Anniversary Of 9/11

[BJBEOSmitty]

Why should I welcome an organization that assumes I'm a criminal?

...There's hundreds of stories out there and that's not even getting into the borderline pedophilia that results in searches on kids.

...Every airport I've been to has TSA agents that look like they'd be flipping burgers or breaking into cars if they didn't have the TSA job...you know the stereotypical rent-a-cop look.

Did you actually just post that?

You allow yourself to assume, come to a conclusion even, that airport security personnel are akin to people who perform one of the most menial jobs in the nation. Based off their apppearance. Interesting choice.

But they are not allowed to have every person take off their shoes, empty pockets, walk through the portal, etc? Should they just pick and choose by sight on who gets inspected and use physical appearance to make conclusions, like you do? Were that to take place at any terminal you were at, say 10 of 150 passengers were wanded and "portalled" with empty pockets and no shoes. would you get on the plane Sir?

You are not "assumed" to be a criminal. No one is. If you feel that way, do you avoid driving past any and all Speed Limit signs? They are there for the speeders, right? You would have to avoid driving past any of them daily, or your above sentiment is invalidated.

 

[Joey D]

Because they can't profile people since it's wrong, & everyone has to be treated equally so no one gets butt hurt.

In seriousness, I highly doubt they assume you're a criminal. If that's how they assume people, then goddamn, send me to jail now. Taking my shoes off & putting my coins and belt, & baggage through a metal detector and then getting waved over with a wand sounds like heaven compared to what I'd heard about what they actually do to criminals.

But wait, I seem to recall doing most of that before when I had to get on a plane.

The Fourth Amendment comes into play here. There is nothing that gives the TSA agent reasonable cause to go ahead and pat me down, feel around the waistband of my pants, or subject me to X-rays. If there was a legit reason, like have a gun like object show up through the baggage X-ray or a bag full of a powder substance, then I'd understand since that is reasonable cause. But rummaging through my bag of work clothes and medical documents because the TSA agent made up some story isn't understandable.

Also people aren't treated equally. It's well known that Arabic looking people are racially profiled by the TSA.

There's hundreds of stories out there? Do you have links to these stories? Are they legitimate stories, or do a large number of them involve a "victim" getting ass hurt over a simple gesture like most American news articles today.

Six year old being patted down:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/13/earlyshow/main20053444.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Elderly women being subjected to embarrassment by being strip searched and having a soiled adult diaper inspected:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20074643.html

Making a mother of four pump out breast milk:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-06/news/31129902_1_breast-milk-tsa-worker-tsa-officer

Alaskan Representative, you know an elected government employee, who'd survived breast cancer and had prosthetic breasts was told that she need to take the device off so it could be searched:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014292105_airportrep22m.html

There's obviously more out there, but these are a sample of some of the more well known cases. I mean I suppose the TSA can justify this in some round about way, but it appears common sense and their desire for more smoke and mirros gets in the way.

That being said, when was the last time you went to the airport & was the experience anything what the media made it out to be? Because I found it nothing to be what the media spewed; I was never even physically touched & neither were the dozens of people with me. It wasn't even time consuming. Shoes off, baggage through the machine, step through, wand, "Have a nice flight", put shoes on, grab baggage. 5 minutes of absolute outrage indeed.

When I flew in September 2010 and the TSA agents made a mess of my bag and subjected me to more searches for some really stupid reasoning. I got this both going to and coming home from Baltimore.

Because the middle aged man I saw at DFW or the Asian fellow wearing square glasses at Orlando definitely looked like criminals or McDonald's workers easily.

Ignoring the fact that your stereotype could go for people in a gigantic range of jobs, again, when was the last time you actually went to the airport to verify this?

I never presented it as all TSA agents are like that, I'm saying every airport I've ever been to that's what they've been like. Obviously I haven't been to every US airport. But it is a face is doesn't take much to be a TSA agent, you basically have to pass a background check, not have an substantial debt, pass a drug check, been registered with selective services and posses at least a GED. They also start around $30,000 depending on what airport.

Maybe it's because I've mostly flown out of run down cities, such as Detroit, Flint, Baltimore, Columbus and Minneapolis, but I've never seen any TSA agent that looked like they were anything other than a dud in society. Possibly more annoying was the power trip they were on because they'd been granted "rights" to pretty much do whatever they wanted in the name of "safety".

Last time I was at the airport was in May, I'll be returning to the airport on the 30th of this month, I don't expect much has changed.

You allow yourself to assume, come to a conclusion even, that airport security personnel are akin to people who perform one of the most menial jobs in the nation. Based off their apppearance. Interesting choice.

It's observational evidence, I have not presented it as fact in anyway. I do feel every TSA baggage handler/security check point operator I've come across could easily fit into the rent-a-cop stereotype. Are there legit people working in the TSA that want to make a difference, of course.

But they are not allowed to have every person take off their shoes, empty pockets, walk through the portal, etc? Should they just pick and choose by sight on who gets inspected and use physical appearance to make conclusions, like you do? We're that to take place at Ny terminal you were at, you wouldnt get on the plane Sir.

The TSA has been accused numerous amounts of time of selecting people on sight to be inspected; racial profiling, as I've said, is well known within the TSA.

You are not "assumed" to be a criminal. No one is. If you feel that way, do you avoid driving past any and all Speed Limit signs? They are there for the speeders, right? You would have to avoid driving past any of them daily, or your above sentiment is invalidated.

I'm not sure how you think you aren't been labelled as a criminal by the TSA, they are assuming you're guilty of something and doing searches of your person and your belongings with no probable cause. As I've said this could be seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not entirely sure what connection you are trying to make with the speed limit signs. It's just some lettering on a sheet of metal, it assumes nothing about the drive and certainly doesn't assume I'm a speeder. It's just providing information.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Joey...

You are working security at your favorite airport. What is your next step in the following scenarios?

"That container holds breast milk only."
"I have an artificial leg/arm attached to me."
"This bottle is just water."
"My breasts are artificial, and detachable."
"My 10 year old child does not like to be touched. Please don't."
"I don't want to empty my pockets"
"The metal detected by your wand is nothing to worry about, it's in my coat pocket and is just keys.

 

[Tornado]

We would want anyone's liberties violated at the expense of the greater good!

I'm not sure if this is a parody or not.

Anyone claiming current regulations re: ticketing, databases of passengers, security at airports, items no longer allowed on planes, etc have not contributed to canceling, halting, or making potential terrorists think twice about another attack using a commercial airline is.... Absurd.

Asking for "proof" another airline attack was thwarted, well... Ask some terrorists I guess. They can tell you. or security leaders at your local airport.

I can just as easily point to the 70 years of commercial air travel before 9/11 and say the lack of 9/11-esque events during them is proof that such things aren't necessary as you have done for saying that the lack of attacks since is proof that such things are.

If you feel that way, do you avoid driving past any and all Speed Limit signs? They are there for the speeders, right? You would have to avoid driving past any of them daily, or your above sentiment is invalidated.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Speed limit signs do not assume you are breaking them simply by driving on the road.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Back in May I flew, with a colleague, from London Heathrow to New York, then New York to Minneapolis to Wichita then from Oklahoma to Detroit back London Heathrow. Carrying my DSLR and Lenses and Laptop in hand baggage and cowboy boots strapped to my back-pack, my colleague had similar... and out of ALL that - the only time we had anything other than a second glance was when they wanted to check the shoes my colleague had in his hand luggage.

Were they polite? not massively.. were they rude? not really, were they on power trip? not as far as I could tell... were they just doing their jobs.. Yes. Did I mind, not really - having checked in on-line before each flight it hardly took anytime at all to get through the airports - except passport control at JFK, that took a while.

 

[Keef]

Kudos for bypassing my question about why you believe "so many" experts have a point to question the building demolition but ignore the experts who agree with the official story.

My apologies for not posting this one after I watched it.



Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is comprised of 1,700 professional members and 15,000 non-professionals who are pushing a petition to re-investigate the event.

Here's an interview with the chief electrical engineer for the construction of the twin towers where he says he doesn't necessarily know what happened, but he doesn't believe the official story and suggests there is video evidence of controlled explosions.

I'd tell you to read the book because god knows some sort of hint might actually be in there about what you're seeking regarding WTC 7's collapse, but it'd be completely wrong anyway.

If it's right then it's not wrong, obviously. I haven't seen any video evidence or free professional explanation supporting the official story that is anywhere near inarguable. The destruction or coverup or simple lack of evidence is so broad that both sides of the coin have simply been bickering back and forth for years, and that's why this 9/11 Truth organization has been getting bigger and bigger as it asks for a completely new investigation. Reinvestigating old cases is a rather common thing in law enforcement especially and the goal of it is to help fill holes for a more thorough understanding. The NTSB has done it numerous times with aviation accidents after new evidence might be found years after the original investigation was closed.

 

[Scaff]

That being said, when was the last time you went to the airport & was the experience anything what the media made it out to be? Because I found it nothing to be what the media spewed; I was never even physically touched & neither were the dozens of people with me. It wasn't even time consuming. Shoes off, baggage through the machine, step through, wand, "Have a nice flight", put shoes on, grab baggage. 5 minutes of absolute outrage indeed.

Try flying in and out of the Middle East, that's quite a different situation.

Which does beg the question of why? To date I'm not aware of an recent terrorist attack or attempt to take a plane that started or ended with a ME country.

 

[McLaren]

The Fourth Amendment comes into play here. There is nothing that gives the TSA agent reasonable cause to go ahead and pat me down, feel around the waistband of my pants, or subject me to X-rays. If there was a legit reason, like have a gun like object show up through the baggage X-ray or a bag full of a powder substance, then I'd understand since that is reasonable cause. But rummaging through my bag of work clothes and medical documents because the TSA agent made up some story isn't understandable.

If they did that to you, then that is an unfortunate event.

From my experience though, I've never been touched, nor did I ever observe anyone else being touched. My baggage was also never rummaged through, least not that I could ever tell, nor did the other 5 people on the trip with me. Whatever they wanted to see, they got their share through the machine in my case.

Six year old being patted down:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/13/earlyshow/main20053444.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Elderly women being subjected to embarrassment by being strip searched and having a soiled adult diaper inspected:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20074643.html

Making a mother of four pump out breast milk:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-06/news/31129902_1_breast-milk-tsa-worker-tsa-officer
Alaskan Representative, you know an elected government employee, who'd survived breast cancer and had prosthetic breasts was told that she need to take the device off so it could be searched:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014292105_airportrep22m.html

These are unfortunate events, but they also do not provide grounds to claim that there are "hundreds" more like them. In 1 the TSA apologized, & in another, the prosthetic check is a listed procedure on their website.

In reality, the majority of TSA check points are not this bad.

When I flew in September 2010 and the TSA agents made a mess of my bag and subjected me to more searches for some really stupid reasoning. I got this both going to and coming home from Baltimore.

What was the reasoning?

I never presented it as all TSA agents are like that, I'm saying every airport I've ever been to that's what they've been like. Obviously I haven't been to every US airport. But it is a face is doesn't take much to be a TSA agent, you basically have to pass a background check, not have an substantial debt, pass a drug check, been registered with selective services and posses at least a GED. They also start around $30,000 depending on what airport.

Well damn, that sounds about the same as every other job then from my experience.

Maybe it's because I've mostly flown out of run down cities, such as Detroit, Flint, Baltimore, Columbus and Minneapolis, but I've never seen any TSA agent that looked like they were anything other than a dud in society. Possibly more annoying was the power trip they were on because they'd been granted "rights" to pretty much do whatever they wanted in the name of "safety".

The simple conclusion I'm getting is that you're judging them merely based on the fact that you have a disdain for TSA Agents, & not the person individually.

 

[ZohsixGT5]

I haven't always had perfect experiences with the TSA, but the good outweighs the bad 100 to 1.

In March of 2002 I flew to Frankfurt from Atlanta. Went through security fine, typical shoes and belt off, etc. Except it took much longer then, being that it was 6 months after 9/11. I was in the boarding line at the gate when 4 TSA agents came up to me in line and said I needed to come with them for "additional screening". I did not have a choice. I am a white American male, and had a backpack as my carry on. I followed the agents down the terminal to an elevator. We all got in and went up 2-3 floors. The doors opened to a room with mirrors on every wall, wooden floors, and a long table in the middle with some chairs. They went through my backpack, putting everything on the table, and searched me thoroughly. I even had to take off my shirt. After about 5 minutes, they were done, and walked me back to my gate.

At the time I was pretty agitated, and did not like the TSA very much. In the 10 years since, I have flown somewhere around 120 times. I have not had a bad experience since then. Most of the time I am through security in 10 minutes tops. The only other thing I can complain about is earlier this year I had to throw away my Axe deoderant, which I wasn't supposed to have anyway.

My point is, in my experience, the tiny extra hassle is worth the piece of mind. It's an even more robust process now that we have the body scanners, to thwart the "underwear bomber" from happening again. And recently they just changed the software on the body scanners, so the agent sees a generic body outline, rather than a picture of the person themselves.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

I can just as easily point to the 70 years of commercial air travel before 9/11 and say the lack of 9/11-esque events during them is proof that such things aren't necessary as you have done for saying that the lack of attacks since is proof that such things are.

No, you can't. A 9/11 "esque" event, to use your term, isn't needed. Current strict regulations surrounding ticketing and boarding security are not designed to prevent terrorists who are also trained pilots from hijacking commercial airlines. The rules are in place to prevent hijackers from EVER boarding the plane, period. Their ability to pilot the aircraft into a target is irrelevant. I don't need a hijacker/PILOT(s) to kill 3,000 people to prove the security doesn't work. You just need hijackers for that.

Prior to 9/11, many hijackings occurred, including those involving American planes, airspace, take off locations and destinations, as well as American Passengers.

Since the more stringent airport security has been implemented, can you provide links describing hijacked AMERICAN commercial planes after a terrorist boarded despite current security?

I can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place. This includes American planes hijacked in the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's.
Since 9/11?

Nope.

I'm not saying tightened rules at the airport are the sole reason, but it is obviously a big reason.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Speed limit signs do not assume you are breaking them simply by driving on the road.

But they are there to prevent you from speeding, and let all drivers know what the limit is. Simple as.

 

[Pupik]

I can just as easily point to the 70 years of commercial air travel before 9/11 and say the lack of 9/11-esque events during them is proof that such things aren't necessary as you have done for saying that the lack of attacks since is proof that such things are.

This was in 1987...but also the ultimate example of an disgruntled ex-employee.

Plus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Air_Lines_Flight_773
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705

Don't get me wrong, the TSA is a dog and pony show, but admittedly the stupid things done by TSA agents which make the news is usually due to their occasional-but-rare bouts of utter incompetence. They are much more likely to confer with each other if something is suspect or they're unsure. And they do have a handbook to check if they're unsure; not "everything that beeps" is automatically and systematically discarded. On the other hand, this is an example which probably makes quite a number of people feel safer about flying, and to be honest, I just wish it was a bit more efficient and less about checking items rather than checking people. But the latter is much more discriminatory...but on the other hand, I've seen people of very obvious Middle Eastern decent get a bit more pat-down than "chat-down".

 

[Tornado]

I can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place. This includes American planes hijacked in the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's.

Then provide proof that increased security post-9/11 is why it doesn't happen anymore. Until then, your argument is nothing more than "Well, of course they are good, since it hasn't happened since" which...

Well, it didn't happen particularly often with American planes in American airspace in the first place, looking over the hijacking list on Wikipedia. Not since the 1970s, at least (though it happened a couple times in the 1980s). The one Pupik linked to above was the only one I can see that happened with an American plane in the entirety of the 1990s, and that wasn't even an airliner. So...

But they are there to prevent you from speeding, and let all drivers know what the limit is. Simple as.

Which is kinda why the comparison was ridiculous. Speed limits are nothing more than rules that you are supposed to follow. Cops don't pull people over if they are following the rules unless cops think they might be breaking them somehow; and the times they do tend to be extremely controversial because of the prevalence of profiling in law enforcement. Not at all the same thing as what Joey was saying.

 

[homeforsummer]

Try flying in and out of the Middle East, that's quite a different situation.

Depends where in the Middle East. I've flown in and out of Dubai several times and it's not even slightly as strict as the UK or several European airports. I imagine Iraq or similar may be a little more uptight, of course.

 

[Keef]

I'm considering getting both Popular Mechanics' book "Debunking 9/11" and another one called "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" which was written in response to it. I looked through a lot of reviews and using a scale of 3-5 stars = worth the money and 1-2 stars = waste of money, it seems Popular Mechanics' book has a 77% chance of being a waste of money while the other one has a 34% chance of being a waste of money. I might get both anyway but I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Joey D]

These are unfortunate events, but they also do not provide grounds to claim that there are "hundreds" more like them. In 1 the TSA apologized, & in another, the prosthetic check is a listed procedure on their website.

Apologizing for something doesn't excuse them for doing it in the first place. And I don't see why it doesn't provide grounds to claim hundreds more like them. Think of how many millions of people fly and how long the TSA's been around. Even at 20 incidents a year it would add up to over 200. I know it's a low number, but any type of folly like this isn't excusable.

All I was doing was proving you with sources that you asked for, which seemed like a legit thing to ask as I should have linked them in the first place. A quick Google search yields more stories and incidents that have happened.

What was the reasoning?

They didn't tell me but one of the agents said "it's just sand" and then crammed everything back in my bag. I had been in the UP the day before I flew out and there was a little bit of sand (probably enough to fill a quarter of a shot glass) in one of the side pockets that held my shoes. My only conclusion is they thought it was drugs or explosives since all I had in my bag was clothes and printed data from the hospital, there wasn't anything remotely questionable. I did have a laptop with me but I took it out of its little carrying case and laid it on the belt like I was instructed too.

The simple conclusion I'm getting is that you're judging them merely based on the fact that you have a disdain for TSA Agents, & not the person individually.

Impressions are everything though, especially in a line of work like that. If you look like an unprofessional derelict why should I believe that you are a qualified person for the job? It should not be hard to sit upright at the x-ray scanner, have good hygiene, and not act like a slob. Being professional to the passengers wouldn't hurt either, I don't expect them to be friendly but being rude is just inexcusable.

If I came across an agent that actually presented themselves as a professional, I'd probably have a better outlook on them. Just based on my experiences though I don't see it, and as I've said, it could be because of the cities I am in.

And I probably should say this applies for anything, even when I meet VP of different organizations.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Well, it didn't happen particularly often with American planes in American airspace in the first place, looking over the hijacking list...

Your five reasons explaining why no commercial planes taking off from Americna soil have been hijacked in 11 years, in order of importance, are....

 

[Tornado]

No, don't change the subject. Provide proof that increased security post-9/11 is why it doesn't happen anymore, since it doesn't appear to me to have been a particularly common occurrence in the 11 years prior to 9/11 anyway. You're operating on the premise that American airplane hijackings were constant occurrences before 9/11 and that things done after 9/11 have stopped them. I'm still not seeing any evidence from you on the former when before 9/11 the most recent example I've seen that is comparable is what Pupik linked to that happened in 1987; and it is kind of necessary to show what it was before when you claim it is different after. You said you can provide links for hijackings of American planes in the 1990s and 2000s, and that those links show things that post-9/11 security would prevent from happening. Let's see them.

 

[Ealirendur]

I wouldn't have normally posted here, but I'm having a hard time believing what I'm not reading.

First, I should say that my heart is still heavy when I remember how many lost lives or loved ones on, or as a result of, that fateful day. That includes service men and women who have died since; including Australians (very, very recently). We also had Bali, by the way.

I was randomly watching a documentary on "The Rumble in the Jungle" that night, essentially trying to sleep. Then the news ticker started across the top, and the footage cut across to the first plane; surrealism and incredulity turned to shock and outrage when I saw the live or near-live footage of the second.

I only mention this (the personal remembrance might seem out of place or belated) because it seems everyone has forgotten the other planes, because not one mention of Flight 93 has been in the foregoing posts, even in previous years.

Those passengers and staff have probably prevented more hijackings than the TSA ever will. It would be difficult to describe my feelings when I heard what they had done; I don't know if there are sufficient words.

The TSA (and our own admittedly pale shadows of it) are nothing more than theatre. Expensive theatre at that, designed to make the public feel safer. Not actually be safer, mind, because there are more cost effective and less intrusive ways of contributing to that (not that some effective airport screening measures couldn't be part of it). You (and us also, with our shadow-puppets) bear the cost - in tax and ticket costs, as well as time and indignation - of these measures. You want them to make you actually safer, right?

Also, read some Bruce Schneier, just for starters. I'm sure this, this or this aren't the best place to start, but they'll do for now. In case you think he's an irrelevant talking head, the TSA didn't think so when they prevented him from testifying to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrt the TSA. And he debated a former head of the TSA on The Economist.

I'm sure Rand Paul is some sort of unpatriotic crank, too.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

...constant...

I don't know if I have ever typed that word on this forum, and certainly not in this thread regarding the past proliferation of hijackings.

If you're under the impression anyone who doesn't feel that current airport security actions are more than what one should find acceptable, and place words in their mouth along the lines of "youre the one saying hijackings were constant pre 9/11"... Then I'll simply move on. Not much esle I can do... Far too adult on my end to start "I never said that!" nonsense. (which is in no way a comment on you, your age... Anything whatsoever, simply stated clearly as there is no need to place words in my mouth again)

Have a good night Sir.

 

[Tornado]

I don't know if I have ever typed that word on this forum, and certainly not in this thread regarding the past proliferation of hijackings.

No, you didn't actually say constant. I just figured the implication was clear. My apologies.

But you did say this:

Prior to 9/11, many hijackings occurred, including those involving American planes, airspace, take off locations and destinations, as well as American Passengers.

I can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place. This includes American planes hijacked in the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's.

Which carries the same implication and I'd still like to see the examples of.


You also said this:

Since 9/11?

Nope.

Since the more stringent airport security has been implemented, can you provide links describing hijacked AMERICAN commercial planes after a terrorist boarded despite current security?

Asking for "proof" another airline attack was thwarted, well... Ask some terrorists I guess. They can tell you. or security leaders at your local airport.

Which means you are saying that after 9/11 the "many" occurrences dwindled to "none" and that is was because of those changes in security post-9/11. The problem is that, the only time the quantity of American hijackings can be labeled "many" took place two decades before 9/11. If there are examples of an American commercial airliner being hijacked between 1990 and 2001, I'd legitimately like to know; because as far as I can find there are no examples of it happening during that period unless you count the FedEx hijacking Pupik linked to.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

You said that new post 9/11 safety measures have made airline travel less safe and that more weapons than ever are now on planes.

How could you think that?







See... Words, mouths, putting - silliness. Isn't it?

I'm not saying tightened rules at the airport are the sole reason...

 

[Tornado]

You said that new post 9/11 safety measures have made airline travel less safe and that more weapons than ever are now on planes.

How could you think that?

Explain where I said anything like this. I already gave you the courtesy of explaining my reasoning for my "mistake."

See... Words, mouths, putting - silliness.

No, I don't see. What I do is you fabricating something outright and derailing any credibility you might have had. Again.


Tell me what words I put in your mouth in my last post. I quoted you and responded directly to your statements in this thread, apologized for misquoting you earlier (even though I don't really feel it was a misquote since I was responding to your sentiment rather than what you said specifically) and sincerely asked to be made aware of the things you claim happened since I can't find any info on them. Do you actually have these links you claim you have showing hijacking of American planes throughout the past 40 years, or are these increasingly obtuse attempts to change the subject when asked for proof of your assertions all you have to contribute to the discussion?

I'm not saying tightened rules at the airport are the sole reason, but it is obviously a big reason.

No, but you are saying it was a factor, which is something that you have repeatedly refused to prove to be the case despite being asked to. Nor have you made any attempt to actually show the differences in quantity of American hijackings before and after 9/11, instead assuring that there were "many" before and then tasking me with showing how there have been none since.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Steady...

 

[Ealirendur]

Your five reasons explaining why no commercial planes taking off from Americna soil have been hijacked in 11 years, in order of importance, are....

1. Increased intelligence scrutiny
2. Awareness on planes given the event; see Flight 93.
3. Flight 93
4. Flight 93
5. Flight 93

That might seem a bit facile, but every credible attempt to hijack or destroy an American plane since 9/11 has either been foiled by intelligence work or the passengers. You might want to check why the TSA has those regulations about shoes and liquids; it's yet more reactionary behaviour to do with foiled attacks regular passengers prevented - NOT the TSA.

 

[Tornado]

Steady...

I'll make this simple for you then: Explain where I said anything like any of that or retract the claim saying that I said anything like any of that.

While you're at it, provide the links for the claims of American hijackings that happened "many" times during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, or retract the claims of American hijackings happening "many" times during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

And provide some sort of proof that the reason that there hasn't been terrorist hijackings since 9/11 in America is at least partially derived from changes changes in TSA procedures since 9/11 or retract the claim that the reason that there hasn't been terrorist hijackings since 9/11 in America is at least partially derived from changes in TSA procedures since 9/11.



Don't bother posting anything else until you do.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Firstly, you're not allowed to dictate what other posters can or cannot post about, not to mention actually make demands regarding another posters immediate content.

Get over yourself. That's ridiculous behavior and I suspect you know it.

I've already posted who you could talk to regarding how many potential attacks involving air travel may have been averted, abandoned, cancelled or simply not even planned due to how the world and America now handles air travel regulations and security at the airport, so there will be no more from
me on the subject.

Notice how I'm not demanding others answer previously raised questions or requests for opinions that are currently unanswered in what appears to me to be a childish, demanding method against the AUP? "Answer me now and don't post anything else until you do! (sprays drink on monitor)







Oh well, maybe an example using speeding again might help? A portion of a road near your house is A. Notorious for speeders. B. Had a serious accident(s) involving high speeds. C. Known by nearly the whole area to be an issue - safety of those in and around the area One of the three, two of the three, something similar whatever. Doesn't matter.

The Police Chief increases his squad's presence in the area with new patrol and rule demands placed on new and current officers. He stations a patrol car there far more than ever before. The car is noticed by many, many drivers. Tickets are written. Word spreads quickly. The "gray area" which allowed some speeders to get by being a few miles over is eliminated. It's black white now. The speeding there subsides greatly, even if the patrol car is not there.

I'm the Policeman who sits in that car most of the time. In fact, it's only me some entire weeks. My boss asks me to write a report, specifically identifying how many people would have been speeding but now are not.

It's impossible to calculate, how many people "would have done X" (such as bring a weapon on a plane) but now chose not to even go to the airport at all. Any position of authority who changes regulations to slow, curb or eliminate a specific behavior cannot be held accountable for identifying the specific number of behaviors they slowed, curbed or eliminated.

Do you fee LESS safe on an airplane today than 5 years ago? 10? 20? When did you fly last? (Notice I'm NOT demanding an answer or foolishly requiring no other posts from you... answer if you want. Doesn't matter to me.

Now, if you believe no terrorist worldwide in the last 11 years has thought of attacking using air travel but then changed his mind... Not ONE... That's something you should post about.

Cheers.

 

[Nicksfix]

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Good one Nick.


I'm done here.

 

[McLaren]

Apologizing for something doesn't excuse them for doing it in the first place.

Except it's not them, it was one clueless agent.

Some idiot at a business offends you & you suddenly hold the entire chain responsible, despite that the organization followed it with an apology (which sounds like good business etiquette to me)?

And I don't see why it doesn't provide grounds to claim hundreds more like them.

Hundreds is an exaggeration.

Think of how many millions of people fly and how long the TSA's been around. Even at 20 incidents a year it would add up to over 200. I know it's a low number, but any type of folly like this isn't excusable.

Over 2 million people fly a day in the US. 20 incidents in even a week's worth of travelers would be nothing more than a minimal statistic, let alone over the course of a year.

All I was doing was proving you with sources that you asked for, which seemed like a legit thing to ask as I should have linked them in the first place. A quick Google search yields more stories and incidents that have happened.

A quick Google link does not link to the hundreds you spouted off earlier, & even if did, hundreds of individual cases out of the 5 billion people who have flown in the US in the last 10 years is a trivial thing to use as proof the TSA are a bunch of inconvenient, intruding people.

They didn't tell me but one of the agents said "it's just sand" and then crammed everything back in my bag. I had been in the UP the day before I flew out and there was a little bit of sand (probably enough to fill a quarter of a shot glass) in one of the side pockets that held my shoes. My only conclusion is they thought it was drugs or explosives since all I had in my bag was clothes and printed data from the hospital, there wasn't anything remotely questionable. I did have a laptop with me but I took it out of its little carrying case and laid it on the belt like I was instructed too.

So, then it was really just a quick & honest mistake on their part....

Kind of goes back to what I said earlier about people just getting upset over something that was just a small waste of time, or the media making the experience out to be something it's not.

Impressions are everything though, especially in a line of work like that. If you look like an unprofessional derelict why should I believe that you are a qualified person for the job? It should not be hard to sit upright at the x-ray scanner, have good hygiene, and not act like a slob. Being professional to the passengers wouldn't hurt either, I don't expect them to be friendly but being rude is just inexcusable.

Oh, get out of here. You expect me to now believe the agents were slobs & had bad hygiene?

You're grasping at straws to continually prove your unfounded hatred of TSA agents.

 

[Akira AC]

Actually...

...
Prior to 9/11, many hijackings occurred, including those involving American planes, airspace, take off locations and destinations, as well as American Passengers...

...I can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place. This includes American planes hijacked in the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's.

AUP states that if something is claimed it should be backed up, the sources and references have been requested several times, also notice how you said you can provide them, yet never did.

To then....

...not to mention actually make demands regarding another posters immediate content.
(AUP and regular forum rules asks for those sources)

I've already posted who you could talk (who?) to regarding how many potential attacks involving air travel may have been averted, abandoned, cancelled or simply not even planned due to how the world and America now handles air travel regulations and security at the airport, so there will be no more from
me on the subject.

Notice how I'm not demanding others answer previously raised questions or requests for opinions that are currently unanswered in what appears to me to be a childish, demanding method against the AUP? (AUP states that sources should be provided when facts are stated in the table) "Answer me now and don't post anything else until you do! (sprays drink on monitor).

So, yeah ....



On topic (well kinda), I do believe that the 9/11 attacks were actually perpetuated by Al-Qaeda, however I did find it very odd that the WTC7 collapsed a few hours after the twin towers did, I spoke to a civilian engineer recently(well he works on trains, but he still has knowledge about structural integrity and such) and he told me that it had to be a huge fire to compromise the structural integrity of that building, it wasn't like the twin towers which were hit by the airliners themselves and had to deal with the subsequent fire originated by the jet fuel spilled everywhere(not to mention that the crash affected the anti-flamable cover that the structure of the towers themselves had), likewise he tells me that the earthquake generated by the towers collapse wasn't strong enough to actually produce the collapse of WTC7(he tells me that the damage caused by the collapse could have compromised the structure).

From my point of view, I think they probably demolish the building to prevent it from collapsing afterwards. As for the reasoning behind covering it up, I think it was probably staged so it cover up some sort of corruption case, or even worse. After all, the 2.3 trillion dollar gone from the defence budget (as stated by conspiracy theorists which I haven't had time to corroborate but I do think is true) and the IRS offices located in that building makes it a pretty good target to undergo that kind of cover up. Apart from that, it could have been the ideal moment to cover up such an act (if it ever happened).