Could YOU hijack a plane with a first class metal knife?

NO!

I, too, think the Richard Reid reaction is absurd. At least on the issue of a shoe bomb. On the other hand, most (men’s) shoes other than trainers have a metal shank in them that gives them strength. Could every metal shank be made into a knife? Maybe. Unlikely. Maybe.

And what of the BIC pens that I’m allowed to carry without restriction? And I hesitate to write this lest I suddenly show up on a no-fly list. Why can’t I simply take a roll of Scotch tape and tape 3 BICs together to make a mighty weapon. (Not to mention the wine-bottle-over-the-head idea.)

Or the last time I flew Biz Class in the US: they gave me a regular metal knife while, when I fly biz class from Europe to the US, they give me plastic — for security reasons. Wasn’t it US domestic flights that were high-jacked? Yet these are the ones where they give out weapons freely in the guise of dinner service.

And why don’t we ever hear of any hijackers being caught in the security lines?

It goes back to the 3-sides fence rule: once we make a (VERY) big deal out of preventing one thing then clever people only find a different way to get in, so the fence is a deterrent only temporarily at best.

Maybe we should just all fly naked and dehydrated.

The bone-headed experiences I have had with screeners “interpreting” the rules about liquids did nothing for safety, but only caused me absolutely needless frustration and expense.
==================================================

That’s a general statement. How so?

The BRITISH caught these guys. Big difference. They have DECADES of experience dealing with terrorists. We took their lead in banning liquids over 3 ounces. Have THEY (Britain) lifted the liquid ban yet? Have we learned how to examine liquids during the screening process? NO!

Actually, skip, you have that wrong. Richard Reid successfully boarded the flight with EXPLOSIVES in his shoe. He attempted to detonate that bomb, but failed. A flight attendant smelled the matches and coordinated his capture, inflight.
What’s IDIOTIC is……. if we let another Al-Qaeda operative try that act of terror again.

The next thing they are gonna ban is soda and mentos.

The ‘detail’ in the bomb plot is the explosives, porn and other non-Islamist materials are a joke – part of the plot perhaps – but not relevant to what can be used to detonate and explosive. The ‘plot’ was misdirection and had NOTHING to do with liquids. Yep, right, terrorists never defile women or use them to grind out their own lust, so condoms makes them immediately innocent. Sure. If they thought that they deserve to be caught. The only thing that really keeps us safe is the keystone kops way that most islamic terrorists plan things. Most of their bombs blow them up first. 9/11 and the London subway bombings were decent planing by intelligent guys who have since been caught.

What this report seems to prove is:

There are no binary explosives – meaning 2 chemicals you can mix together in flight to create a bomb, which is what the press and government implied when the arrest was made.

The screeners do not attention to batteries. Now that they have banned most types of batteries not in a device, the risk of this plot is gone.

Liquids really are not the problem.

What stops a terrorist from attaching a rubber bladder to their body, making them look fat, filled with flammable liquids and using a match to ignite it in flight? There is no way to extinguish 5 gallons of gasoline ignited in an aircraft cabin at 35k over the pond.

The bone-headed experiences I have had with screeners “interpreting” the rules about liquids did nothing for safety, but only caused me absolutely needless frustration and expense. As other comments here have noted, we can no longer unquestioningly accept the TSA’s assertions that every stupid rule and mindless implementation that causes us hassle will somehow keep us safe.

I am willing to accept some inconvenience and sacrifice if I have reason to believe that it provides effective….. SAFETY. But every report I’ve read about undercover testing and audits of airport screening indicates that it’s ineffective. And I have had more than my share of hassles and confiscations that are purely arbitrary and pointless. The TSA should indeed never apologize for….. SAFETY. But they need to convince us that what they do actually provides….. SAFETY rather than mere STUPIDITY.

Perhaps you have unquestioning faith and trust in the TSA. I know of no reason for any such faith or trust.