Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
Actually, I think that's quite credible. The TSO, before beginning the patdown, asks "are you wearing a belt"? The passenger responds "yes, I'm wearing a lumbar belt". The TSO doesn't hear the passenger properly (loud checkpoint, soft-spoken passenger, etc.) and thinks the passenger said "money belt" instead of "lumbar belt", and thereby hangs a tale.
Okay. So why wouldn't the TSO ask for clarification to make sure that any belt that is located underneath clothing is not for medical purposes? How hard would that be?
It certainly is not a hardship or difficult for a TSO to inquire and certainly would have prevented this spotlight on the incident.
Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
There's another option; Bob was misinformed as to what happened. Which is consistent with the confusion we've already seen regarding this incident; if the screening TSOs thought she had a back brace, I'm sure that's what they reported up-the-chain, and that's what Bob was told when he made his statement.
An inaccurate statement isn't necessarily a "lie"; a "lie" requires intent to deceive, and I don't believe Bob is trying to deceive.
That is a fair point.
That then makes Bob nothing more than a propogandist who will regurgitate whatever spin is put in front of him, read it with a straight face, and then go home at night thinking he has done right for God and country.
And that is exactly why Bob deserves the moniker "Blogdad Bob."