Airport Security - Just another Bush Failure

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » September 13, 2006 11:28 am

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:we spend $9 per passenger on airline security.

Charge me $9 extra if it will make me twice as safe.
I'll pay the extra penny for riding the bus too - they can keep the change.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » September 13, 2006 11:31 am

Mr Play wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:we spend $9 per passenger on airline security.
Charge me $9 extra if it will make me twice as safe.
I'll pay the extra penny for riding the bus too - they can keep the change.

they do. that is what the charge per stop (believe it is $5/) tax on tickets is supposed to fund. Tho, if I do a round trip with 1 stop thru a hub, I get hit with (I believe $10) per run. Someone is making a profit on me...

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » September 13, 2006 11:32 am

RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:Apparently if someone gets a bottle of hand lotion on the plane it must be Bush's fault
based on the budgets, budgetary cuts, and his role as the head of the Executive Branch who claimed the new agency was vitally-necessary... failure to ensure the mission of the agency is accomplished is ultimately at his feet.
That's the easy way out. Reality is that thousands of people fly every single day. Certain banned substances are going to get through whether there are budget cuts or an unlimited budget. How did you feel about security prior to 9/11?
unfortunately the missed detection rate for contraband is NO better today than it was pre-9/11.

you may feel safer, but you're not....
I didn't know that. Can you show me where that is stated? If it is true that we are missing the same if not more contraband now as opposed to pre-9/11 I may rethink my position on this... and rethink my job as well What about the fact that more things are now considered contraband? How does that skew the numbers?

the GAO is tasked with testing the system. they test the system as passengers with mock guns and knives in carry on luggage.

Also the X-ray machines have an interesting test feature designed into them. randomly the machine's software will super-impose an image of a gun onto the x-ray image of a bag. if the screener doesn't catch it, he/she gets dinged. if the screener does stop the bag, the machine identifies it as a test and passes the screener.

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » September 13, 2006 11:35 am

RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?

hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?

RAGTOP · Post by **RAGTOP** » September 13, 2006 11:37 am

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:Apparently if someone gets a bottle of hand lotion on the plane it must be Bush's fault
based on the budgets, budgetary cuts, and his role as the head of the Executive Branch who claimed the new agency was vitally-necessary... failure to ensure the mission of the agency is accomplished is ultimately at his feet.
That's the easy way out. Reality is that thousands of people fly every single day. Certain banned substances are going to get through whether there are budget cuts or an unlimited budget. How did you feel about security prior to 9/11?
unfortunately the missed detection rate for contraband is NO better today than it was pre-9/11.

you may feel safer, but you're not....
I didn't know that. Can you show me where that is stated? If it is true that we are missing the same if not more contraband now as opposed to pre-9/11 I may rethink my position on this... and rethink my job as well What about the fact that more things are now considered contraband? How does that skew the numbers?
the GAO is tasked with testing the system. they test the system as passengers with mock guns and knives in carry on luggage.

Also the X-ray machines have an interesting test feature designed into them. randomly the machine's software will super-impose an image of a gun onto the x-ray image of a bag. if the screener doesn't catch it, he/she gets dinged. if the screener does stop the bag, the machine identifies it as a test and passes the screener.

Interesting. I'm still missing the part though that states the same if not more contraband is getting through now as opposed to pre-9/11. Again they disrupted the plan to blow up 10 planes last month... I'm not sure that would have happened if 9/11 never happened.

RAGTOP · Post by **RAGTOP** » September 13, 2006 11:39 am

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?

fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » September 13, 2006 11:47 am

RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?
fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?

after he actually got the shoe onboard.. what tripped him up was trying to light the fuse onboard the airplane

RAGTOP · Post by **RAGTOP** » September 13, 2006 11:50 am

RinglingRingling wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?
fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?
after he actually got the shoe onboard.. what tripped him up was trying to light the fuse onboard the airplane

your right

Bad example, however prior to that incident I never had to take my shows off going through security. I do know. I guess I do see the security being advanced and made more secure. There is always room for improvement though.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » September 13, 2006 11:53 am

RAGTOP wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?
fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?
after he actually got the shoe onboard.. what tripped him up was trying to light the fuse onboard the airplane

your right Bad example, however prior to that incident I never had to take my shows off going through security. I do know. I guess I do see the security being advanced and made more secure. There is always room for improvement though.

evidently he never rode the bus to school. you sit in the back corner as far from the driver and other kids as possible if you want to get away with something.

bravedave · Post by **bravedave** » September 13, 2006 11:56 am

RinglingRingling wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?
fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?
after he actually got the shoe onboard.. what tripped him up was trying to light the fuse onboard the airplane

He might not have been stopped in the days before nonsmoking flights.

RAGTOP · Post by **RAGTOP** » September 13, 2006 11:56 am

So I guess if we are no more secure now as opposed to pre-911 you guys wouldn't have a problem going back to the way it use to be pre-911 in terms of getting on a plane.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » September 13, 2006 12:05 pm

RAGTOP wrote:So I guess if we are no more secure now as opposed to pre-911 you guys wouldn't have a problem going back to the way it use to be pre-911 in terms of getting on a plane.

I didn't have a problem then, I still don't do the big cross-country flights where they carry enough fuel to melt a building.

mermaidindisguise · September 13, 2006 12:07 pm

I don't place all blame in Bush's lap... but it really is getting hard to stomach his very rare public speeches in attempt to win people over and make us think that what he did was right.

Not only do I have to mourn the thousands who dies on 9/11 - now I have to mourn the thousands of wonderful servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Would we have caught the bombers of those planes in August if no 9.11? Hard to say....... should we have realized back in 93 that we were not safe on our own land . hell yeah.... we should and I am not blaming any one person for NOT capturing) I am just saying that we should have caught people who were known terrorists WAY before 9/11......

we were warned.... we had the power .......

I always get bashed here anytime I say one word about President Bush - but can anyone blame me???? Has he REALLY impressed you all so much that you feel that loyal to him. I would be loyal to ANY President - Democrat or Republican if I felt they had done a half decent job in office.

I am just ready for someone else to take over and make better decisions. That's when I will feel safer.

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » September 13, 2006 12:14 pm

happy reading

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011165t.p ... luggage%22

http://www.securitymanagement.com/libra ... luggage%22

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04440t.pd ... reening%22

live2ski · Post by **live2ski** » September 13, 2006 12:15 pm

mermaidindisguise wrote:I don't place all blame in Bush's lap... but it really is getting hard to stomach his very rare public speeches in attempt to win people over and make us think that what he did was right.

Not only do I have to mourn the thousands who dies on 9/11 - now I have to mourn the thousands of wonderful servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Would we have caught the bombers of those planes in August if no 9.11? Hard to say....... should we have realized back in 93 that we were not safe on our own land . hell yeah.... we should and I am not blaming any one person for NOT capturing) I am just saying that we should have caught people who were known terrorists WAY before 9/11......

we were warned.... we had the power .......

I always get bashed here anytime I say one word about President Bush - but can anyone blame me???? Has he REALLY impressed you all so much that you feel that loyal to him. I would be loyal to ANY President - Democrat or Republican if I felt they had done a half decent job in office.

I am just ready for someone else to take over and make better decisions. That's when I will feel safer.

Thousands of Servicemen and Women die every day????? Why isn't the media all over this???

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » September 13, 2006 12:17 pm

RAGTOP wrote:
AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
RAGTOP wrote:hypothetical question for everyone. If 9/11 never happened, would they have caught the individuals attempting to blow up those planes last month?
hard to tell, british security caught them in england, perhap you should ask, if the brits weren't bombed last summer would they have caught them?
fair enough but wouldn't that mean an increase in security disrupted a terrorist attack? Didn't we stop the "shoe bomber" after 9/11?

a flight attendent stopped him, not one airport security measure. and had the idiot used a lighter instead of wet matches he probably would have succeeded.

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » September 13, 2006 12:19 pm

get on a plane in canada headed to the US. you don't have to take off your shoes and x-ray them....

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » September 13, 2006 12:24 pm

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:get on a plane in canada headed to the US. you don't have to take off your shoes and x-ray them....

Canadians are polite about that whole "foot odor"/embarrassment thing.

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » September 13, 2006 12:42 pm

mermaidindisguise wrote:servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » September 13, 2006 1:13 pm

Skibo wrote:
mermaidindisguise wrote:servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.
Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf