3 ms·

There's a detterence factor in play. Terrorists won't try to get through precisely because of the intense security.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
If there were terrorists, they would just open fire on the crowded security checkpoints and kill hundreds of people without any complex scheme. This doesn't happen because there is no terrorist threat we need to be on guard against.
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  If it's so obvious, then why didn't this happen on 9/11? Edit: I'm aware that the TSA was created after 9/11. The point I'm making is that it's possible they were able to bring weapons aboard to hijack the planes because security was so lax.
  - wrs 3y ago
    Security checkpoints weren’t crowded before 9/11 because it didn’t take 15 minutes to get through security. I guess this is becoming lost ancient history. There was no ID check. There wasn’t even a boarding pass check — you routinely accompanied departing friends to their gate to see them off. There was none of this shoes off, no liquids, laptop out of the bag, just an x-ray and a metal detector. The threat model before 9/11 was hijacking, not suicide bombers.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Because a hour-long security line is something that happened after? IIRC there actually was a terrorist attack on a TSA line in the early 2000s.
    - bediger4000 3y ago
      Yes, that's why we couldn't bring more than 4 ounces of liquid on planes. The theatre about liquids did nothing to address the problems revealed by that attack.
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    There weren’t crowded security checkpoints on 9/11.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  I think you'll find terrorists do exist, and you do need to be on your guard. Whether the specific airplane controls we have now are effective or required is still a good conversation to have, but you draw the wrong conclusion if you think there is simply no threat.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I used to think this until I realized that the theoretical point isn't to prevent great loss of life, it's to prevent the usage of airplanes as a weapon. Malls, subways, concerts, sports games were always target-rich...targets, but a plane can be used to attack infrastructure and militarily significant targets (e.g. the Pentagon) and to kill far more people with lighter weapons than you could otherwise. Of course, this could never happen. It's been said to death, but the conventional wisdom before 9/11 was to allow plane hijackers to run their course and assume that all they wanted was cash, to just sit tight and wait for them to set down somewhere. Not even after, but mid 9/11 people realized that old paradigm was out and the passengers of the fourth plane the cockpit door, preventing the usage of the plane as a weapon. Post 9/11, nobody could hijack a plane with box-cutters anymore - enough people would rather be stabbed than see their plane be used as a weapon that it's simply insufficient, especially since if they crash the plane you're probably dead anyway.
navane 3y ago
Six people each bring 50ml tooth paste on a plane, after take off, they combine it to 300ml. What are you gonna do.
- harkinian 3y ago
  Maybe 300ml is still fine, but they set the limit to 50ml so it takes too many people to combine them into something useful. Also idk what a ml is.
- andrewaylett 3y ago
  I was quite shocked after a few years of liquid checks to discover that it is actually in response to a realistic threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl... -- details that emerged during the trial, and the conclusion reported by El Reg: https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/ https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/
Ekaros 3y ago
I always wondered about well planned groups. Like wouldn't they use other avenues, infiltrate not as passengers, but as workers or import stuff to shops and restaurants... Either by getting hired or paying some poorly paid worker.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

If there were terrorists, they would just open fire on the crowded security checkpoints and kill hundreds of people without any complex scheme. This doesn't happen because there is no terrorist threat we need to be on guard against.

StableAlkyne 3y ago
If it's so obvious, then why didn't this happen on 9/11? Edit: I'm aware that the TSA was created after 9/11. The point I'm making is that it's possible they were able to bring weapons aboard to hijack the planes because security was so lax.
- wrs 3y ago
  Security checkpoints weren’t crowded before 9/11 because it didn’t take 15 minutes to get through security. I guess this is becoming lost ancient history. There was no ID check. There wasn’t even a boarding pass check — you routinely accompanied departing friends to their gate to see them off. There was none of this shoes off, no liquids, laptop out of the bag, just an x-ray and a metal detector. The threat model before 9/11 was hijacking, not suicide bombers.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Because a hour-long security line is something that happened after? IIRC there actually was a terrorist attack on a TSA line in the early 2000s.
  - bediger4000 3y ago
    Yes, that's why we couldn't bring more than 4 ounces of liquid on planes. The theatre about liquids did nothing to address the problems revealed by that attack.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  There weren’t crowded security checkpoints on 9/11.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
I think you'll find terrorists do exist, and you do need to be on your guard. Whether the specific airplane controls we have now are effective or required is still a good conversation to have, but you draw the wrong conclusion if you think there is simply no threat.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
I used to think this until I realized that the theoretical point isn't to prevent great loss of life, it's to prevent the usage of airplanes as a weapon. Malls, subways, concerts, sports games were always target-rich...targets, but a plane can be used to attack infrastructure and militarily significant targets (e.g. the Pentagon) and to kill far more people with lighter weapons than you could otherwise. Of course, this could never happen. It's been said to death, but the conventional wisdom before 9/11 was to allow plane hijackers to run their course and assume that all they wanted was cash, to just sit tight and wait for them to set down somewhere. Not even after, but mid 9/11 people realized that old paradigm was out and the passengers of the fourth plane the cockpit door, preventing the usage of the plane as a weapon. Post 9/11, nobody could hijack a plane with box-cutters anymore - enough people would rather be stabbed than see their plane be used as a weapon that it's simply insufficient, especially since if they crash the plane you're probably dead anyway.

navane 3y ago

Six people each bring 50ml tooth paste on a plane, after take off, they combine it to 300ml. What are you gonna do.

harkinian 3y ago
Maybe 300ml is still fine, but they set the limit to 50ml so it takes too many people to combine them into something useful. Also idk what a ml is.
andrewaylett 3y ago
I was quite shocked after a few years of liquid checks to discover that it is actually in response to a realistic threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl... -- details that emerged during the trial, and the conclusion reported by El Reg: https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/ https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/

Ekaros 3y ago

I always wondered about well planned groups. Like wouldn't they use other avenues, infiltrate not as passengers, but as workers or import stuff to shops and restaurants... Either by getting hired or paying some poorly paid worker.