If drug mules swallow drugs and fly, can't terrorists swallow explosive devices?
Nov 15, 2010, 4:05 pm
#61
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BDL
Programs: southwest
Posts: 11
Hello all, I've been a lurker for a while and have been following with interest the goings on with the TSA's latest nonsense.
I can't believe I'm going to be making my first post here on the subject of "internal devices" or "butt bombs" but any of you who know firefighters know of our sick sense of humor at times.
If I remember right, it does not take a lot of PETN to make a hole in the side of an aircraft. I'm thinking that a sufficiently motivated "wanting his 72 virgins"type could "ahem" train certain bodily orifices to take in quite a large sized package and hold in in place. Aircraft takes off, climbs to cruising altitude,the chosen buttbomber heads to the lavatory, closes door, removes the hollowed out "device" and puts together what he needs, in the privacy of the lavatory. Starts the timer, goes back and sits down....I don't think I've revealed any trade secrets here, I'm sure the cave dwellers have thought of this.
A pat down is not going to find this. The damn NOS isn't going to find this. so is this grope REALLY necessary?
Crappy Nappys latest "its for our OWN good" idea isn't worth squat! Its WAY past time for common sense security to be put into place for the flying public and yes that may include "gasp" profiling! . WAY past time for all air cargo to be inspected and way past time for tighter security and background checks for those people working on the ground at the airport.
You TSA folks out there, do you really understand the risk to YOURSELVES, by using these new machines. Eight hours a day, working around a machine that is using x-rays to see things. Do you honestly believe that you are NOT setting the stage for having two headed kids someday? Why the hell do you think your dental hygenist goes outside the room when they flick the switch on your teeth x-rays. Its surely because they are not shy! You won't glow in the dark, its ionizing radiation, BUT the damage is cumulative folks. If you think that beast isn't leaking rads? I've a bridge in Brooklyn for sale!
My wife and I are flying tomorrow (BDL-FLL) we're opting out. period from the NOS. And after we return, my next trip to Florida is going to be either on Amtrak or driving. I'll be damned that I'll give up my rights as a citizen of the United States just because I want to fly. Right now, we've no family members that we need to fly to, to see. Which means that after tomorrow, I've no real reason to fly again until somebody in the government finally gets its collective "junk" together and tells the TSA to knock off the power trip that some of them seem to be on.
I can't believe I'm going to be making my first post here on the subject of "internal devices" or "butt bombs" but any of you who know firefighters know of our sick sense of humor at times.
If I remember right, it does not take a lot of PETN to make a hole in the side of an aircraft. I'm thinking that a sufficiently motivated "wanting his 72 virgins"type could "ahem" train certain bodily orifices to take in quite a large sized package and hold in in place. Aircraft takes off, climbs to cruising altitude,the chosen buttbomber heads to the lavatory, closes door, removes the hollowed out "device" and puts together what he needs, in the privacy of the lavatory. Starts the timer, goes back and sits down....I don't think I've revealed any trade secrets here, I'm sure the cave dwellers have thought of this.
A pat down is not going to find this. The damn NOS isn't going to find this. so is this grope REALLY necessary?
Crappy Nappys latest "its for our OWN good" idea isn't worth squat! Its WAY past time for common sense security to be put into place for the flying public and yes that may include "gasp" profiling! . WAY past time for all air cargo to be inspected and way past time for tighter security and background checks for those people working on the ground at the airport.
You TSA folks out there, do you really understand the risk to YOURSELVES, by using these new machines. Eight hours a day, working around a machine that is using x-rays to see things. Do you honestly believe that you are NOT setting the stage for having two headed kids someday? Why the hell do you think your dental hygenist goes outside the room when they flick the switch on your teeth x-rays. Its surely because they are not shy! You won't glow in the dark, its ionizing radiation, BUT the damage is cumulative folks. If you think that beast isn't leaking rads? I've a bridge in Brooklyn for sale!
My wife and I are flying tomorrow (BDL-FLL) we're opting out. period from the NOS. And after we return, my next trip to Florida is going to be either on Amtrak or driving. I'll be damned that I'll give up my rights as a citizen of the United States just because I want to fly. Right now, we've no family members that we need to fly to, to see. Which means that after tomorrow, I've no real reason to fly again until somebody in the government finally gets its collective "junk" together and tells the TSA to knock off the power trip that some of them seem to be on.
Nov 15, 2010, 8:51 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
What ever happened to the thought that living in society involved certain risks that people inherently accept by their choice to live in society?
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true.
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true.
Nov 15, 2010, 8:56 pm
#63
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Nov 15, 2010, 9:28 pm
#64
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: YVR
Posts: 9,999
Which of course is exactly why it is so easy for terrorists to defeat all the security measures.
How remote on September 10, 2001 was the possiblity of several hihackers to simulatneously take 4 planes and crash them into large buildings? I'm guessing that to most alleged airline security people it was absolutely impossible.
So, are you now stating that all explosives will eat through latex?
No?
I didn't think so.
One down...
Nah, it would never happen.
Think of the health consequences to the bomber. It would be, like, worse than smoking.
Which part of Pakistan did Richard Reid come from?
How remote on September 10, 2001 was the possiblity of several hihackers to simulatneously take 4 planes and crash them into large buildings? I'm guessing that to most alleged airline security people it was absolutely impossible.
No?
I didn't think so.
One down...
Think of the health consequences to the bomber. It would be, like, worse than smoking.
I can tell you my "qualification". Being a Type 2 diabetic, my brother was a Type 1. Practically every living member of my family is diabetic. Maybe you are the one who should be more hesitant.
And I repeat, there are gonna be patterns that DHS is going to see where it is not going to just say "Oh, you're a diabetic from Karachi, well, walk on through". And your objection to that would be?
And I repeat, there are gonna be patterns that DHS is going to see where it is not going to just say "Oh, you're a diabetic from Karachi, well, walk on through". And your objection to that would be?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 16, 2010 at 1:42 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Nov 15, 2010, 10:53 pm
#65
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 32
Nov 15, 2010, 11:25 pm
#66
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Science fail.
Last edited by janetdoe; Nov 15, 2010 at 11:34 pm