Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I had a friend who's sister is in a wheel char and every time they go to the airport a "random" check is done on her chair. WTF people really its a bit excessive....shes rolling around in a big metal chair...of course its going to get checked at the airport i dont want some muslim chick pretending to be wheelchair bound so she can smuggle crap through security inside of her unchecked chair... its not like theyre strip searching her, you clearly said they check her chair and not her...thats no different than people having to take off their shoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 shes rolling around in a big metal chair...of course its going to get checked at the airport i dont want some muslim chick pretending to be wheelchair bound so she can smuggle crap through security inside of her unchecked chair... its not like theyre strip searching her, you clearly said they check her chair and not her...thats no different than people having to take off their shoesWhich could be argued to be a bit overboard, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 shes rolling around in a big metal chair...of course its going to get checked at the airport i dont want some muslim chick pretending to be wheelchair bound so she can smuggle crap through security inside of her unchecked chair... its not like theyre strip searching her, you clearly said they check her chair and not her...thats no different than people having to take off their shoesMuslim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Which could be argued to be a bit overboard, as well.yea...nobody has ever put a bomb inside of a shoe before Edited January 28, 2011 by Steve Butters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 yea...nobody has ever put a bomb inside of a shoe before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 how about instead of rolling your eyes, explain your side? why should shoes not have to be checked?i dont want richard reid playing footsie on any flight im on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 how about instead of rolling your eyes, explain your side? why should shoes not have to be checked?i dont want richard reid playing footsie on any flight im onBombs can be worked into any piece of clothing. So clearly there should be a 100% strip search policy when traveling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Bombs can be worked into any piece of clothing. So clearly there should be a 100% strip search policy when traveling.and again, how about trying to explain why you think shoes should not be checked?if you have a bomb knitted into your t-shirt somehow, im pretty sure the wand would pick it up when you step through the scanner and it goes off...if its in a shoe, its down at the ground where its unlikely to even get scanned - and considering most shoes have some sort of metal in/on them, it would drastically slow security lines to wand every single passenger who has little metal eyelets for their shoe laces...furthermore, if you wanted to plant a bomb inside of a shoe, using a shoe with metal eyelets would be a great excuse, or even a steel toed boot... then its going to beep for sure, and you could play it off "oh its just my shoe lace holes and my steel toe" and the wand wouldnt know otherwise....hence the scanner....a steel toe shoe is going to beep either way, so do you suggest that the wand is enough security to check shoes without anybody ever having to remove them?a shoe bomb configued in this mannerusing a steel toe work boot - would be 100% impossible to detect without running it through a scanner - if used with certain brand bootsmy work boots have a steel support shank that runs the entire length of the boot, right under the sole....so my boot would beep in the toe, the heel, and everywhere else Edited January 28, 2011 by Steve Butters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 and again, how about trying to explain why you think shoes should not be checked?if you have a bomb knitted into your t-shirt somehow, im pretty sure the wand would pick it up when you step through the scanner and it goes off...if its in a shoe, its down at the ground where its unlikely to even get scanned - and considering most shoes have some sort of metal in/on them, it would drastically slow security lines to wand every single passenger who has little metal eyelets for their shoe laces...furthermore, if you wanted to plant a bomb inside of a shoe, using a shoe with metal eyelets would be a great excuse, or even a steel toed boot... then its going to beep for sure, and you could play it off "oh its just my shoe lace holes and my steel toe" and the wand wouldnt know otherwise....hence the scanner....a steel toe shoe is going to beep either way, so do you suggest that the wand is enough security to check shoes without anybody ever having to remove them?Richard Reeds shoe bomb wasn't made of metals. Apparently you have a fear of steel toed boots and eyelets in shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Richard Reeds shoe bomb wasn't made of metals. ok so it would not beep in a metal detectorso without a scanner to check shoes, it would be impossible to detect shoe bombsso again...why should shoes not be checked in a scanner? do you think its alright for non-metal shoe bombs to be allowed onto planes, simply because they didnt beep in the metal detector?apparently though, you cant come up with any logical reason for shoes to NOT be checked, so i guess im done trying to debate with ya since all you have is wit and sarcasm regarding this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 You cant come up with any logical reason for shoes to NOT be checked4th Amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 4th Amendment?how so? checking shoes doesnt seem unreasonable to me after what happened with richard reiddo you think people should not be checked at all at airport security? as in, remove the entire security checkpoint from air ports and let people fend for themselves, since its unconstitutional to check them for weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 ok so it would not beep in a metal detectorso without a scanner to check shoes, it would be impossible to detect shoe bombsso again...why should shoes not be checked in a scanner? do you think its alright for non-metal shoe bombs to be allowed onto planes, simply because they didnt beep in the metal detector?apparently though, you cant come up with any logical reason for shoes to NOT be checked, so i guess im done trying to debate with ya since all you have is wit and sarcasm regarding this topicShoes made with explosives in them won't be picked up when put on the belt either. That requires a chemical check....You're not putting up much of a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhondas Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 When are people going to finally realize that profiling in NOT PC but IS a major deterrent to terrorists. Just about EVERY country in the world uses it but us....don't want to draw the lawsuits from the uclu. EVERY AVIATION terrorist attack has been committed by the same religious group and from the same area of the world. GET REAL FOLKS ! THOSE THAT WILL GIVE UP THEIR FREEDOMS FOR SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER. ben franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Shoes made with explosives in them won't be picked up when put on the belt either. That requires a chemical check....You're not putting up much of a debate.a detonator and fuse running from the base of the shoe up to the tongue, would show up - even if the substance wasnt identified. you would be able to physically see the fuse on the scanneralso - new scanners are in the workshttp://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/new-scanning-de.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) how so? checking shoes doesnt seem unreasonable to me after what happened with richard reiddo you think people should not be checked at all at airport security? as in, remove the entire security checkpoint from air ports and let people fend for themselves, since its unconstitutional to check them for weapons?I consider it unreasonable to think all this checking will make you secure. The shoe bomber got THROUGH security, so the search is unreasonable because it's ineffective. Like fusion pointed out... some items can only be detected by chemical means, so I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to implement people remove their shoes. It's silly. Edited January 28, 2011 by JRMMiii 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Explosives don't set off METAL detectors. Explosives could theoretically be enclosed in clothing and go through the checkpoint without detection. How is that goes?Those who give up liberty for (a sense of) security have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I consider it unreasonable to think all this checking will make you secure.agreed.The shoe bomber got THROUGH security, so the search is unreasonable because it's ineffective.security has come a long way since 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 a detonator and fuse running from the base of the shoe up to the tongue, would show up - even if the substance wasnt identified. you would be able to physically see the fuse on the scanneralso - new scanners are in the workshttp://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/new-scanning-de.phpOnly if the detonator and fuse were enough a different density to stand out from the rest of the shoe. Wouldn't take much thought or effort to hide them/make them blend in with the rest of the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 jrmmiii, judd, fusion:do you suggest we eliminate all airport security, due to it being unreasonable because it is ineffective?*serious question, not sarcasm* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 jrmmiii, judd, fusion:do you suggest we eliminate all airport security, due to it being unreasonable because it is ineffective?*serious question, not sarcasm*Why did you say "all airport security"? It's not even a reasonably worded question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 jrmmiii, judd, fusion:do you suggest we eliminate all airport security, due to it being unreasonable because it is ineffective?*serious question, not sarcasm*Eliminate? Probably not. Rethink it, definitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Why did you say "all airport security"? It's not even a reasonably worded question.because i meant all....obviously it is ineffective because people get through it, therefore according to jrmmiii it is unreasonable. so if its unreasonable, should it be removed?should metal detectors, and the scanning belts be removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 You eliminate the time wasting redundancies and the ineffective portions. Ineffective security measures include poorly trained people. Ideally, the system would have near minimal human involvement. The fact that there are humans in the process make it inherently flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.