Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

81 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. wait...even the Holy ones? by MoFoQ · · 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 TrekkieGod · · Score: 2, Funny

      four is right out.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:wait...even the Holy ones? by BlueStrat · · 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.
  2. For those of you that don't RTFA... by OrangeTide · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

    3. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by KillAllNazis · · Score: 2

      Classy lady.

    4. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    5. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · · 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"
    6. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · · 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"
    7. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    8. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · · 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"
    9. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by wbr1 · · 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.
    10. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by larry+bagina · · 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.

    11. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by icebike · · 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.
    12. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Deadstick · · 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...

    13. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Dan667 · · 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.

    14. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by JWSmythe · · 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.
    15. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's your solution, then. Make the sturdy doors ugly.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    16. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, no laptops running Windows ME?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    17. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by omnichad · · 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.

    18. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by jamesh · · 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?

    19. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by LordNimon · · 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
    20. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    21. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by BlueStrat · · 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.
    22. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    23. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Imrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because you didn't read the line that immediately follows the one you highlighted.

    24. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    25. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Hadlock · · 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.
    26. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    27. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cbhacking · · 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...
    28. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by mdielmann · · 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?
    29. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by osu-neko · · 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."
    30. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    31. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by Sarten-X · · 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.
    32. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    33. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by TheCarp · · 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"
    34. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by sjames · · 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.

    35. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by runeghost · · 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.

    36. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by runeghost · · 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.)

    37. Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    38. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
    39. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by gnasher719 · · 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).

    40. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      no, it's a nert with rounded corners.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    41. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · · 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
    42. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by bluefoxlucid · · 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.
    43. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by usuallylost · · 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.

    44. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      No I think that's his argument for disbanding the TSA.

    45. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by 45mm · · 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.

    46. Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... by cold+fjord · · 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
  3. Fuck Network World by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Complete Failure by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The TSA sounds a lot like my exwife!

      Badumtish!

    2. Re:Complete Failure by mark-t · · 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 · · Score: 2

      Precisely - it's called deterrence, and it's very hard to determine it's effectiveness.

    4. Re:Complete Failure by cavreader · · 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 · · 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 supersat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Deterrence is easy to measure if you're wiretapping everyone.

    7. Re:Complete Failure by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      She's a Priest?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re:Complete Failure by DaHat · · 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
    9. Re:Complete Failure by Jason+Levine · · 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.
    10. Re:Complete Failure by phantomfive · · 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."
    11. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · · 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)

    12. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · · 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.

    13. Re:Complete Failure by chrismcb · · 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.

    14. Re:Complete Failure by drkim · · 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.

    15. Re:Complete Failure by 10101001+10101001 · · 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
  5. Re:And of those grenades... by cold+fjord · · 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
  6. In another announcement: by Hartree · · 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,

  7. Re:What about by rsilvergun · · 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/
  8. Re:What about by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lasers not in the company of sharks appear to be OK.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Re:Handgrenades count? by linear+a · · Score: 2

    Nah, that'd be a hand greenade.

  10. Re:Who... by Tablizer · · 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.
  11. Re:And of those grenades... by Dunbal · · 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.
  12. I carried on a mock roadside bomb once by shadowofwind · · 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.

  13. Re:What about by The+Grim+Reefer · · 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.

  14. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by LMariachi · · Score: 2

    Guns which would almost certainly have been found using the pre-9/11 security procedures.

  15. So I wonder? by Grand+Facade · · Score: 2

    How many grenades they missed?

    --
    Rick B.
  16. Re: What about by jxander · · 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.
  17. Fireworks, explosives by jools33 · · 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.

  18. Re:It isn't just grenades that they find by runeghost · · 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.