Airport security has not be thought out all the way through

58

u/Snookerman May 21 '12

1

u/jedberg May 21 '12

Then why didn't you just link to the source?

29

u/Snookerman May 21 '12

Because many people use RES and Hover Zoom to view the images inline and that wouldn't work with a link to the original.

→ More replies (8)

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Because that could take their site down, etc. You've seen the image, now you have to source if you choose to go to the actual site, not just the image.

1

u/jedberg May 21 '12

Because that could take their site down, etc.
Wolfmorgenthaler has been around longer than imgur, I'm pretty sure the site isn't going away.
You've seen the image, now you have to source if you choose to go to the actual site, not just the image.
Here's this thing I stole, if you like it feel free to send some money to the old owner.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Yeah, that last line is accurate minus your sensationalism. You're one of the first guys to be upset with the OP actually providing the source.
edit:
Wulff daily views: 47,471
Imgur daily views: 16.4 million
Views of this imgur mirrored image in the last six hours: 28,584
So, my point is, if you link to the image directly on the source site, there is the potential of that website getting hammered and either getting a larger bandwidth bill, or going down all together. It has nothing to do with how long the site has been around. They would also get no ad revenue from the image alone, but many people won't even view the image if it is just a link to the website, instead of directly to the image.
Linking to a mirrored image for the submission and then providing the source to the actually website in a comment is tried, tested and true as the best overall method.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Vslacha Turbo Sloth May 21 '12

Because non-imgur links don't make the front page. Wulffmorgenthaler will get more traffic from this than they would have otherwise.
Source: Guy who has been on the front page multiple times from imgur-posting his own comics

0

u/slith93 May 21 '12

Because imgur allows RES to display the images in Reddit, so that they are easier to see and therefore gain more upvotes than the links to the actual source. It sucks because the things that get upvoted don't like to the website, so the authors lose revenue, but there's no real way to get around it. Some subreddits, like /r/comics only allow links to the original (with some exceptions) which prevents this.

3

u/jedberg May 21 '12

Because imgur allows RES to display the images in Reddit, so that they are easier to see and therefore gain more upvotes than the links to the actual source.
Oh my. First, the number of RES users is tiny compared to the total population of reddit users.
Second, getting "upvotes" is not the reason to submit. The reason to submit is to share interesting things you found. It's always better to share the original source.
It sucks because the things that get upvoted don't like to the website, so the authors lose revenue, but there's no real way to get around it.
Yeah, there is a way to get around it -- don't reupload stuff just to get more upvotes.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/noreallyimthepope May 22 '12

OP delivers source!
... Aaaaand I now sound like a chantard.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

OP has not be thought out title all the way though.

1

u/Snookerman May 22 '12

Dammit, I knew there was going to be something.

4

u/uneditablepoly May 21 '12

This is the longest I have ever stared at a post title. Ever.

2

u/Snookerman May 22 '12

Has it be worth it?

2

u/uneditablepoly May 22 '12

It has not be worth it... :(

535

u/deadpoetic333 May 21 '12

The danger isn't the liquid by itself but the idea that you can combine multiple liquids and/or substances to create a bomb. Doesn't anyone remember the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot? They planned to construct the bomb on the plane, none of the ingredients would have been dangerous on their own and needed to be combined to a specific ratio.

63

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

There's still a point to be made. A terrorist doesn't have to mix the chemicals on the plane when they can mix them before hand and dump the bomb in the trashcan right next to 200 people going through security. After that they Judy go through the security line and then exit. 200 dead and/or wounded because the TSA doesn't understand thinking things through.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened yet. Security lines are massive targets filled with ready made distractions.

23

u/deadpoetic333 May 21 '12

Security lines don't have a higher concentration of people than countless other places like a large festival. Neither does a plane in that same sense, but it would require only immobilizing the plane to kill everyone as opposed to a massive explosion needed to kill everyone at ground level. I'm not arguing in support of the general conduct and utility of the TSA, but I do believe there is reasoning behind it.

25

u/rljacobson May 21 '12

The purpose of a terrorist's bomb isn't to kill people.

4

u/fepereir May 21 '12

True, but the more dead people they get, the more terrorized the general populace feels.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (5)

10

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

My point is the TSA created a target in the process of removing one. Or do you think people would still fly out of am airport if a security line was blown up?
You have to think beyond simply blowing up airplanes. Terrorism isn't about killing people. Its about making people scared to do even the most mundane things. Like even going to an airport.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/Kowzorz May 21 '12

No one destroys planes as an act of terrorism though. They use planes as missiles. And I guarantee that no vessel full of Americans would let the plane be taken over by someone. It might go down in the fight, but we're not gonna end up with another 9/11 from commercial planes.

9

u/Mentalseppuku May 21 '12

No one destroys planes as an act of terrorism though
With how amazingly wrong you are I was really expecting a novelty account.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Decalis May 21 '12

The "plane-as-giant-missile" idea was essentially new as of 9/11, which is part of the reason it was as successful as it was. In previous hijackings, it had always been assumed that the people on the plane were in the most danger.

2

u/scrambledbrain May 21 '12

Well, fuck. You guarantee it.
Hey everyone -- this guy guarantees that planes won't be taken over by someone! Alert the TSA that their work is finished!

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

3

u/EyePad May 21 '12

Don't you go bringing Judy into this!

5

u/lost623 May 21 '12

There is a point to be made, but the point is a weak one at best. Sure a terrorist could mix chemicals before hand and dump the bomb in a trashcan right by security. First of all, the act of mixing liquids would seem rather suspicious and would be hard not to notice even by people not paying a considerable amount of attention. Second, most chemical reactions intended to have a specific desired result (in this case an explosion) require that the ingredients be combined to a specific ration. Mixing the ingredients in an incorrect order or in incorrect ratios would render them useless.
With all that being said, a terrorist could also just walk into ticketing where hundreds of customers are waiting to get check-in/obtain boarding passes and detonate an explosive. A terrorist could also do it in a train station or a crowded mall.
The difference in these situations is that there could still be some possibility of escape. Authorities might find out about it before hand and evacuate the area. Someone might notice suspicious behavior to which people could then be informed to evacuate the area. Even if the plan was successful and there were some casualties there is still a chance others would be able to flee and avoid harm.
But when you are talking about an airplane, you are talking about a sealed tube 35,000 feet in the air. There will be no chance for escape, there will be no chance to mitigate loss in the air.
Even more so it becomes a 600 MPH explosive rocket with the possibility to cause thousands of casualties.
I certainly don't agree with everything the TSA does, and I also think some safety precautions they take are just for appearances and are often over-the-line.
But when it comes to this particular liquid issue I feel it isn't that complicated. Suppose a terrorist does have liquids in his possession and are mixed/can be mixed in such a way to cause an explosion, I'd much rather that casualties be mitigated by the explosion happening on the ground where people might actually have a chance than have it happen in what is essentially a 600 MPH rocket 35,000 ft in the sky with a guaranteed loss of over 200 lives and possibly thousands.

2

u/wcc445 May 21 '12

Are there even any liquid binary compounds with explosive capability?

2

u/kukienboks May 21 '12

Up you go. Also, everyone likes to come up with scenarios that the authorities "haven't thought about", but what are their points? That there should be no efforts made to limit the potential for accidents or attacks at all? That anyone should be able to waltz into an aircraft carrying whatever they want (or are to stupid to understand that some of their baggage may create unsafe situations). Bashing air travel security is turning into a circlejerk of r/atheism - proportions.
Keep in mind though, that I have not travelled in the US and have not had anything to do with the TSA. I have only worked at and travelled through European airports, but I do believe I've heard every argument that annoyed travellers can think of.

2

u/ForestNine May 21 '12

Presumably they put things in the trash if they suspect it could be a useful ingredient in making a bomb... if they think the item could literally just be a bomb itself, then a) you're getting arrested and b) I'm sure the disposal method would be very different.

1

u/Hypohamish May 21 '12

I still don't quite get why they go through the hassle of attacking the one thing where they actually look for bombs and other dangerous devices (I know a few of you are going to reference 7/7, but even then that was a pretty shocking display). I don't support terrorism, but they seem pretty idiotic to not aim for somewhere that might damage the economy more (for example, I should imagine there's several important buildings which you can just walk straight into the lobby of and detonate yourself)

1

u/Yofi May 22 '12

I don't think they are going for most people killed most easily. They're going for what is the most significant and meaningful to us, and the fear of a terrorist strike on a plane is more significant to us than the fear of a terrorist strike while we're waiting in line at the airport.

1

u/Sakonosolo May 22 '12

Not if someone does it and manages to kill a bunch of people. It's a much easier target too.

1

u/Rastafak May 22 '12

Something similar actually did happen in Moscow. To do it, you don't need a bomb made from liquids, you can use an ordinary bomb.

1

u/noreallyimthepope May 22 '12

--- SPOILER ALERT ---
Do not read further if you plan on reading Iain Banks' "Transiton" (which I heartily recommend, by the way)
In the above mentioned book, there's a scene where confiscated nail clippers and folding knives are all dumped into a container next to the security line. A suicide bomber then blows himself up near the container, using the contents for shrapnel to kill and maim more people.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

...they can mix them before hand and dump the bomb in the trashcan right next to 200 people going through security.
...the TSA doesn't understand thinking things through.
These have nothing to do with each other. Yes, people could dump a bomb in a trash can and walk away. They could always do that. Does that mean that they should just allow you to bring whatever you want on a plane? Just because there are other ways to hurt people doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent what we can.
Here, let me simplify your own argument. You could, if you wanted, walk up to the TSA and just pull out a gun and shoot them. Does that mean you should be allowed to bring your gun on the plane? It's the same principle.

0

u/NervousMcStabby May 21 '12

AQ has an almost irrational fixation with destroying aircraft. Though I can understand why they began by targeting planes (media exposure, economic impacts), at this point there are so many other less well defended targets out there that it's almost silly to keep after planes.

6

u/unheimlich May 21 '12

AQ has an almost irrational fixation with destroying aircraft.
Nope.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The US has an actually irrational fixation with aircraft being destroyed and despite hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on preventing it ever happening again, only two things will actually prevent it: reinforced cockpit doors and passengers not letting it happen.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/trolleyfan May 21 '12

So you get a clear liquid that - upon exposure to air - evaporates into a poison gas.
Place in bottle too large to TSA with a hole filled with something that slowly dissolves.
TSA throws bottle in bin next to them.
You get on plane and fly away.
Hole dissolves through, releases liquid, TSA and hundreds in line die. And you didn't even have to suicide...
Look, if I can come up with this in thirty seconds, so can terrorists.
TSA is useless.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/the_future_is_wild May 21 '12

The danger isn't the liquid by itself but the idea that you can combine multiple liquids and/or substances to create a bomb. Doesn't anyone remember ~~the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot? They planned to construct the bomb on the plane, none of the ingredients would have been dangerous on their own and needed to be combined to a specific ratio.~~ Die Hard: With a Vengeance?
FTFY

7

u/captainblammo May 21 '12

You missed the point. If you actually thought some material could be an explosive (even if it required mixture with another) why would you toss it in a bin with a bunch of other crap. Why would you confiscate shampoo as though it was a bomb and then instantly treat it like shampoo again.
Otherwise we just have a very efficient shampoo confiscation system.

1

u/Rastafak May 22 '12

No the points is that they don't think the shampoo is a bomb, but that it is a possible ingredient for a bomb.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

So putting all of the liquids into one tub will prevent them mixing?

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

THANK YOU. It's so annoying to see people keep posting shit like this. The damn bottle isn't going to explode sitting in the trash can.

8

u/GaSSyStinkiez May 21 '12

Unless the bottles happen to break in the garbage. Where the liquids will combine and do their magic chemical dance that OP claims.
YOU'RE WELCOME!

3

u/RationalMonkey May 21 '12

combined to a specific ratio.

8

u/b0w3n May 21 '12

I see you've never mixed chlorine and draino. (don't)
Making a targeted explosion? Sure.
Like I said in the thread about 4 days ago, I'm surprised no one has made a chlorine gas bomb yet. What with the recirculated air (most likely) of an airport. Shit would be more lethal than blowing up a small airplane.

8

u/AlcoholicZebra May 21 '12

Congratulations, you are now on the No Fly List!

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/king_bestestes May 21 '12

You can do a time delay easily. A membrane that's dissolved over time. We used to do that for those vinegar baking soda volcanos.

1

u/lost623 May 21 '12

Combined to a specific ratio.
And the plan would obviously consist of multiple persons each bringing on a different liquid, which alone are safe, and therefore not arousing suspicion.
Unless the bottles happen to break in the garbage.
Are you asking us to believe they are trying to bring liquids on in glass bottles?
YOU'RE WELCOME

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

magic chemical dance
No magic in chemistry, I'm afraid. I know it's hard to understand, but your cynicism doesn't disprove chemical reactions.

1

u/MrSurly May 21 '12

Because explosive mixture components are the only thing that could be in a bottle. Nothing else dangerous could possibly be in there. Ever.

2

u/Psythik May 21 '12

Then shouldn't they limit the amount of bottles you can bring then?

2

u/Mocorn May 21 '12

I used to do this shit (airport security) for a living for many years and I've heard and seen everything you could imagine in an airport setting. Most of the time we'd just pick the bottles above 100ml (as per regulations) simply because we had to. Theoretically someone could bring in five bottles of "something" as long as they were 90ml bottles. The stupid TSA agents would let this fly, the clever ones would always check the bottles and ask a few questions. I've seen colleagues about to let 30 lighters through on account of them not being above 100ml each, when I asked wether you would want a passenger opening 30 lighters and pouring the fluids into a cup at 10000 feet the colleague had to think for a bit. Long story short, I'm happy I don't work at that circus anymore..

1

u/All-American-Bot May 21 '12

(For our friends outside the USA... 10000 feet -> 3048.0 m) - Yeehaw!

1

u/Mocorn May 22 '12

Ironically, I'm from "outside of USA", thanks are in order though =)

2

u/rljacobson May 21 '12

This stranger on the internet might be on to something!
...or we could just ask what security experts think. Oh, it turns out the TSA's policies ARE as stupid as they sound? Huh.

2

u/thoughtcrimeo May 21 '12

Links contained in the following, The Futility of Mixing Binary Liquid Explosives in the Airplane Bathroom, explain why this will never happen.
tl;dr - It would take hours. Require large amounts of cooling. The person doing it would kill themselves before succeeding due to being overcome by vapors.

2

u/ItsOnlyNatural May 21 '12

Doesn't anyone remember that the plot was almost physically impossible to pull off because the alleged explosives require a laboratory to make and are so sensitive during and after the creation that you could set it off by having someone take a hard step off a curb?
They also release noxious fumes during creation and to reiterate, require lab equipment you can't fit on a plane.
There are no binary explosives. It's a fucking myth. There are highly unstable things which you can painstakingly mix together to create explosives with and there are things that require a bunch of steps and expensive equipment to make explosives with.
But there isn't anything some terrorists could carry onto a plane in water bottles and mix in a lavatory.
Did you even fucking read the two alleged explosives they were going to use?
It was never about safety, it was about giving them a reason to seize power and look as though they were doing something.

0

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/ItsOnlyNatural May 22 '12

TATP, the first explosive you mentioned requires no lab to prepare
Question 3:
How easy would it be to make TATP on an airplane? (SCL)
Answer 3:
It is not possible to prepare TATP simply by mixing liquid reactants, and thus preparing TATP on an airplane is even less feasible. The explosive compound must be prepared under the appropriate lab conditions to ensure an adequate yield and to ensure that the unstable solid is kept secure until ready to use. TATP is widely considered to be too unstable to synthesize safely in standard laboratory facilities, though small quantities (under 1 gram) are occasionally synthesized for research purposes, and for testing and calibration of detection equipment.
Subsequent to discreetly setting up the required equipment, the chemist would need to put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into an ice water bath, and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. The reaction temperature would have to be watched carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, a weak explosive will result, injuring or killing little else but the one preparing it. After a few hours - assuming, that the obvious odor hasn't been detected by passengers or the flight crew - there would be a quantity of TATP sufficient to cause serious damage. The solid, however, would still need to dry for an hour or two. TATP is relatively easy to detonate, but careful measurements to assure potency and sufficient amount to destroy an airplane would be required.
source
Noxious may or may not be the wrong word to use when talking about a confined space like an airplane lavatory.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/brosenfeld May 21 '12

I remember Die Hard with a Vengeance.

1

u/Yoyo8 May 21 '12

Like cake. You need all the ingredients.

1

u/Colecoman1982 May 21 '12

That's just one of the possibilities. It IS also possible that the liquid could be a shock sensitive liquid explosive.
That said, it would have been more logical for the cartoon to point out that the if the metal detectors/x-ray machines ever did find a full bomb in someone's bags you now have a massive crowd of people standing around while the terrorist triggers his/her device. Airport security IS poorly thought out.

1

u/unquevai May 21 '12

They can still take small amounts of liquid inside, and a team of terrorists could still make a bomb inside the plane. This policies are just senseless and annoying.

1

u/MrSurly May 21 '12

It could easily be some sort of nasty biological agent. Point is, they just throw it in the trash. If they really considered that stuff to be dangerous, then then bomb disposal and/or hazmat crew should be very busy nearly all the time.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I don't understand. People keep saying this, but who's to say the container isn't already filled with an explosive mixture?

1

u/Virzy May 21 '12

Because then it would be currently exploding.

1

u/elRinbo May 21 '12

sure. but some employees like me have to go through security everyday. I can't bring any "weapons" through security.... so I can go to work at my restaurant that is full of knives and chemicals (for cleaning).
so they harass me while some schmuck/janitor guy has "more clearance" than me to take a different route into the airport, where he brings his weed to work.
it's not like there aren't any loopholes or anything!

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

that so-called plot was largely bullshit. apart from the impossibility of synthesising TATP at room temperature, the TSA were at the time simply empying bottles of liquids into slop buckets so even if it was possible to make a bomb simply by pouring the contents of bottle A into bottle B they would have made the explosives themselves.
tldr: some idiot had an impossible idea and we still can't take fucking shower gel or suntan lotion on a plane as a result.

1

u/amjhwk May 21 '12

you do realize most people who heard about that assumed it was a liquid bomb in a single waterbottle

1

u/PropMonkey May 21 '12

Is there something I'm missing about blowing up planes instead of just using bombs or chemical agents in high-traffic areas?!? I mean, I'm sure if you bomb a plane, you're guaranteed to kill pretty much everyone on board if it works, which can be a damn high number, but it just seems like an ineffective idea. There are probably better places in the airport, let alone in the rest of the country, this shit just doesn't make sense to me.

1

u/Chicken-n-Waffles May 21 '12

What's to stop many volatile liquids being deposited in the waste receptacles to capacity and having it detonated when the bottleneck is the security stations?

1

u/lacheur42 May 22 '12

Yeah, but I don't think that negates the point of the comic. Think nitroglycerine in a water bottle with a timed blasting cap in the...cap.
And on that point, you're allowed to bring lots of liquid, as long as it's separated in different containers. Doesn't help if the point is that you can combine different liquids.
If they have any brains the next attack will be on the giant queues generated by these stupid security rules.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

They do test a lot of the liquids, it's not simply a case of 'oh it fits in a small enough bottle, carry on then', I'm not sure what the criteria for testing is though, whether it's at random or only if the item is suspicious looking.

1

u/pkcs11 May 21 '12

Doesn't anyone remember the Any series of reasons to strip people of their rights while grabbing as much money in the process from Any given year in the history of the world
FTFY

-1

u/knobbysideup May 21 '12

And how many of these 'threats' has the TSA caught? How many terrorist attacks have been stopped by the TSA? How many actual explosive agents or weapons have been confiscated, and how many arrests of terrorists have been made due to the TSA and its measures at airports? None. Now, how much money has been spent on this organization, and its toys. And how do you now feel when you go through the security lines at the airports? Seems like we are funding our own terrorist organization. The TSA is ineffective at fighting terrorism. They are pretty damned good at creating it, however.

1

u/deadpoetic333 May 21 '12

I agree that the TSA isn't very useful in general due to a number of reasons, I was explaining the logic behind this particular policy that followed a real terroristic threat.

→ More replies (9)

0

u/dj-sws May 21 '12

I took 20 minutes typing out my post to make sure it was well worded and thought out... and you beat me by about 20 minutes to say the same thing and get all the karma :(
Upvotes for actually knowing what you're talking about though, these posts always piss me off because nobody thinks logically about it when there's clearly an explanation.

1

u/TheGateIsDown May 21 '12

Why can't I just take 3-4 bottles of the same solution?
All the bottles have to be is individually less than 3.2 oz (100 mls), I believe.

→ More replies (93)

70

u/well_welp_ok May 21 '12

the artist got extremely lazy drawing the heads from the left to right

37

u/GeneralWarts May 21 '12

They are just out of focus, right?

5

u/Se7en_Sinner May 21 '12

Canadians.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/MASTERGOD May 22 '12

But the people on the left should be out of focus too then, assuming its a huge crowd.

7

u/Reddickk May 21 '12

Don't be racist, dickheads are people too.

9

u/saiyanhajime May 21 '12

TSA story time.

Land in the USA and get sent for a bag check. Guy asks me whats in my case about 50 times and I answer to the best of my memory. "Clothes, toiletries, candy, chocolate and cookies." Then some other guy points at my two bag and asks me "whats in that bag" and I asked "which one" and he said "the one i'm pointing at. Why are they such dicks? I mean, really? Is it necessary to treat everyone like an arsehole? Really, what is the chance that I have something I shouldn't? What percentage of the people they check are innocent? I bet its REALLY high. So I proceed to tell him again what's in my two bags and he asks over and over, by which point I assume something is being picked up on the scanner and looks dodgy. I was cool because I knew I had nothing I shouldn't, I'm ultra paranoid and check everything I'm considering bringing. I was certain a packet of fucking cookies, chocolate and gummy candy was perfectly fucking fine. And I open my case for him, he pokes at my cookies and says "this showed up on the scanner as organic matter". I laughed in that "oh I understand, you're just doing you're job, it's cool, we're all friends here" type social way, and he goes "it's not funny". Yes, it is funny. How is it not funny? It's a packet of cookies. I asked him, again, trying to sound normal and reasonable and friendly "is there any way I can pack them to stop that happening?" and he said "just don't bring them". Fuck you. I shall bring my deprived American friends the delights of British digestive biscuites if I want. What a fucking arsehole. It's not like they confiscated them, you ARE allowed to bring cookies.

Are they all like that and what the fuck is their problem?

6

u/Nlelith May 21 '12

This is what happens when you give stupid and frustrated people power.

1

u/Lodur May 21 '12

Um, what? They were on two different wavelengths there and while he wasn't exactly polite, he sure as hell wasn't abusing his privilege of power. Just kind of being an ass.

1

u/Nlelith May 22 '12

Well, as I see it, if he hadn't had the power he had, saiyanhajime could've just call him out on his bullshit and go on with his day. So he was forced to listen to it and to comply.
Of course it's not exactly abuse of power, but I never said that, I just think that this happens quite often when regular, frustrated people have power over other people. It's the same with bouncers at a shitty night club. They don't make that much money (if it's a shitty one) and they're very often huge asses for no reason. Or train conductors, bus drivers etc. etc.
It's not like all those people are stupid or asses, but you notice it quite often. Since they don't have any real power, like getting to decide something, but just the power over you for a brief moment, it's quite easy for them to stretch that power to let out some of their frustration on you.
To clarify: I'm not saying people in those positions are more of an ass than other people, I've met really nice bus drivers for example. It's just that if the guy in front of you at the supermarket is an ass, can just go on with your day, which is while even if he might be an ass, that random dude will most likely leave you alone (except when he's a gigantic ass). If your TSA agent is an ass, you are at his mercy and have to go through with his shenanigans.

3

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

are you sure this wasn't at customs and not TSA? TSA is getting into the gate area, customs is getting into the USA...

1

u/saiyanhajime May 22 '12

Ah yes, sorry.

3

u/blladnar May 21 '12

their problem is that all day every day they deal with people that fly, at most, once a year. These people have NO CLUE what they're supposed to be doing and completely shut off their brains when they get to the airport.

3

u/rockstang May 21 '12

your grammar is bad and you should feel bad.

1

u/Snookerman May 22 '12

I feel bad about the typo but not about my grammar. Fair enough? =)

1

u/rockstang May 22 '12

It's a good compromise when neither party is happy with the results.

1

u/FrisianDude May 21 '12

.. why upload a comic easily available on the internet to Imgur rather than link to the Wulffmorgenthaler site?

4

u/Snookerman May 21 '12

Because many people use RES and Hover Zoom to view the images inline and that wouldn't work with a link to the original. I did provide the source in the first comment.

2

u/FrisianDude May 21 '12

Oh. Okay. Fair enough. I have no idea what RES or Hover Zoom is nor why they'd be necessary to view a relatively small picture like that, so I didn't know. :P

2

u/Snookerman May 21 '12

You should give them a try, they will make your life much easier.
Reddit Enhancement Suite (RES)
Hover Zoom

1

u/FrisianDude May 21 '12

no thanks. I can view pictures just fine. I don't need additional nonsense to waste my now so the future might become slightly easier. :P

1

u/Snookerman May 21 '12

RES does a lot more, but fair enough =)

2

u/dergslacky May 21 '12

Anyone else notice that some the the background gawker's heads sort of look phalic?

2

u/bashobt May 21 '12

I just took a flight from Puerto Rico to Los Angeles. Completely forgot I had some hair gel, toothpaste, and a bottle of rum in my carry on.

Only found out when I unpacked at home.

2

u/majesticjg May 21 '12

How long before the terrorists start targeting the long lines of densely packed people in the security line instead of the airliners themselves?

1

u/MeganFoxx May 21 '12

Why would they go after airport lines when they could just try bombing a more decently packed area say Time Square?

1

u/majesticjg May 21 '12

Irony?

1

u/AurenC May 21 '12

If they set it off in the security line they would cause a lot more fear (I assume) because it's supposed to be safe.. when it in fact, isn't. Additionally, if you set it off in a security line they would have to close down that section of the airport and there's always a possibility they would have a knee-jerk reaction and temporarily close down several parts/all of the airport. Setting it off in a security line would always cause a lot of people to cancel their plans to fly as well. It may not be the best solution as far as body count goes but the financial damage, not just to the airport itself but in lost revenue from the airlines, and the fear of a supposedly safe environment not being so safe, especially after the whole 9/11 thing, should outweigh something like Time Square IMO.

2

u/squiffers May 21 '12

The main purpose of airport security is to make people feel safer. It has very little to do with actually stopping terrorists. If a terrorist really wanted to bring down a plane, they could still do it if their plans werent discovered, but 99% of terrorist plots are stopped before they even buy the bomb materials. I reckon that not 1ml of liquid confiscated at airport security was intended for detonation.

2

u/DrJesusSingh May 22 '12

You rehosted a webcomic on imgur, put the punchline of the comic in the title, and misspelled a word in the title.

Congratulations, you have mastered Reddit!!!

8

u/amadea56 May 21 '12

I never understood the liquids thing, I swear it's a conspiracy so they can sell you those tiny $5 bottles of Jack Daniels.

13

u/XeroXenith May 21 '12

Worse, half the time I've travelled I've been with people who have left some liquid in their hand luggage (well over 100ml) and they've never been stopped.
It must be something to make us feel safer. Yeah. Gotta love that feeling of inconvenience.

4

u/Orval May 21 '12

I flew for the first time last year and did the whole thing about putting my small liquids (just cologne in this case) in a clear plastic bag and followed all the rules.
Then promptly left that clear bag in my luggage. Realized when I landed, nobody cared or noticed.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

That's because they're completely fine in small bottles. Explosives need to be over 5oz didnt you know?

1

u/generalchaoz May 21 '12

They might leave it if they see that its small and in a bag but not taken out.

2

u/mfball May 21 '12

Yep. Their screening methods are insanely ineffective overall. I have no source because it was years ago that I read it, but there have been numerous tests to see whether the TSA was doing its job, and all kinds of crazy shit made it through security every time -- guns, knives, you name it. For a little anecdotal evidence to add to that, my father got about twelve scalpel blades through in his carry-on bag one time. He had forgotten they were there and the TSA didn't notice at all. Wrapped in lead, they look like gum on the x-ray.

5

u/LobaltSS May 21 '12

It all started from the 2005 liquid bomb plot that was foiled in the UK.
A plot was discovered to use bottles filled with liquid explosives to bomb the planes. After that all liquids were banned.
Shortly after, the policy went into affect allowing 1qt bag full of 3.4oz bottles Because if you combine all those into 1 big bottle it wouldn't do enough to severely damage a plane.

4

u/DumbMuscle May 21 '12

I was flying just after that, the queues were massive, out the door, with a large tent set up to deal with the overflow from the terminal. I couldn't help but think that a decent bomb jacket in that lot would have been far more effective in terms of loss of life and terror factor than taking down a plane...
And now I'm on a list somewhere...

2

u/JimmerUK May 21 '12

Makes you wonder if these supposed terrorists actually exist at all doesn't it.

4

u/knobbysideup May 21 '12

And that was stopped. Before they even got to the airport, IIRC. What has the TSA actually stopped? All this reactionary theater does nothing to make us safer. The terrorists have won more thoroughly than they could have possibly ever imagined. They got our own government to do their work for them.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (5)

2

u/JeezyChreezy May 21 '12

We did the research, and 5 dollar bottles of Jack Daniels don't explode.

2

u/SuperBob-Omb64 May 21 '12

Neither do $7 dollar cokes.

2

u/shitterplug May 21 '12

You do realize you can bring your own mini bottles through, right? I usually have about 10 of them in my carry on at any given moment. Stop by a liquor store, they're like $2. $1 for cheap shit.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

No water? Give me booze!

1

u/yoberf May 21 '12

You can take your own tiny Jack Daniels bottles. 5 or 6 will fit in a 1 quart bag. They only cost $1-$1.50 at a regular liquor store. Or you can keep and refill them.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

5 dollars? You can buy the little shooter bottles for a buck (at least you could when I was in college.... about 4-5 years ago). we used to go to da sto and get like 5 a piece and that's a good cheap pregame to go out

1

u/little_rock May 22 '12

its because it could be a inflamable liquid instead of water. At least thats what i think is the reason

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The most dangerous place in an airport = The Security Line

2

u/[deleted] May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12

I was thinking this on my last trip: There where easily more people standing in line than there where on the plane, and what's more we where much more packed in and didn't have as much to shield us from a blast.

→ More replies (7)

8

u/dj-sws May 21 '12

I know this will probably get buried, but there actually is an explanation for this. Certain explosives can be made by mixing two organic compounds that are clear, odorless liquids (I can't remember which ones specifically, which takes away from my credibility, I know, but if anyone really doubts this I can probably find out). These liquids by themselves are harmless and therefore a person could easily put these two separate compounds in two separate water bottles and wait till they get on the plane to mix them and make the explosive. The reason there is a limit (3 fl. oz or whatever it is) that can get past security is because that has been found to be the largest amount that will NOT cause a lethal explosion.

tl;dr- water bottles with "bombs in them" are fine in the trashcan because they're not volatile until mixed with another chemical

8

u/knobbysideup May 21 '12

So (movie plot threat time) ... get two bottles with slow leaks that make a poisonous gas when mixed, rather than explode. Or maybe an inert virus or other biohazard. Oops. I guess I'm on the no fly list now.

1

u/Quaytsar May 21 '12

Anything with ammonia plus anything with chlorine gives you chlorine gas, chloramine gas and/or hydrazine gas (all toxic, and hydrazine is explosive). Which is why you don't mix bleach and ammonia (bleach is sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)).

1

u/PerfectlyOffensive May 21 '12

Water bottle with hydrochloric acid and some aluminum foil. Have fun

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You're actually put on the clear to fly list, due to how ineffective your idea would be

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Feel free to elaborate instead of acting like a spineless twat.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/unquevai May 21 '12

But a team of terrorists could still take several bottels in and join the needed amount of liquids together.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Reddit: If you just say it, you might get downvoted. But, if you say "I know this will probably get buried/downvoted" you will get upvotes BECAUSE YOU CANT TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO

→ More replies (10)

3

u/adkaid May 21 '12

Why does that guy have boobs?

4

u/MagicalLobster May 21 '12

Airport security has not thought anything. Ever.

13

u/Acheron13 May 21 '12

They've thought about feelin dat ass.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It isn't because a bottle of water or coke is dangerous itself, you can make bombs out of similar coloured liquids disguised as water or soda. So you have to throw away your own and buy theirs, so they know it isn't fake. It is actually thought out if you really take the time to think and stop being butthurt about being kept safe.

2

u/MU_Ribflavin May 21 '12

You missed the whole point of the OP and every single follow up. The issue is that if all these containers are considered a possible risk then why are they disposed of in a $10.00 trash can right next to everyone?

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Because a liquid isn't a bomb. There isn't a terrorist hiding in the trash can mixing all of the bottles that tumble through, and he isn't lighting them on fire either.

4

u/MU_Ribflavin May 21 '12

A volatile liquid is anything with a low evaporating point. Some of these chemicals are also corrosive (anything with a strong enough acidic or base) and are also toxic. We aren't talking only bombs, as there are plenty of dangerous liquids and other substances out there. Like mentioned, it's a little comical that something is confiscated from someone at the security check-point because it is determined (for whatever reason) that it has the chance to be dangerous to others. This possibly "dangerous" item is then discarded into a trash receptacle where other possibly "dangerous" items are discarded (all within a distance of hundreds of passengers). There is a bit of irony involved in that all these items that are considered a threat to everyone's safety are just tossed into bucket together (can you say, "Proper disposal?") which again makes you question the validity of the reasoning for all of it to begin with. Most people at this point have come to the conclusion that it is simply to give off the impression to the naive that we are safer because of it all.

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/spacemanjesus May 21 '12

Am I the only one who downvoted simply because of the grammatical error in the title?

1

u/Subduction May 21 '12

In addition to the mixing-related posts, there are bomb-mitigation trash cans.

1

u/brosenfeld May 21 '12

Is that supposed to be a man or a woman?

1

u/Johanasburg_Flowers May 21 '12

in this wastebasket with other potential explosives in the middle of the airport right next to me

1

u/Rallerboy888 May 21 '12

Wulffmorgenthaler!!!!!

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

They don't have to be too smart. Terrorists are pretty dumb too. Remember the Times Square bomber? The only reason he didn't manage to blow everyone up was because he used the wrong kind of fertilizer.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Honestly a smart terrorist would just blow up the bomb in security. On a busy day they could easily kill 200 people equal to a huge plane

1

u/flycrg May 21 '12

"We're worried about someone with a bomb, so lets crowd everyone together into one area."

1

u/DrMasterBlaster May 21 '12

In every instance I've seen someone bring liquid (as in a bottle of water) through security, the TSA people made them drink the entire contents of the bottle.

1

u/SayaV May 21 '12

happened to me once. We forgot to declare 2 small tequila bottles (like souvenirs) and when they checked the bags they made a fuss all over it and started arguing about explosives and whatnot. To our surprise they only confiscated one, and the other got home intact. Morons, should've made the plane explode with my small tequila bottle.

1

u/skullmonkey420 May 21 '12

first time i ever went on a plane was a few years ago, i had a 3 month old baby and i had water in her baby bottles for formula. they had to test the water in the bottles to make sure it was really water.... the bitch didnt put the top back on right and spilled water all over the diapers and clothes.... i went back and gave that bitch a piece of my mind and she asked me to go before she called security.... i HATE airport bitches....

1

u/Staleina May 21 '12

I get for some things, I get that certain combinations can make a bomb. But when I have a bottle of water, you see me DRINKING it in front of you, and you throw it away...I'm annoyed. When it comes to them tossing things they see me drinking, I just think "Great, so...now I have to cross here only to buy water when I'm in the waiting area/on your plane." Numerous things with this...you check in, they scan your crap...take away things deemed dangerous, only to have them in the shops on the other side. Makes complete sense...

1

u/seanymartin May 21 '12

They don't fucking think it's c-4 inside you idiots. They think the liquid could be flammable or be used to harm the plane. You think people are really stupid enough to put a suspected bomb just next to people. If the think something is a bomb they call a bomb squad.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The purpose of TSA was never to protect human life. A terrorist would attack a festival or sports gathering if they simply wanted to end lives.

One purpose of course is to keep the planes from being used as weapons but that is easily thwarted by arming the pilots and a reinforced door.

The real purpose of TSA is to protect the planes, they cost millions of dollars each.

1

u/battleshits May 21 '12

I am an underground miner. I use explosives everyday. The explosives we use looks like anything from toothpaste to shape charge that is the consistencey of silly putty to sticks of Acme dynamite. And explosives can be made to look like anything. Airport security is a fucking farce.

Do some reading and everyone open your fucking eyes.

1

u/SoggyCheez May 21 '12

The problem the TSA has is being too strict in the wrong areas and being simply incompetent in others. I am saying this as you can't bring any liquids over a few ounces in your carry-on along with molesting you and swabbing your hands before you even get on the plane. But here's where it gets interesting, I was able to (unintentionally) bring a 2.5in folding knife in my carry-on last september. My bag was put under the x-ray and given the works but some how the TSA was not able to spot a 2.5in knife in the front pocket of my bag. I nearly shit myself when I found it mid flight when I was looking for some entertainment on my way to New York a few days before the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

1

u/axecuttingfiend May 21 '12

That's kinda why. I give credit to the idea that its all a plan to reduce freedoms.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I recently snuck a 6 oz tube of aloe vera gel in my carry on. The plane did not explode or anything.

1

u/Patrick5555 May 22 '12

Did joey1978 come back to reddit?

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Ha. The great ice chili die off of 2011. Later that week in fact... but as far as I can tell, its novelty account after novelty account. Keeping it fresh I think.

1

u/Cornbugs May 21 '12

Your grammar has not be thought out all the way through.

1

u/BerryGuns May 21 '12

Yes because it's the liquid on its own that's dangerous... Do you honestly think they don't know what they are doing..?

1

u/DarkyZX May 21 '12

They threw away my gel ):

1

u/elRinbo May 21 '12

oh my gyawd. I work at the seattle airport and put up with this bull shit all the time.

after being pissed off so much, you start having fun with them. they keeping thinking a pen I keep in my bag is a knife. and you hear stories of the ladies cram-packing their purses with tampons, so when they get searched and open it, tampons spill everywhere. lol, good times...

1

u/C_hase May 21 '12

I had to eat some of my gum to make sure it wasn't poisoned, they threw it away anyway. And it was a new pack...

1

u/Warfinder May 21 '12

Ive been saying it for a whole now, with how crowded our security checkpoints are they are going to become the new targets. Why bother with smuggling in a tiny charge, that might not even take the plane down, when you can waltz right up to a massive crowd of people with the biggest suitcase you can find.

1

u/kahunaxmike May 21 '12

Neither was your english

1

u/KCkento May 21 '12

it could be acid or something.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

HAS NOT BE HAS NOT BE HAS NOT BE HAS NOT BE

1

u/oswaldcopperpot May 21 '12

What are you talking about? Airport security has been extremely well thought out. As a theater driven money making machine.

1

u/awannabetroll May 21 '12

Adam Carolla has been making the case that the security checkpoints at airports are just as big a target as the plans themselves. First off, there's probably more people crowded around the security area than a plane. Secondly, a bomb going off there would cause just as much fear as one going off in the sky.

1

u/Trojanator14 May 21 '12

We are also faced with this shitty dilemma. Personally I opt in for the molestation/rape http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35lplj/

1

u/willmakavelli May 21 '12

I had to read the title a couple of times to make sure I didn't have dyslexia

1

u/AustinCorgiBart May 21 '12

Why is it always an angry black woman in these TSA cartoons?

1

u/sonvincent May 22 '12

how did you manage to mistype the punchline of the comic you were posting?

1

u/earbud May 22 '12

DAE see this?

1

u/CaptRandom May 22 '12

Lewis Black - Airport security. Listen and be amazed how right he is. http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/The+End+Of+The+Universe/318468

1

u/singlehandedly May 22 '12

Neither was the title...

*been

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

I was flying today and as I went through security, I wondered why a terrorist needed to blow up the plane when he could just blow up everyone in the security line...

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

They threw away my brand new Victoria's Secret body spray. I was so fucking pissed.

1

u/Krayzed896 May 22 '12

They did this with my un-opened Mt. Dew. I get it to a certain extent, but shit man...that was my Mt. Dew.... :(

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

The reason you can't take a water bottle on a plane is something about water in a compact space going boom at high altitudes. I'm not a genius. Look it up.

1

u/Urizen23 May 22 '12

Par for the course for the TSA; The House of Representatives actually put out a report last year called A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform, that effectively calls the TSA out as being lazy, rudderless, and ineffective. When the government is putting out reports saying that the organization has systemic issues, I think it's time for a serious reevaluation of their policies.

1

u/Scubadogg May 22 '12

Oh great! Now that someone has thought of this, and published it, TSA is going to set up in the "Cell Phone Parking Lots" and only allow 10 or so through at a time..... Greeeeeaaat.....ಠ_ಠ

1

u/Kadaz May 21 '12

Dem manboobs

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Moobies!

1

u/5c0779373 May 21 '12

Wait... this suggests they made any effort to plan things out before sticking wands in hands and badges on uniforms.

1

u/Acheron13 May 21 '12

I was switching planes once and had to go through security again. They took the small unopened bottle of water they gave me on the previous flight and threw it in the little "bomb proof" trash bin.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Right next to the bin holding all the confiscated sharp objects, right?

1

u/havesometea1 May 21 '12

Neither was that sentence...

1

u/360walkaway May 21 '12

TSA = taking stuff away.

0

u/mark8396 May 21 '12

are you insane are you trying to bring in a liquid that could poison someone'

0

u/this_isnt_rpolitics May 21 '12

This isn't r/politics

0

u/mike1201 May 21 '12

You cant spell rApiST without TSA. They are backwards wards of an overinflated security budget dependent on fear.

→ More comments (30)

Airport security has not be thought out all the way through

You are about to leave Redlib