9/11 crashed 4 planes, but that was not the only planed effect.

The economic affects to our nation went into every single household, cost trillions, and still to this day continue to rumble around the economic landscape causing havoc. Yes, this was the biggest affect of the 9/11 attacks. There are not enough planes on the planet to have that much direct affect on as many people as the economy does.

This statement matches the formation of the TSA perfectly.

The rest of it is pure hyperbole.

The billions wasted by our government since 9/11 would have had far greater impact if put toward health care for the uninsured. Do you know that 20,000 people each year die because they can't afford to go to a doctor?

20,000 people die while the TSA gets billions handed to it.

Really? Are you saying that there WAS a successful shoe bombing somewhere that no one noticed?

And yet there were no shoe bombings in the United States before August 2006, when the shoe carnival was made mandatory. Why is that, Ron? And what would a country being the US or not being the US have to do with anything, Ron? Are you suggesting that the US is the only country against which acts of terrorism could possible happen?

It remains incontrovertibly true that you are incapable of admitting to equally incontrovertible facts about the pointlessness of TSA's mandatory shoe carnival.

Maybe Ron has let slip some super secret SSI here

Perhaps the terrorists have some "rules" that none of us know about.

The US gets attacked by planes and bombs on planes (9/11, liquid plot, Pan Am 103, Shoe bomber)

Spain has bombs on trains

London has bombs on the Undergound (subway)

Bali has the night club

Mumbai the Hotel

Maybe thats why you get ALL the hassle at airports but relatively little elsewhere

Ron's in trouble for letting the secret out

In Ron's case, given that he thinks Tel Aviv is in the US and LHR is in the US, it's easy to imagine that he believes only the US is a target.

Ron, there are airports and airplanes in other countries. And bombs, and bad guys. Really.

To me, that says that the explosive may have been a liquid at one point, but it really wasn't a liquid at the point the solid stabilizers were used. Let me use an example of my argument. Say you have a cup of alcohol. If you fill it with cotton balls and the cotton balls absorb all the alcohol, do you say you have a liquid or a solid at that point? I'd say a saturated solid, but not a liquid.

Now, we know that liquid nitroglycerin is unstable and never would have made it to the airport, let alone probably out of the apartment parking lot, if it hand't been stabilized. That at least tells me that that it would have had to have had enough stabilizer to absorb the liquid nitroglycerin to get it to the point of stability. Seems to me like a saturated solid, not a liquid.

Depending on how consistently inconsistent TSA is being that day. I've experienced larger medicine bottles being swabbed and ignored.

So why are we still using 1970s X-rays then?

Do you have any evidence that there was a second attempt, or a third? Do you have any evidence that subsequent attempts were successful?

Ok, you're right about that. Upon looking into it, you still see the same vulnerabilities that allowed that bag to get thru to happen on the cargo side. Namely no screening and talk of an extensive security system that Pan Am really didn't implement very well, if at all. They did talk up the enhanced security pretty well though. Look at how well it served them.

Not really a lesson learned if I can go up to any trusted shipper and get something on a plane shortly thereafter. And if you have someone willing to die for a cause, not going with the bag is irrelevant.

Only in the US. Are you saying the rest of the world that doesn't practice the shoe carnival is stupid or just lucky? If just lucky, is that what we were prior to 2006 when the mandatory shoe carnival was instated? Or did it take TSA nearly 5 years to come up with a plan? Or does the rest of the world accept the fact that the risk of a shoe bomb is a miniscule risk and diverts limited resources to more effective methods of security?

As Kippie stated, TSA security is really geared toward getting the stupid terrorist. No doubt Reid was stupid. Had he gone to the bathroom and then lit his shoes, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Problem is, a lot of TSA's mentality is on the same level as Reid. It reacts, but really doesn't study the threat or the likelihood of attack and success.

TSA has had lessons taught to it repeated times that a lot of its measures are successful. If you're going to bang on the lessons learned drum, why does TSA ignore those lessons?

TNT is a solid at room temperature. It melts at 176 degrees F. It is very stable even when melted. True, it would never make it to the airport as a liquid, but only because it is hard to get to the checkpoint with any liquid heated to over 176 degrees F.

The Bojinka plot used nitroglycerin, which is liquid at room temperature and is not stable. (It is also not TNT.) It is more stable absorbed onto something. Mr. Nobel soaked it into diatomaceous earth and created dynamite in 1867. Bojinka soaked nitroglycerin onto cotton balls. There was no TNT involved, solid or liquid.

Making incorect chemistry statements makes you look like the management at TSA who think water is a high explosive. Hint: Please double check your chemistry if you are not a chemist. Wiki is wonderful for this.

Thanks for the correction. Fixed it. Not sure about the comparison though.

No Jim. I’m saying that there is intelligence that a shoe bomb is still considered a viable method of introducing an explosive device on to an aircraft by those wishing to do us harm. You don’t have to believe that, and I suspect you wont, but there you have it.

There was an attempt Jim. Richard Reid.

9/11 targeted US airlines, with US citizens on board, and buildings in the USA. Richard Reid targeted a US airline with US citizens on board. Bojinka targeted aircraft flying to the USA. The London Liquid Bomb plot targeted aircraft flying to the USA. Do you see a theme here jim?

Opinions vary Jim. You will note that I try to keep my opinions to myself, and only occasionally slip. You and others here prefer opinions to fact.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

Why do you keep using the word "Jim" in your post, Ron?

Considered by whom, Ron? By those, like you, incapable of ignoring or acknowledging the facts about shoe bombs?

And not one attempt since, in any country anywhere, regardless of what shoe screening regime is in place. A fact that conclusively demonstrates that any "risk" from shoe bombs is so infinitesimal as to be effectively nonexistent. And a fact you remain incapable of addressing.

The only theme here is your cherry-picking incidents involving US flights and ignoring incidents on other nations' carriers, Ron. And it remains an incontrovertible fact that between Reid and August 2006 there were no attempts at a shoe bombing (your insinuations to the contrary in an earlier post notwithstanding) in the US, nor are there shoe bombings taking place anywhere else that does not have the mandatory shoe carnival invented by TSA's bedwetters. (And the folks behind the "liquid bomb plot" did not have airplane tickets or passports, let alone imaginary liquid explosives, so their plot was purely an aspirational one, not an imminent threat that actually endangered anyone of any nationality.)

And, Ron, why do you keep typing "jim" in your responses?

And yet we're the ones with actual facts on our sides, and you're the one who's incapable of addressing them with honest answers. So one more time, Ron, you great big tough security professional (TM) at an airport that cannot be named:

Do you deny that no planes were brought down in the US by shoe bombs before the shoe carnival was made mandatory in August 2006?

Do you deny that no planes are being brought down in other countries that don't have a shoe carnival?

Yes or no answers, Ron. Come on. I know you can do it.

Would these intelligence gathers be some of the same ones who assured everyone that WMD was in Iraq some years ago?

How did that work out, TSORong?

actually 1 1/2 ...

Why wasn't there a liquids-threat-detection innovation (like the one that's supposedly being developed now to start next year ) back at the time of Bojinka, over 10 years ago? Moreover, why wasn't there such an innovation started back when the authorities began taking the '06 plotters seriously, before their antics were made public?

Just askin' .....

P. S. Anyone else mad with frustration the way the sentencing of the plotters just happens to mention " ... under laboratory conditions" quickly in passing (buried), as opposed to "It is highly uncertain they would've succeeded in the real world (airport mens room/plane lav)."

I stopped drinking Koolaid when they took my MountainBerry Punch away. The consistent screening of footwear makes it infinitely more difficult to use it as a transport method for boom on US based (or incoming) flights. That is just a basic fact. Is it perfect? Nope. Can it fail? Of course, there are humans operating the xray and someone may miss something. The main point is, it is exceedingly difficult to use shoes as a transport device on flights to and from the US. To say that it hasn't happened does not mean that it isn't a simple and cost effective way to make an attack. You can continue to put up the same statement that nothing has happened, and it will not mean anything, there is an easy viable method of attack that the agency is screening for now. As to why they didn't do it before, I have no idea, I do not make policy. It could be that with the increased awareness of the type of attack they thought that with the relatively simple act of requiring all shoes to be screened, it could put a huge dent in the ability of the method to be used. I understand the problems it generates where people have a medical reason for not removing their shoes, and there are alternate clearing procedures for those people. Comparing other nations to the US is a non starter, most other nations have a different awareness of terrorism than we do. Most other countries (maybe with the exception of Great Britain, they are pretty hated worldwide too) are not even in the same boat as the US when it comes to opinions. A great deal of the world hates us for whatever reason (some call us barbarians, some say we are an evil nation bent on world domination, some say we are too decadent for the rest of the world, some say our acceptance of other ways of life are just completely out of touch with their theological stance, and any other number of reasons - good or bad). We are the number one target in the world right now, and for that reason we need to be more focused, and more adaptable in the security sector. There is a great deal of room for improvement (securing the borders more effectively and intelligently, using more HUMINT sources world wide, using ELINT mroe efficiently, communicating between intelligence sources more openly, being proactive as opposed to reactive, and on and on). We should be more focused on cargo, but according to HQ, we are on track to be 100% by the mandate. I agree we should have more interpersonal skills classes to teach TSOs how to talk to passengers. I agree that we should move the better tech to the forefront of our R&D so we can get better stuff to the floor and use it. I actually don't mind screening upon entry to the checkpoint or baggage, it doesn't phase me one way or the other (but then again I am honest and won't place myself in a situation where the agency would have to worry about it). I wouldn't mind having to screen every single person that enters the sterile area with no exceptions (but I think at this point, due to budgetary constraints that is something that would be miserable to implement and the people working there have had a clearance, and in todays government structure clearances are a way of life and an accepted method of clearance - not arguing right or wrong, just information purposes). I want better communication between HQ and the TSO at the end of that chain. I want a single POC for all information that a passenger needs in order to fly. All these things I want, may or may not come true or be placed into effect. As with all things, I do not know all, I am merely giving my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

If it's easy and viable, why were there no shoe-based attacks between Reid and August 2006?

If it's easy and viable, why are there no shoe-based attacks in countries that don't have a mandatory shoe carnival?

Then why does the presence or absence of a shoe carnival have no impact on the use of shoes as delivery devices?

Why were there no shoe-based attacks on US flights between Reid and August 2006, when the shoe carnival was not mandatory?

This is a profoundly ignorant and offensive statement. Most countries have experienced terrorism, and on a scale comparable to or greater than in the US. And yet: No shoe carnivals, no shoe-based attacks on aviation.

Until you do this, every single thing you do when you put on your smurf shirt and your tin badge is completely and utterly useless.