By that same argument we can also say:

Number of shoe bomb attempts made since Richard Reid 0 (<5). TSA and the FBI admitted this in an LA Times article earlier this year.

Number of planes brought down by liquid explosives: 0

Number of planes crashed in the US by terrorists since 2000: 4.

Number of flights flown in the US since 9/11: millions.

So of all flights that have gotten blown up or attempted to be blown up since 9/11, that percentage is what, diddly squat?

Interestingly enough, those numbers aren't really different than pre-9/11 either.

The argument can be made, using your logic, that we're throwing billions of dollars worth of resources at to combat a threat that many people have a better chance of winning the lottery than experiencing.

I don't think airport security is useless, but I think that the terrorists are going to be nailed by intelligence and law enforcement operations like we saw in Britain, not by some screener making a Big Catch®.

We really need to step back and make a serious evaluation of airport security. Are we getting the most bang for our buck? How long does it take to deploy solid, usable technology to the checkpoint? Are we better of using private screeners with government oversight? Are our resources allocated to lesser threats and ignoring bigger threats? These are the things that need to be asked and changes made. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.