The purpose was to demonstrate that you are not adverse to giving up freedom when you feel it serves a purpose.

Neither am I.

Whether the war is declared or not is irrelevant. What does apply here is the fact that the freedoms we are giving up serve no purpose.

So you are greatful for those who have served.... but what about the ones who have served..... and some going back as far as Korea that work for the TSA all of which makes up of about 45% of the TSA total workforce.... How about them Whiner....Are they pencil necked imbeciles who couldnt secure a paper sack ...... ???? You're the type of Whiner that makes me wonder why I spent almost a year and a half GETTIN MY ... SHOT OFF SEEING MY FRIENDS DIE RIGHT NEXT ME in that first mess of a gulf war....SCREW YOU I believe we should have airport security more like how it is around the world....Let see if youll piss and whine if agents were toting MP5s. like they do in London,, or in Spain,,, or in Germany....and hell,,,, even France...It just sounds like to me that you feel that You should be able to do what ever the hell you want...Shure come onboard the plane with that knife you stuffed in your crotch that youve had for 20 years and your grandad gave you....Have that 7th glass of alcohol while your 30000 feet up on your way to that next business meeting in New York.....When you finally decide youve had enough of work and threaten one of the air crew with that knife to turn the plane south.....meabe youll get lucky and one of our FAMs will be onboard to take care of you...Perminatly.....

The govenment has deturmined that the the airport checkpoint is an implied consent area ... This means you waive your 4th rights when you walk past that mag....you can invoke them at anytime as long as you do not alarm. If you do the cause must be found...If you invoke your right to not get screened and you havent alarmed you will not be allowed past the checkpoint....and that means no flying....the same goes with your carry on and check bags...

Serving in the military and terrorizing passengers with a load of un-American nonsense are completely unrelated. You think just because you went to the Gulf you now have a right to take a crap all over the principles upon which this country was founded? Something must have happened to you over there. Perhaps a patriotism-ectomy? Certainly a reality-ectomy.

If you like militaristic "security" forced upon innocent civilians, why not sample the environment in North Korea or China. It could make you feel right at home...

Welcome to FlyerTalk. You may want to acquire a spell checker.

Had you bothered to actually read this thread instead of blasting off into Flashbackland, you would have noticed that this poster was referring to the original topic at hand, namely the IDing of passengers at Boston train stations.

So before i any further in debating with you .... Just what are your grandiose views of what airport security should be????

Center for Disease Control:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So,, you must be an expert on who is an innocent civilian????

So instead of writing a reply you log off without a word....So it seems to me that you have no solution... and all of these post you do are nothing more than a battle of who has the last word... sounds real childish....

you talk about miltaristic security force and you give blatant examples of communist areas... what about the rest of the world you ignorant fool....how about the airports in the UK, Italy,France,Africa,South America...Japan and just about everywhere else but the good ol USA where everywhere you look around and someone is toting a submachine gun representing airport security.
I dont take a crap on any thing but extreamist people like you.. that think they're better than everyone else and believe that they are beyond any rules.
sounds to me you have a problem with authority..

Well, that's what the folks at the Federal Emergency Management Agency calls it in their World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA 403/May 2002). Here's a quote from the Executive Summary:

"The events following the attacks in New York City were amongst the worst building disasters in history and resulted in the largest loss of life from any single building collapse in the United States"

(Actually, two unevacuated buildings collapsed)

Back to my own comments:

Both towers absorbed the force of their respective collisions, or else they would have failed (collapsed) immediately. However, their otherwise flimsy and under-protected-from-fire structures were not able to withstand the fires (and high temperatures caused by paper not jetfuel), and melted, leading to the failure of the upper floors.

I use the term flimsy, others might say "lightweight" or "neither-over-nor-under-engineered"

The lower floors could not repel the forces exterted by this failure and themselves failed.

No one below the collision level(s) should have died on inside WTC 1 and 2 and those people above the collision level(s) not overcome by smoke should have had a heat-shielded egress down from the upper floors.

But that would have cost the building rentable floorspace and required PANYNJ to retrofit the fire-proofing.

The buildings failed in under two hours and they are the only protected steel frame buildings to have done so. By contrast the One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia burned uncontrolled for 11 hours (19 hours in all) in 1991 and is still standing.

This is completely uncalled for.

TSASMF, you seem to feel that your war experience gives you the right to call people abusive names.

Fine.

I fought in Vietnam with the US Army, went to Beirut as a reporter during the war in Lebanon in 1982, spent 16 years doing reserve duty in the Israeli Army (a month a year) and held my children during Scud attacks on Israel in the first Gulf War.

Just what names does all of this give me the right to call YOU?

Use the search feature. I'm not typing it out all over again no matter how special you feel you are.

That post was directed toward an individual that refered to me as a pencil-necked imbecile who couldn't secure a paper sack.

Wrong again. That comment was directed toward TSA management; you chose to interpret it as meaning you personally.

I have updated the original post to make it nice and sparkling clear.

Well, this is what you said . . .

Your goal was to downplay the significance of "public safety" reaction to the 9/11 attack in New York. Here's how your post was structured:

Driving - People died.

Guns - People died.

Building collapse - Led to bad enforcement in Boston.


I can't comprehend how you could be so insensitive as to completely dismiss the human impact of 9/11 in New York. It was an attack that caused the death, not some "out of the blue" collapse. You know this. Everyone does.

Finally, I'm not going to go through your false argument point by point, but will refer any interested readers to the executive summary of report that you misconstrue at: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf

This report that you pretend to fairly represent says: "The study did not reveal any specific structural features that would be regarded as substandard, and, in fact, many structural and fire protection features of the design and construction were found to be superior to the minimum code requirements."