TexasCHLforum.com

Bullwhip wrote:I don't know why people get freaked out thinking airplanes are special. Chance of a plane crash is very low, chance of it being caused by terrorists is even lower. Its more dangerous to drive to the store but we don't demand TSA security there.

I'm sure they're working on it.

VoiceofReason wrote:There is also no way to prove how many hijackings or bombings have been prevented by airport security being a deterrence.

But it can be proven that of all the bombing attempts since the TSA started being unreasonable, exactly zero of them were stopped by airport security. [rant] Every single bombing attempt in which they've actually tried to go through with it has been stopped by the passengers and/or crew on the plane, or by intelligence on the ground before the BG(s) get to the airport. Thus far, there's been one guy with a gun who's claim of forgetting it was in his carryon bag was a tad bit fishy, but for a while there it seemed like we were hearing stories every other week about how some random passenger was in a hurry, forgot that they had their gun on them, and got through security just fine. And as far as actual security threats are concerned, that's the full extent of their record... TSA - 1 (maybe), Forgetful Citizens Who Aren't Even Trying - 2 (off the top of my head). It's probably more than that... would you out yourself for carrying a gun on a plane? I sure wouldn't; the overzealous DA would have a field day.

There was an ABC report a while back that quoted a TSA official as saying that at one airport, undercover agents were able to get through security with banned items (guns, knives, bombs, etc) over 70% of the time. I don't know about you, but I'd consider a 70% chance of getting something on board pretty good odds. Heck, two BGs ups your odds to 91%, and a third makes 97.3%. How in the world is a 97.3% chance of success for a three-man team a deterrent for anything? If I were a BG trying to smuggle something onto a plane, I'd be more scared of a 98 year-old grandma with emphysema and a stiff purse than I would be of a TSA agent.[/rant]

n5wd wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:That said, imagine how you would feel if your wife and child were on a plane and because the TSA did not investigate a positive alarm, some skell hijacked the flight, or, blew it up.

Where's the logic in that statement? You think the TSA really believed she had explosives?

I don't know what the TSA people were thinking because I wasn't there, and I ain't one of 'em.

However, I have seen pre-teens used to deliver explosives before (Vietnam 70-71) - if it happened there, it COULD happen here.

Sure it could, but that's not the point. If they didn't believe she had explosives the strip search was unnecessary; if they did believe she had explosives on her then nothing good can come from a strip search without her being locked in an explosion-proof room with a bomb squad robot.

Nobody's complaining that the TSA is trying to make airplanes secure; we're complaining that their methods are degrading and don't make any sense. To me, they smell like the standard government nonsense of "we have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it.

schufflerbot wrote:sorry this happened to you, i wish we lived in a world where these screens weren't necessary.

We do. The government and a sizable chunk of the population just haven't realized it yet.