It's a mistake to be a person who counts on proof? ;)

Your idea of frequently is very much removed from my idea of frequently, but that is obvious given the claim you make about me. :D

There are people here. In this thread. Saying they want no security screenings whatsoever to fly on an airplane. There are people. In this thread. Saying the the terrorist threat of jihadists is a lie and government conspiracy. And this is what you choose to go after? Nowhere did I state anything other than my personal opinion on the matter. What kind of evidence would you need? You have not told me what evidence is required to prove effectiveness of a deterrent. Would you agree sometimes a deterrents success could be categorized by a lack of hard evidence? Terrorists designing new explosives to circumvent our emphasis to detect their previous styles shows me evidence of behavior changes, don't you agree?

Straight up. I know you are well informed on security issues and I greatly value your opinion when it comes to national security. If the anti-TSA types on here had their wish and we had a TSA-free, security screening free world in the years following 9/11 to present, do you think a successful, explosive based terrorist attack against an aircraft of American interest would have been likely, or unlikely?

Wrong. The worst thing that ever happened to commercial aviation was 9/11. At least have the decency to place 3,000 peoples unnecessary deaths above your narcissism.

You accuse someone of using a run-on sentence when he did not and then you write a fragment.

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

Do you have a comment on the OP (grammatically correct or not)?

Talk about a non-sequitur.

Strip search machines aren't needed to effectively interdict contraband WEIs.

GUWonder. Why did you accuse me of plagiarism? I take the accusation seriously.

Run your cutting and pasting with a plagiarism scoring software used in academia and see what it yields if you want to accuse yourself. ;)

Bibliographies, a thing of the past?

Where is the proof of the above?

Because maybe the thought is that magic fairies can detect non-metal explosives, and they won't giggle when they see a small package?

Actually, according to the TSA Blog, only a tiny percentage of WEI are found via the strip search machines.

Links, please.

It's going to take you time, but there is a pattern. As far as the fragment goes, it was intentional. In no way does it mislead or confuse anyone.

Just off hands there were (obviously) people saying the TSA should be put in jail and that security post 9/11 has been no progress. That the government should be thrown out our airports. There have been calls for airlines controlling their own security, which inevitably would lead to lack of security screenings in places. That if the rest of us are scared we should stay home and let the market determine how many airplanes are acceptable to have blown out of the sky. I may have taken a leap with that comment not being explicitly stated, but that is the impression several members have left me with, longing for the 70's. Even pre-9/11 metal detectors are useless to combat many of todays threats.

I believe the decision to leave it up to individual airlines would greatly undermine security and incentivize lax or nonexistent security as part of the greater cost war. That is, until another preventable tragedy occurs.

And according to some governmental reports about the strip search machines, they wouldn't have necessarily even detected the contraband WEI smuggled on board a DL flight by the so-called underwear bomber from West Africa.

From where do you get your "expertise" in airport security?

Of course, they would not have detected that bomb. If they could, every woman wearing a sanitary pad would be pulled aside and searched.