: Sorry sir, come with me please. SFX: KABOOM TSA Guy: AGGGGGG!
Don't fall for it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:42 · Score: 1

They're trying to make you feel some support or at least sympathy for their ruthlessly inefficient fascist system. Instead, ask them how many colostomy bags they've punctured during their sexually invasive searches, year-to-date.
Simplier times by 12WTF$ · 2013-09-11 12:55 · Score: 1

Back last century, returning to Australia from MacWorld Boston ('97 as it was the infamous Jobs' praising MS-IE),
I presented an empty 'pineapple' grenade, for inspection to the 'anti-hijacking' pre boarding security at Los Angeles.
I had unscrewed the fuse out of the body of the grenade and I presented the two pieces saying: "You may not like this..."
But once they saw the grenade was mounted on a small base board with a small plaque that read:
"Customer Service. Please take a number" with a square tag with the number "1" on the pull ring of the pin,
they laughed and waved me through...

--
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
1. Re:Simplier times by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  In cases like this, how you approach the situation will have a much greater impact than actual policy. You were open about what it was and presented it in a reasonable manner. A lot of people simply would not do that. They would either completely forget that they're carrying something that could be perceived as a threat, or they would try to conceal it knowing that it may be perceived as a threat, or they would get argumentative. None of those approaches are sound when dealing with people who have to make quick decisions.
2. Re:Simplier times by runeghost · 2013-09-11 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, you cannot rely on the TSA to be reasonable. Try that same approach today and you will most likely end up missing your flight and loosing your gag-gift, assuming you don't end up jailed and charged.
I carried on a mock roadside bomb once by shadowofwind · 2013-09-11 13:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

I carried on a mock EFP on a flight to L.A. The TSA didn't even open the bag. I was kind of appalled, because there was a lot of sharp steel in it even though there was no explosive. But then on my return trip they took my tiny little drill bits, because drill bits are forbidden.
Another time I tried to carry on a big knife by accident, but they found it. I would guess most of the confiscated guns are like that. Sam Kinison even had a routine about this.
I think its all bullshit, especially the millimeter wave stuff, its just a big money making scheme for L3 and their corrupt government patrons. If someone wanted to kill a bunch of people at an airport, the best place would be the queue at the security check. If I had my way we would fly unmolested and accept the risk. Locking the cockpit doors solves most of the problem, and most of the rest of it solved by having a population with some sense of honor, willing to fight back instead of just cowering and waiting to die. My wishful thinking isn't going to change the culture though.
Except the ones that are not fakes... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-11 13:34 · Score: 1

a majority of the confiscated grenades are fake, replicas or otherwise inert.
Except the ones that are not fakes...

Officers at Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) discovered a live 40mm high explosive grenade in a carry-on bag in 2012.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by AK+Marc · 2013-09-11 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's the only "real" one found, and it was in the possession of someone who routinely has them and had it on him at the time by mistake. There has never been a nefarious grenade found.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
2. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-11 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's the only "real" one found, and it was in the possession of someone who routinely has them and had it on him at the time by mistake.
  
  That's the only one reported in THIS story. Also, the fact that the guy "routinely has them and had it on him" and made a "mistake" should scare you even more, not make you feel safer.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by AK+Marc · 2013-09-11 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  A professional soldier will be more likely than a "regular" person to have a grenade, and there are many people with handguns that simply forgot they had it when going through security. Most prosecutions for handguns are for people who had a legitimate reason to be armed at both ends of the trip, and simply forgot about it, as they always have it, like many others do with fingernail clippers.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  40mm grenades have a centrifugal arming mechanism, requireing the grenade to rotate a certain number of times at at least a minimum rate of spin to arm it. It's designed that way so that it will be impossible to blow up too close to the person shooting it, but a side effect is that it also REQUIRES a rifled launcher in order to fire it in such a way as to make it arm.
  A 40mm grenade on its own is not a threat to anyone.
5. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by BitZtream · 2013-09-12 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I flew out of RDU (been a couple years now) the signs simply stated that guns in carry ons must be unloaded and no ammo was allowed regardless of any other conditions. I'm not aware of it being illegal to carry your weapon onboard if you follow the other rules. An unloaded gun is dangerous like a hammer is dangerous.
  I've carried a small (2" blade?) knife on flights through body scanners and metal detectors or multiple occasions.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
6. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Only one real one was found, and it was not carried through by a terrorist, but by a soldier. So, by applying some simple statistics, 100% of people who carry grenades are not terrorists. Therfore, only people who carry grenades should be allowed on a plane. They probably also weigh the same as a duck.
7. Re:Except the ones that are not fakes... by AK+Marc · 2013-09-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Been a while? I can't remember a time when guns were ever allowed in carry ons. 20 years ago, the rules were guns must be in checked bags and declared on check-in (and other restrictions, I won't list them all), but they were most certainly not allowed in carry ons.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
So I wonder? by Grand+Facade · 2013-09-11 13:39 · Score: 2

How many grenades they missed?

--
Rick B.
most of them aren't even real by davydagger · 2013-09-11 13:45 · Score: 1

""The majority of these grenades were inert, replica, or novelty items"

Good job with security theater TSA.
WARNING! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:49 · Score: 1

They're trying to get you to let your guard down by being all cutesy. It's much like The TSA's PR shill, "Blogger Bob."

Don't let your guard down.
You're So Warped But So Beautiful by wrackspurt · 2013-09-11 13:51 · Score: 1

'Leave Your Grenades at Home'

It's all so darkly twisted and Kafkaesque. As a non American looking in I can't imagine that in a 100 years some history student reading his text book will ever know how twistedly, wickedly funny and scary and sad it all is.
Those are legal?!?! by meerling · 2013-09-11 14:14 · Score: 1

I honestly had no idea it was legal to have a real explosive grenade in the first place.
Fakes, Inerts, Props, Water Balloon, and Cap grenades, sure, but an actual real world blow up your face and splatter it on the wall grenade? I wonder what the rules are on those. For that matter, what the hell would you use it for? You can't hunt or fish with it (legally), and area effect explosives in close proximity and enclosed places is just another form of suicide, not to mention a sure fire way to trash what you might be trying to protect.
1. Re:Those are legal?!?! by dbc · 2013-09-11 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing it's an NFA Title II "Destructive Device", if you'd like to look up the rules. Get a background check, wait six months for the result, pay a $200 tax stamp -- something like that would be my guess. As to what you'd use it for -- ummm.... playing Mythbuster on the weekend?
2. Re:Those are legal?!?! by SwedishCoward · 2013-09-11 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's in order to implement BYOD for the army. Publicly owned weapons would be kinda socialist, you know.
TSA Reminds You Not To Travel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:20 · Score: 1

.
Don't touch my nads on the plane? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:31 · Score: 0

I misread the title as "TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand On Gonads" o.O
Second Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-11 14:41 · Score: 1

The only way to stop a bad guy with a grenade on an airplane is a good guy with a grenade on an airplane.
Oh wait...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Second Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bad guy with grenade on plane: I've got a grenade and I'm going to blow this plane up with it!
  Good guy with grenade on plane: I've got a grenade too! Drop your grenade or I'll blow you up with this!
  Bad guy: I'm blowing you up first! [Throws the grenade at good guy.]
  Good guy: Right back at you! [Throws his own grenade at bad guy.]
  Bad guy: Ha! Gotcha! My grenade's a fake!
  Good guy: ...
  
  KABOOM!!!
Is this a new rule? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:44 · Score: 0

Is this a new rule? Does it affect people transporting crates of grenades currently? Is it absolutely necessary to have one of those special dangerous goods and explosives permits? How about incomplete grenades? Can they be shipped without the explosive inside, and just ship the explosive in bulk in a different container? Is there a certain maximum limit --say 30,000Kg-- beyond which the TSA allows grenades to be transported? ...Just askin'
This is not a bologna sandwich by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:49 · Score: 0

I once was asked to open my laptop in the security line in Newark airport. I lifted the top and before I could boot it up, the TSA agent noticed a post-it note which read, "This is not a bologna sandwich" stuck to the edge of the screen. They point to it and sort of shrug. I quickly quip, "well, it's not!". I am told to pack it up and move on.
True story!
83 grenades in one year by damn_registrars · 2013-09-11 15:04 · Score: 1

First of all, the summary here sucks. I thought at first that it was 83 grenades since 2001, it is actually a year-to-date total. Second, 83 grenades in total isn't that many considering how many airports we have in this country and how many people travel in a given day.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Impossible to evaluate by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2013-09-11 15:46 · Score: 1

Are they deterring attacks or are they simply a magic rock for keeping elephants out of the house?
WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:58 · Score: 0

That is all....
Fireworks, explosives by jools33 · 2013-09-11 17:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Back in the 70s my father traveled from Aberdeen to London. In his baggage he had several kilos of explosives for an outdoor son et lumiere production he was the technical theater manager for. He was stopped by the security guard before boarding the plane. The guard asked "Sir what do you have in these bags" my father replied "explosives", the guard then replied "very funny sir" and waved him onto the plane. Times have changed... but it might surprise you what people think they can carry onto a plane.
how many real hand grenades? by gl4ss · 2013-09-11 17:26 · Score: 1

how many real hand grenades in carry on?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
none, just smoke, flashbang etc... by gl4ss · 2013-09-11 18:33 · Score: 1

"but a few were live smoke, flare, riot, and flash bang grenades"
not a single thing that people think a "hand grenade" is. the picture is full of replicas.
I was just wondering if TSA had actually prevented an explosion in an airplane!

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
They might come in handy though by rrohbeck · 2013-09-11 20:20 · Score: 1

as anyone who watched World War Z can confirm.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
And... by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-11 22:54 · Score: 1

How many of those grenades were toys?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
If you outlaw hand grenades ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-09-11 23:46 · Score: 0

... only outlaws will have hand grenades. Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people. Our founding fathers realized the need of free citizens to keep and carry tactical nuclear warheads to guard against tyranny.
Go ahead and mod me troll or flame bait. But never question if there is a dividing line somewhere in the spectrum of weapons from .22 six shooter to shoulder fired anti tank bazookas.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Here's what they should do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:11 · Score: 0

Create a wall of idiocy and post the god damn picture of those idiots everywhere.
I have an idea by slashmydots · 2013-09-12 01:19 · Score: 1

If you want to get a grenade home from somewhere, you have to send it US postal service...oh wait...
Common Sense by fldsofglry · 2013-09-12 01:44 · Score: 1

You can buy anything on the internet except common sense.
The housing / mortgage crisis was not regulatory by Marrow · 2013-09-12 01:52 · Score: 1

It was not a regulatory problem, it was a gambling problem. There are not enough poor people in the world including children to account for the amount of money that was destroyed.
The "we were giving the poor people loans" excuse is just a right wing talking point. And that would be clear if the current administration would bring charges against those responsible. But they can't or won't do that.
Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:53 · Score: 0

Given that TFA is a (security) theater production company I find it funny that they are afraid of props (considering that all but one were fake grenades).
So if grenades are banned... by BitwizeGHC · 2013-09-12 03:19 · Score: 1

...does that mean Snooki is on the no-fly list?

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Awww, man by ChrisGoodwin · 2013-09-12 03:35 · Score: 1

Christmas just won't be the same this year!

--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Corn Grenade in 1989 by Cliff+Stoll · 2013-09-12 04:10 · Score: 1

Some 25 years ago, I was on booktour for Cuckoo's Egg. I visited Iowa City and spoke at Prairie Lights bookstore -- delightful people and a wonderful place! A haven for writers, readers, and hackers.
After my talk, I passed along a Klein bottle to an Iowa computer hacker who was fooling with unix. In turn, he gave me a Corn Grenade . I tossed it in my backpack, headed for my next stop, and next evening went to Ames Municipal Airport.
This was in pre-TSA days, but there was certainly airport security: the security guy at the Ames airport discovered the corn grenade in my carry on. Happily, he recognized what it was - a cool, brass, art sculpture which was completely inert. By that time into booktour, I was pretty inert. We chatted for a few minutes, and I took the commuter plane to Chicago.
I'd forgotten about my 3 pound brass friend when the plane landed at O'Hare. But the Chicago X-ray scanner found it, and all sorts of alarms went off. Natch, I was taken aside, given the third degree. Seems that corn grenades aren't recognized in the distant lands of northern Illinois. I had to explain all about corn grenades (and my book, and klein bottles...) Missed my flight, slept overnight in O'Hare, and wound up shipping the heavy lil' guy by UPS ground. Today, that brass ear of corn smiles at me from across my dining room, reminding me when I got hacked by a computer jock in Iowa City...
The USA didn't enter the war. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:31 · Score: 0

The USA didn't enter the war, Japan and then Germany declared war on the USA.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the USA, it's likely the USA would not have entered the war at all.
1. Re:The USA didn't enter the war. by cold+fjord · 2013-09-12 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Bin Laden, as head of al Qaida, declared war on the US in 1996. They attacked the US for years before the US took effective action.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:The USA didn't enter the war. by mdielmann · 2013-09-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  And I'll say to you now what I said either the day of or just days after the 9/11 attacks. You can win a war against a nation, but how do you win a war against an idea? What territory do you have to conquer? Which leaders do you have to depose? The War on Terrorism is a never-ending war because there is no scenario where it can be won, only lost. Exactly how many angry people do you think you'll have to kill before there won't be any more angry people?
  From what I've read, bin Laden didn't take part in any typical terrorist attacks - he left the dying to other people. And now that he's dead, is Al Qaeda still around? Are they still a threat?
  If you want to reduce terrorism, the idea is really simple: Give people something they're unwilling to lose. Give them the ability to live in reasonable wealth, have a home and family that they are confident won't be destroyed any day of the week, take away their hopelessness and misery, and for added security make it possible for them to be complacent in their lives. You'll still have some kooks that are so into their beliefs that they will be willing to be a part of some anti-establishment group, but even most of those won't be willing to die for their cause. Then you'll have what you see in the United States - huge swathes of people just living their lives, and if they have beliefs that are being affronted, the vast vast majority of them will do nothing more than talk about it. Clearly, from the goals I've listed, this isn't something that is achieved by any military action. At most, military action can lay the groundwork where such things can be achievable.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Hoe many by SnarfQuest · 2013-09-12 04:51 · Score: 0

If they found this many, our inept TSA agents probably missed 10x more than they found. Especially if there were being carried by Muslims, because you are not supposed to profile them. Grandmothers yes, religious extremists no.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Now my travel is limited! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 08:17 · Score: 0

But...but...how will I get my grenades to the annual grenade convention?
How Many? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 13:45 · Score: 0

Makes you wonder how many they missed.