Caradoc

It's not theatrical enough if they do it at the checkpoint.

They have to find the water bottle, yell at you for it, confiscate it, and force you to go buy another one down the concourse so they can have one of their idiots wave magic paper over it and show everyone what an awesome job they're doing in protecting the world from water bottles on airplanes.

ND Sol

I think that you and I have a different hearing of the words. Not sure how much more context would be necessary for this as it seems pretty much self-contained (though I would have liked to hear the remainder and the resolution, which appears to be she was not allowed to board the plane).

Pax: Do you think I am honestly a threat?

TSO: No, No, No, but with your attitude

Pax: Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. This is not making the airways safer; it is retaliatory.

TSO: Pretty much [garbled word].

Pax: Is that legal?

TSO: Yes it is.


If she was considered to be a disruption, then that call is to be made by the airline at the gate and not the TSA. Since no WEI had been found, she should have been cleared by the TSA.

Caradoc

I'm reasonably certain that's not the only difference between you and anyone accepting a paycheck from the TSA.

gsoltso

I know we have MSDS sheets locally, but I am not involved in that process and do not know what exactly is in them. As for the access by the public, I do not know it that is something they do.

There are some differences of opinion on the 500ml V 5 X 100ml, some say there is a possibility of condensing the items past the checkpoint to make a larger device capable, there are those that argue the exact opposite.

I know that I am not a chemistry major, nor an explosives expert, so I can't render a well informed answer. Do I think that it is likely? Probably not, but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?

Darkumbra

Just following orders.

cottonmather0

There's your answer right there, folks, and why we have to put up with this nonsense. They can only perpetrate this power play with people who don't know enough to question orders.

For what it's worth, the water is physically incapable of burning as an energy source. It's basic chemistry. The torches you're referring are scams that use electricity to actually provide the energy to the water that hydrolyzes it and burns the resultant hydrogen. So unless a passenger has brought an arc generator into the sterile area, he's not going to be using that bottled water as a weapon.

If we could use water as an energy source the world would be a much different place.

Ari

Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?

Caradoc

Unfortunately, they've got at least 60,000 of those available right now.

The others can't even make a mark other than "X" on a TSA employment contract.

Boggie Dog

Once again I did not ask for a well informed answer just an opinion. Surely you can find it in yourself to take a stand on a simple question.

I can't read an ancient Mayan calendar but I don't think the world will end on December 21, 2012. See that is an opinion, it really isn't all that hard.

Caradoc

You're asking this of someone who has admitted in public to being a TSA employee.

"Taking a stand" isn't in the cards for such a "person."

T-the-B

The source of energy in a hydroelectric dam is not the water but rather force it exerts as it falls down from the lake level upstream of the dam to the outflow. If you could magically transform the water in the lake to benzene or alcohol or any other liquid the effect would be essentially the same. (Before anyone jumps in, I said "essentially". I well understand that differences in density, volatility of the liquid, etc. would affect the design and efficiency of the power generation.)

Carl Johnson

So basically gsolclerk is lying, pretending the words on the video are ambiguous or that there is more than one reasonable way to construe them. It's a 22-second video, but in that 22 seconds, the clerk is admitting to committing an illegal act.

So, gsolclerk, let me ask you this. What's the reason for summoning an sclerk if a passenger consumes a drink rather than letting the clerk test it? It's not being brought on the airplane, right? What violation has the passenger committed? Disrespecting the clerk? Is that the function of TSA, forcing passengers to show proper respect for the clerks? Then why have the TSA? If there were no TSA, there wouldn't be any clerks for passengers to show disrespect to. Travel would be easier and more efficient, and there would be less of a threat from terrorists.

gsoltso

I said run on, and it is only a scam if it doesn't give you a good cost ratio (tons of jewelers use these torches). I have also seen what looks like computer cable take down cinder block walls. The point I was making, is that I do not know everything, and our explosives experts have indicated that there is a valid thought process behind the limitations.

I agree, the world would be much different, most likely it would disintegrate after a couple of decades if we find a way to use water for a viable energy source, people would build dams and lakes and instead of the gold standard we would wind up with the water standard!

^

I gave you my opinion already. Please reread the previous comments.

Boggie Dog

If this was your opinion then I guess you did. I just don't understand the need for deflection contained in your comment.