FlyerTalk Forums - Racial Profiling at BOS

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)

- - Racial Profiling at BOS (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1376337-racial-profiling-bos.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari (Post 19273263)

Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19271514)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cottonmather0 (Post 19272998)

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.:mad:

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.:rolleyes:

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari (Post 19273263)

Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19273378)

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19275717)

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

Quote:

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?

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