Originally Posted by Bart
Nat Heatwole smuggled items in his shoes to prove how he could defeat the WTMD, and there have been other incidents of knives and razor blades deliberately inserted inside the soles of shoes. The point here is that shoes can be hollowed out and used to smuggle items through security if not specifically screened. How do we address this possibility? You seem willing to rely solely on the statistical improbability that it will ever occur again.
Hold on a sec here. Your argument is a little misleading and is similar to when TSA cites the case of the gun in the teddy bear to justify extra/secondary screening of children. (It almost certainly wasn't secondary screening that found the gun. It was likely the routine x-ray of the bear which few if any people criticize, yet TSA likes to refocus the attention towards the extra/secondary screening.)
To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized the examination, even x-ray examination, of a shoe that sets off the WTMD. That covers the knives, razor blades, and weapons that could be concealed in shoes regardless of thickness or style. And many people here, including myself, don't question the screening of shoes that are clearly over 1". It's the all-shoes-off airports/checkpoints, which both sides acknowledge exist, that are the source of most "shoe carnival" complaints.
The real question is explosives, which don't set off the WTMD. So let's not refocus the attention toward metal/weapons which are "solved" by the WTMD. Do you (where "you" can be yourself, the TSA, the government, or the public) believe that a less than 1" thick shoe sole is a probable vehicle for transporting explosives? Do you believe a < 1" shoe is a more likely vehicle than thin-sheet explosives wrapped around a torso, body-cavity carriers, etc.? If not, then the special attention given to < 1" shoes (i.e., all shoes) at shoe carnival checkpoints is not justified.
But TSA locally and nationally would rather stand up for the "all shoes off" judgement calls of certain screeners/checkpoints/airports/FSDs than implement consistent policy. I've rarely if ever seen in person a supervisor/lead take the side of the passenger and stop the retaliatory secondary screening that comes from not removing a clearly non-profile shoe.
(
Bart, I know that you have written that you correct screeners on this shoes issue, and that is appreciated. But unfortunately that is one checkpoint at one airport and not the whole system.)
There is something wrong with a system where one islamofascist wacko can try something with his shoes and it substantially changes policy forever, with no apparent end in sight. In the long run that means that even if there are very few terrorist attempts, we are asymptotically approaching a situation where pax are strapped down to their seats naked during flight, as year by year additional threat vectors are added that chip away at what pax can do/carry.
It's why I believe the only solution to islamofascist terrorism is a combination of democritization and brutally killing enough of them and their children/families/cities to provide a real deterrent to future actions regardless as to if they like us. (Germans/Japanese may not have liked us in Sep 1945, but they quit trying to kill us.) Perpetually and incrementally increasing security restrictions in reaction to every crazy threat vector thought up by some lunatic is not a long term solution.