3 ms·

So many people here are acting like nothing happened to justify the existence of the TSA. Yet, there were two buildings destroyed in the one of the most iconic

So many people here are acting like nothing happened to justify the existence of the TSA. Yet, there were two buildings destroyed in the one of the most iconic cities in the world, the pentagon was damaged, and the Whitehouse was almost also destroyed, with more than 3000 civilians killed, and all of this can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security. Yes, the TSA does a questionable job, but the constant whining and calls to demolish it without the acknowledge of the need for changes from the "good old days" before 9/11 is not only sophomoric but downright dangerous.

chill1 14y ago
You neglected to mention that since 9/11, it would be almost impossible to do now what the hijackers did then. If that were attempted now, a whole plane load of vigilantes would rise up against the hijackers.
- conroe64 14y ago
  It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint to think that nothing should have been done to amp of security and the problem would just take care of itself after the tragedy of 9/11. Yes, maybe the exact same plan wouldn't work again, but downing a plane would take far less compliance by the other passengers than running it into a building.
- readme 14y ago
  Sure, sure... And you know this how? A gut feeling? Remember, there were multiple planes on 9/11, and this did not succeed or happen in any of those situations. I like that you are so sure about this, with no data or anything.
  - logn 14y ago
    Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania or near there? News spread to the passengers and they overcame the hijackers.
    - readme 14y ago
      Is that really why it crashed? If so, that's awesome news. I thought it was shot down.
martinced 14y ago
"...and all of this can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security" Supposedly. You can never be sure about that. Just as people doubt the official version that Jack Ruby did act alone to be alone to know and come so close to Oswald, people can doubt the official version that people managed to hide x-acto knives (or whatever) due to a lack of airport security. The attackers may have had insiders smuggling the knives in. It seems accepted that the hijackers had a support network inside the U.S. They may very well have had help from employees working a the airport.
- conroe64 14y ago
  You float the idea of a conspiracy to smuggle box cutters on a plane? Box cutters? So the terrorists supposedly had the co-conspirators in the airport and out of all the weapons to bring on board, they choose a tool with a one inch blade to take over the plane with, as opposed to something like say, a gun, or even a hunting knife.
- dalke 14y ago
  Are you trolling? There was no need to smuggle knives in. They were allowed under the security rules then in place. I carried my knife on the plane in 2001. I took it out, put it in the basket with my keys, coins, and other metal objects, let it go through X-ray, and put it back in my pocket. Why make up the need for an insider support network when no such need exists? Quoting from the 9/11 Commission Hearing: > Our best working hypothesis is that a number of the hijackers were carrying -- permissible under the regulations in place at the time -- permissible utility knives or pocket knives. One example of such a utility knife is displayed by Mr. Brinkley here, this so-called Leatherman item. We know that at least two knives like this were actually purchased by the hijackers and have not been found in the belongings the hijackers left behind. > The checkpoint operations guide provided no further guidance on how to distinguish between box cutters and pocket utility knives. One of the checkpoint supervisors working at Logan International Airport on September 11th, 2001 recalled that it was her understanding as of that day that while box cutters were not permitted to pass through the checkpoint without the removal of the blade, any knife with a blade of less than four inches was permitted to pass through security.
alan_cx 14y ago
I think I would use the word "excuse" in place of "justify".
- conroe64 14y ago
  Fine, so replace the TSA with what? This is what bothers me, so much condemnation without supplying any alternative.

chill1 14y ago

You neglected to mention that since 9/11, it would be almost impossible to do now what the hijackers did then. If that were attempted now, a whole plane load of vigilantes would rise up against the hijackers.

conroe64 14y ago
It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint to think that nothing should have been done to amp of security and the problem would just take care of itself after the tragedy of 9/11. Yes, maybe the exact same plan wouldn't work again, but downing a plane would take far less compliance by the other passengers than running it into a building.
readme 14y ago
Sure, sure... And you know this how? A gut feeling? Remember, there were multiple planes on 9/11, and this did not succeed or happen in any of those situations. I like that you are so sure about this, with no data or anything.
- logn 14y ago
  Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania or near there? News spread to the passengers and they overcame the hijackers.
  - readme 14y ago
    Is that really why it crashed? If so, that's awesome news. I thought it was shot down.

martinced 14y ago

"...and all of this can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security" Supposedly. You can never be sure about that. Just as people doubt the official version that Jack Ruby did act alone to be alone to know and come so close to Oswald, people can doubt the official version that people managed to hide x-acto knives (or whatever) due to a lack of airport security. The attackers may have had insiders smuggling the knives in. It seems accepted that the hijackers had a support network inside the U.S. They may very well have had help from employees working a the airport.

conroe64 14y ago
You float the idea of a conspiracy to smuggle box cutters on a plane? Box cutters? So the terrorists supposedly had the co-conspirators in the airport and out of all the weapons to bring on board, they choose a tool with a one inch blade to take over the plane with, as opposed to something like say, a gun, or even a hunting knife.
dalke 14y ago
Are you trolling? There was no need to smuggle knives in. They were allowed under the security rules then in place. I carried my knife on the plane in 2001. I took it out, put it in the basket with my keys, coins, and other metal objects, let it go through X-ray, and put it back in my pocket. Why make up the need for an insider support network when no such need exists? Quoting from the 9/11 Commission Hearing: > Our best working hypothesis is that a number of the hijackers were carrying -- permissible under the regulations in place at the time -- permissible utility knives or pocket knives. One example of such a utility knife is displayed by Mr. Brinkley here, this so-called Leatherman item. We know that at least two knives like this were actually purchased by the hijackers and have not been found in the belongings the hijackers left behind. > The checkpoint operations guide provided no further guidance on how to distinguish between box cutters and pocket utility knives. One of the checkpoint supervisors working at Logan International Airport on September 11th, 2001 recalled that it was her understanding as of that day that while box cutters were not permitted to pass through the checkpoint without the removal of the blade, any knife with a blade of less than four inches was permitted to pass through security.

alan_cx 14y ago

I think I would use the word "excuse" in place of "justify".

conroe64 14y ago
Fine, so replace the TSA with what? This is what bothers me, so much condemnation without supplying any alternative.