|
Originally Posted by thegeneral
(Post 9480994)
In summary, you haven't proven that travel or lines are worse now than they were previously. Your correlation of this unproven idea to causation by the TSA only makes the thread worse. Of the terrible things you see the TSA doing now, some were around before, some have no bearing on travel times and another is a completely isolated incident that in reality is the travelers own fault.
Are you really saying that removing shoes, removing laptops, removing liquids, removing belts and removing jackets don't cause longer lines and delays? Are you really that ignorant and/or naive? |
[QUOTE=bocastephen;9478473]I'm happy to report that my Naturalization ceremony is coming up in a few days QUOTE]
Congratulations |
Originally Posted by thegeneral
(Post 9480994)
Also, ONE woman has an issue going through a metal detector ONCE wearing large pieces of metal jewelery and it's the TSA being invasive? They had her take them out. They didn't make her undress and walk around the terminal. I'm not sure how this has any bearing on me or my travel week. TSA didn't before and doesn't now have a strong bearing on my week. I habitually leave my house 1 hr 15 mins - 1 hr 30 mins before my flight. |
Originally Posted by LessO2
(Post 9480771)
Since AQ has moved on to other things, the TSA must come up with new, inventive ways to keep itself relevant.
Al-Qaeda or Aloha Airlines? ;) Sadly, Aloha Airlines may soon be moving on to other things, too.:( |
thegeneral,
I respect your opinion. Surprised? ;) What I actually meant by the TSA going forward is that they kind of backed off from being too invasive (no more gropes, etc) around 2004-2005, then the liquid fiasco happened in 2006, then from there, they went back to being more invasive (SPOT, ID checks, etc). Does anyone notice this pattern? And why do you think TSA is doing this? It's been 7 years now since 9/11, so you'd think they would be less worried? |
Originally Posted by Andy1369
(Post 9481947)
thegeneral,
I respect your opinion. Surprised? ;) What I actually meant by the TSA going forward is that they kind of backed off from being too invasive (no more gropes, etc) around 2004-2005, then the liquid fiasco happened in 2006, then from there, they went back to being more invasive (SPOT, ID checks, etc). Does anyone notice this pattern? And why do you think TSA is doing this? It's been 7 years now since 9/11, so you'd think they would be less worried? |
Originally Posted by Andy1369
(Post 9481947)
What I actually meant by the TSA going forward is that they kind of backed off from being too invasive (no more gropes, etc) around 2004-2005, then the liquid fiasco happened in 2006, then from there, they went back to being more invasive (SPOT, ID checks, etc). Does anyone notice this pattern? And why do you think TSA is doing this? It's been 7 years now since 9/11, so you'd think they would be less worried?
|
It seems like the only people the TSA inconvenience are the regular traveler, and it has been shown time and time again that they are not all that effective.
|
Originally Posted by Bnaug54
(Post 9482001)
It seems like the only people the TSA inconvenience are the regular traveler, and it has been shown time and time again that they are not all that effective.
Try it in a sentence: "The TSA sucks." Enjoy the Simpsons: "The TSA is the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked." |
Originally Posted by Cee
(Post 9480486)
As far as the policies that are in place... I still agree with the shoe removal, though I think it could be enforced differently.
|
Originally Posted by SJCFlyerLG
(Post 9482699)
You do realize that an X-ray is completely useless in identifying explosives hidden in shoes, right?:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Cee
(Post 9483760)
No. I don't realize that. The x-ray is not "useless" in identifying explosives. Yes, an ETD machine is designed to detect explosives...but they register false positives. What do we do if we get a positive hit on an item (phone, laptop, CPAP, shoes...) ? We run it thru the xray, looking for an anomaly. An x-ray alone will not confirm the presence of explosives...it is just one step in the process.
It's easy enough to design any device to appear normal using plastic explosives + materials of similar density. Chances are practically zero that the x-ray operator will notice anything amiss. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 9485146)
I hope you do a second test with the ETD using a different sample before resorting to looking for crude anomolies. @:-)
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 9485146)
It's easy enough to design any device to appear normal using plastic explosives + materials of similar density. Chances are practically zero that the x-ray operator will notice anything amiss.
|
Originally Posted by Cee
(Post 9483760)
No. I don't realize that. The x-ray is not "useless" in identifying explosives. Yes, an ETD machine is designed to detect explosives...but they register false positives. What do we do if we get a positive hit on an item (phone, laptop, CPAP, shoes...) ? We run it thru the xray, looking for an anomaly. An x-ray alone will not confirm the presence of explosives...it is just one step in the process.
Originally Posted by Cee
(Post 9485220)
Not much point in that...I would rather clear it thru the x-ray than continue to test and get more false positive hits.
True on the first part, not true on the second part (depending on the screener). Don't you think a terrorist is going to make sure the explosive/surrounding material is molded to look exactly like a normal part in the laptop/phone/shoe? What am I missing? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.