Originally Posted by JSmith1969 (Post 13933602)

The sole intent of the 3.4-1-1 policy is to appear to be protecting people. The policy, as you and we well know, does nothing of the sort, but it's a show for the infrequent flyers to make the smurfs look like they're doing something.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13933633)

Yet TSA casually tosses these same LGA's into common trash at the checkpoint without any concern they may actually be dangerous

Whose is it now confusing facts and opinion?

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 13935144)

Unfortunately, they do add up. To 100%. Here's how:


Deep down, the screeners know that there is a 99.999999999% chance that Spiff's water bottle contains water. And a 0.000000001% chance that it contains the mythical stable-enough-to-carry-but-volatile-enough-to-destroy-a-plane-undetectable-by-ETD explosive that TSA told them about. (Or, as SATTSO puts it, "a potenial (sic) threat".)

In the first instant that they see the water in Spiff's bag, they're focused on the 0.000000001% chance that it's the bogeyman explosive. But as soon as they have possession of it, their minds shift to the 99.999999999% chance that it's just water, and they throw it in the trash. (Or "it would take too long to screen" in SATTSO's words.)

The article in the OP suggests that some screeners in some airports on some days are able to see the 99.999999999% option when they first spot some bottles, and take the statistically sensible (in)action of letting them pass. Spiff's experience indicates that some are not capable of this. It is also clear that no one in TSA is capable of seeing the 0.000000001% option after the bottle is in their hand, and disposing of it as if it really is the mythical liquid explosive.

(I'm also guessing a lot of screeners play the lottery. And lose. ;))

Originally Posted by thesaints (Post 13935396)

Isn't also true that 99.99% of people are law abiding citizens and could very well be let inside the US Congress building while carrying a loaded gun ?
Yet, it is those pesky 0.01 percenters that USCP fix their attention on and so the rest of us has to be deprived of our Second Amendment rights.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 13935807)

If the proportion of aircraft flights attacked by liquid explosives ever approaches the proportion of US presidents who have been shot at, if it becomes clear that every human being needs loaded guns daily for their health, and if the US Congress starts selling identical loaded guns (which have been "screened" to prove they're safe) past the metal detector, I'll be willing to accept your analogy. :rolleyes:

All loaded guns are, well, loaded guns. They are intrinsically designed to shoot things. The vast majority of water bottles are just that, water bottles. They are not intrinsically hazardous.

(And I don't want to send this to omni, but I'd be surprised if the proportion of people who would attack a congressman was only 0.01% these days. :eek:)

Originally Posted by Spiff (Post 13931565)

I had a hotel-provided cheap bottle of water stolen from me less than 1 month ago. I sneered at the thief in disgust and went on my way. I hope he enjoyed it.

Originally Posted by thesaints (Post 13935937)

Well a bottle filled with water is certainly not dangerous, but an unscreened "water bottle" could potentially be filled with nitromethane. I bet they don't sell those in the sterile area.

Originally Posted by WChou (Post 13936013)

Confirmed here.

A friend of a friend is a TSO and I go to this person's house a few times a year. Each time, especially after a kettle heavy travel day, there is a well stocked liquor cabinet. Generally if it's sealed and drinkable, it's not tossed out and ends up at the home of a TSO. The person I know does not ask for the liquor but simply gets "their share" of the loot. A bunch of us also toasted in the last New Year with a nice bottle of Dom courtesy of some unlucky traveller. This person has also given me a number of trinkets like a torch lighter, tactical baton, perfume and swiss army knife.

Amazing (but not surprising) how much "security officials" engage in theft!

The suggestion that everything is tossed out or turned in is a joke. I know for a fact and have indulged in the TSA liquids charade. Of course I can't be charged with receiving stolen goods because a TSO would NEVER steal.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 13936072)

How do you know that one of the bottles on the shelf in a store in the sterile area isn't filled with nitromethane?

Because the vendors run the whole pallet through the x-ray machine? Then run Spiff's single bottle through the same x-ray machine.

Because the bottles in the sterile area are factory-sealed? Then let Spiff bring in a factory-sealed bottle.

Because the vendors in the sterile area have had a background check? LOL.

Try again.

Originally Posted by thesaints (Post 13938018)

System in place stops the less organized "evildoers", which is already something

Originally Posted by thesaints (Post 13938018)

All liquids go through scanning.

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 13938328)

What kind of scanning? I have personally witnessed cases of liquids simply being rolled through checkpoints at several airports. I have also witnessed cases of liquids being put through the X-ray at several airports.

Originally Posted by DevilDog438 (Post 13938382)

I have witnessed the same, the former within the last two weeks @ BWI. BTW - neither of those methods are capable of detecting a liquid-based explosive.

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 13938418)

And by the way, the delivery guys were never screened.......

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 13938418)

And by the way, the delivery guys were never screened.......