In a way, it's not the TSA's fault, it's ours for tolerating this insanity.
Sometimes I almost wish someone smuggles a bomb through the TSA security line, and successfully storms a plane so we can finally have concrete evidence that those processes only provide annoyance, not security.
The most successful terrorist of all times was Richard Reid, the dude who tried to embark in a plane with explosive material in his shoes. The dude totally failed to storm anything and was busted, now he was successful because since he did this, billions people have been removing their shoes in USian airports.
PS: Richard, if you read HN from your cell, thanks for not smuggling C4 in your butt!
> Sometimes I almost wish someone smuggles a bomb through the TSA security line, and successfully storms a plane so we can finally have concrete evidence that those processes only provide annoyance, not security.
That would just lead to the following reaction: "The TSA is not doing enough yet, we need to implement even more annoyances."
I was on a trip during this instance. I flew out with my shoes on from curb to plane, but a few days later we're all taking off our shoes at every gate, door, security line, and hallway.
I don't wish for anything like that to happen, but sometimes I wonder what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines, between the waiting people... didn't something similar happen in Belgium?
It's great that we reduced the risk of a highjacking so much in the last decades, with security checkpoints and hardened cockpit doors. But in sum, I don't really feel safer while flying.
"And besides, if we made airplanes completely safe, the terrorists would simply start bombing other places that are crowded. Porn shops, crack houses, titty bars, and gangbangs. You know, entertainment venues."
Exactly what happened in Brussels. There the bombs were detonated in the check in departures hall before the security area. What happened afterwards is even more absurd. They organized a security check before entering the departures hall, leading to massive 3 hour waiting lines outside the building. Clearly protecting the building is far more important than the security of the people in the waiting line.
For what it's worth, that is what countries with competent security do (Israel, China whenever/wherever there are security concerns), multiple stages of security checks (but of course the earlier ones are designed to minimise queuing to avoid that exact issue).
Typically there will be one security check on the road before cars enter the airport (this can be just a drive-by check for anything suspicious), then either scanner or explosive chemicals check at the entrance doors.
Also, the area in front of the security check is arranged with a large "buffer space" not allowing anyone without a boarding pass to get close to the security check lines (and again with guards looking out for anything suspicious).
As ridiculous as that was I can't blame the politicians for that kind of absurdity. The media would eat them alive if they weren't shown to be 'active' and god forbid something happens again and nothing had changed.
It's a sad situation, modern democracy and twitter have merged into a flurry of overactivity and fake outrage.
I can, a politician without the mettle to stand up to the media is doing their supporters a disservice, the media does not run the country, well, not legally, not yet.
> what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines
I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands.
Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.
What actually happened on 9/11 really doesn't help us draw forward conclusions, because the people on these flights had less scope of the big picture. Each operated in a vacuum, it'd be difficult for them to know they were 4 planes.
After that we have a much more reliable track record. The "shoe bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers. The "underwear bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers.
imho, two things have have genuinely contributed to airbourne security since. One is reinforced cockpit doors. The other is that our collective understanding has changed - it used to be "keep quiet, sweat it out while they negotiate somewhere, and go home safe - just don't draw attention to yourself". Now the 'understanding' is that we fight back or we die.
(And no, the TSA don't really contribute to either of these)
ceejayoz isn't saying the 9/11 flights proved that passengers won't sit quietly anymore. He's saying that, as a result of 9/11, passengers won't sit quietly anymore, which seems to be exactly what you're saying.
You're right. I was trying to reply to a_c_s. Not sure how I managed to fluff that up. But yes, total agreement that the ratio of flights that fought back on 9/11 is a whole lot less relevant than on flights since. Or rather, how we handled the unprecedented vs what we learnt from it.
On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. For the sake of argument if we take this as a representative sample, there's only a 25% resist rate: very pretty thin evidence to argue that a fundamental behavior shift has taken place.
> On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist.
Few had much inkling 9/11 was a terror attack until the second flight hit WTC at 9:03 am, so it's really one of two. The Pentagon flight hit at 9:37 am and passengers weren't aware of the WTC attacks until Barbara Olson's call between 9:16 and 9:26. ~10 minutes isn't much time to process, plan, and react.
That and the likelihood that terrorists will be considerably less likely to bother to attack targets that don't look particularly soft, or at least the general public will think that.
> Sometimes I almost wish someone smuggles a bomb through the TSA security line, and successfully storms a plane so we can finally have concrete evidence that those processes only provide annoyance, not security.
This would result in more security theater, not less. It's the only reaction the bureaucracy can possibly have to it, because that's what we've trained them to do as part of our voting habits and what sells in the media.
We've reached a point where additional security checks further endanger the passengers because terrorists attack the queues before they enter the security check.
What always amuses me is the thought of them actually finding a bomb, what would they do? I mean back in Moscow and the recent Brussels bombs were triggered in such long lines.
The most successful terrorist of all times was Richard Reid, the dude who tried to embark in a plane with explosive material in his shoes. The dude totally failed to storm anything and was busted, now he was successful because since he did this, billions people have been removing their shoes in USian airports.
PS: Richard, if you read HN from your cell, thanks for not smuggling C4 in your butt!