7 ms·

I thought the removal of shoes was a response to the Shoe Bomber plot, not 9/11? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

• dpeck 5y ago
  It was shortly afterwards so falls in the same mental “bucket” for all practical purposes.
• leecarraher 5y ago
  Correct, but I think the general escalation of security in airports which caught Richard Reid, was a direct response to 9/11 . Either Way, it is still mainly security theater to make passengers less apprehensive about taking what is still the safest mode of travel per passenger mile( there might be other metrics, but this is the only one I've read recently).
  • chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Correct, but I think the general escalation of security in airports which caught the Richard Reid Eh? But he wasn't caught due to airport security. He got onto the plane and tried to set off the bomb during the flight. He would have been caught if someone had looked at his shoes.
    • mywittyname 5y ago
      But if he knew they were checking shoes at airport security, then he probably would have put it somewhere else.
      • chrisseaton 5y ago
        Well isn't that the reason for it? Deny an avenue of attack so they to use another less effective option? But anyway - the point was 'general escalation of security in airports which caught the Richard Reid' is a provably false statement.
      • dylan604 5y ago
        What like his underwear? And now we get to go through full body scanners without our shoes. You're much more likely to be able sneak a firearm through than an explosive device now.
      • dustintrex 5y ago
        Let's all be grateful this dude didn't try to pull his underwear bomb stunt on an airplane. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/saudi.arabia.attack/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/saudi.arabia.a...
        • frickinLasers 5y ago
          Do you mean like this other guy did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
      • xadhominemx 5y ago
        Where?
        • Supermancho 5y ago
          > Where? Are you familiar with any recent bomber story at all? All he needed was some matches and a small amount of plastique. Someone put an incendiary in his underwear. There are tons of possibilities. If you can't name 3 ways other than shoes and underwear, you might be in the group that thinks the TSA is fine.
          • xadhominemx 5y ago
            They scan your body for bulky objects under clothing and X-ray luggage. Shoes are the only other location to hide an explosive device.
            • throaway46546 5y ago
              How do they get cellphones into prison?
              • xadhominemx 5y ago
                Mostly guards smuggling them in
                • throaway46546 5y ago
                  Yes, but I think you get where I am coming from.
  • conductr 5y ago
    > mainly security theater I have often noticed policies are different at each airport. Combined with the shoe/belt/imaging policies, I believe it's meant to be a form of confusion. As in, any given security policy/process can be studied for weaknesses. When the policies are differing/changing there is a component of surprise the attacker has to account for that can be difficult to game. However, this is all in my head as I try to understand my observations. Hoping it's all being done intentionally, when chances are it's just local level enforcement picking and choosing what ever they want to enforce any given day depending on who is in charge on that shift.
    • jdavis703 5y ago
      Ever since the pandemic I seem to have been shadow banned from PreCheck, and reading their FAQ the TSA is quite clear they deliberately randomize security, even to the point that getting a PreCheck on the boarding pass isn’t guaranteed.
  • dawnerd 5y ago
    It’s so hard to prove either way if TSA/etc are effective. We can count how many people they stop but there’s no way of knowing how many were just scared away.
• EMM_386 5y ago
  It wasn't related to the Shoe Bomber plot, there was planning around something larger scale. To be honest I don't feel comfortable even linking to this stuff but it's Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
  • h2odragon 5y ago
    > I don't feel comfortable even linking to this stuff Why not? "eww this is propaganda" or "talking about terrorist makes me one?"
    • wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Not everyone is comfortable talking about attempted murder. (Not everyone is comfortable around dogs, either.)
    • EMM_386 5y ago
      > Why not? "eww this is propaganda" or "talking about terrorist makes me one?"' The actual answer is that the page, due to it's dynamic nature, at times consisted of specific details that were probably not relevant to the overall subject. It's not unreasonable in this day and age to be concerned about what you are linking to. In this case it's Wikipedia, so, "sue me".
      • jsight 5y ago
        It is also possible to link to a specific version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bojinka_plot&oldid=1037366750 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bojinka_plot&oldi...
      • h2odragon 5y ago
        thank you for the response, i was actually asking for information; apologies if the tone sounded sarcastic. This detail seems relevant: > Yousef smuggled the nitroglycerin on board by putting it inside a small container, reputedly containing contact lens cleaning solution. if that's the basis of "no liquids on planes" rules then its horseshit. make people shake the bottle at the security checkin. Almost all the security theater relies on things being to scary for people to think about. Nitroglycerin when liquid is not yer friend. Ricin was never the boogeyman the media made it out to be. And on and on for years now.