Anyone want to join me in saying "YAY" to the Dutch?

I said before and I will say again—everything you see in the terminal is nonsense, and meant for show only. That’s only the appearance of security, and in no way is it real security. It’s supposed to make you feel good, and apparently it’s working for you.

I think full body scans are overly intrusive and seriously expensive. The Dutch could also provide passenger lists to check against terrorist watch lists, which would also have prevented this attack. Honestly I think telling a country who you are about to fly into it by name is less intrusive than backscatter X ray.

Attacks will always be possible, but we have plenty of security in place to make them unlikely. You are more likely to be in a plane that crashes due to mechanical failure or pilot error (itself a highly unlikely event) than one that is attacked by terrorists. In fact, we have a lot of security rules that are useless and just make flying less pleasant. We should really analyze what security measures are effective, and which are not effective enough to justify their cost. After September 11th a lot of ridiculous rules went into effect about what you could bring on an airplane, in spite of the fact that you could never hijack a plane with a pocket knife again, beginning at the time that the passengers of flight 93 took over their plane.

I say that’s a fun job. Where do I sign up?

cant wait for the videos to come out on YouTube.

I’m with @CyanoticWasp all of this is for show – to show ‘something’ is being done.

That machine will have to look closely at my crotch… to see anything! I don’t see what the problem is janet napolitano said the system worked!
........................
So what if he had no luggage… no passport… a one way ticket paid cash… and his father (the minister of finance and a bank ceo) called the us embassy to warn of his sons radicalization…
.........................
After all janet is the secretary of homeland security… who called 911 a ‘man made tragedy’

@Snarp, exactly. The terminal security is always a Maginot Line: effective against “the previous attack”. We seem to forget that from the earliest hijackings of passenger airliners in the 70s, until 2001, they were for one purpose only: diversion of the aircraft for political or criminal (monetary payoff) ends.

So we started screening for hand-held weapons that could be used as a threat to take over and divert the planes. (And that broke down frequently, but spectacularly so on 11 September 2001.) Then we decided “no more boxcutters, metal knives in meals—about the time the airlines more or less decided to do away with meals, too, come to think of it—and fingernail clippers. My god—fingernail clippers? Were they serious?

Then some idiot tries to bomb a plane with something he built into his shoe, and now it doesn’t even matter if you’re wearing sandals, you need to take them off so that “we need to be sure your shoe isn’t a bomb”. And some clown puts it in his underwear. Carried to their logical conclusion, the new rules should have us take off our underwear for inspection.

But they can’t see what I had for dinner before I left for the airport, can they? How soon before we need to purge ourselves before boarding the plane because the next idiot thinks about a way to swallow a dangerous / explosive device?

The new rules are a joke—and an insult to anyone with intelligence. (Fortunately for the airlines and the TSA, this excludes most of the passengers and voters who approve of this nonsense.) If I wanted to take down a plane I’d do it from outside the airport’s security fence in the first place.

I flew in Indonesia a couple of years ago where they have all of the screening equipment and “rules” available that we do—and no one pays attention at the local airports. Alarms squawk all the time as people walk through them—and they keep right on going without challenge. I was behind one passenger who pulled a handgun from his pocket before he went through the metal detector, and put it into a basket to pass around the detector. He walked through and didn’t set off the alarm, naturally. The security guard handed him the basket with the pistol, and he put it back into his pocket and proceeded to the boarding area. (No overt identification was presented, such as a badge or an ID card.)

At least they seem to be more honest about things there.

I have seen a lady helped out up of a wheelchair to get patted down… and even edward kennedy got double screened. Good job guys… all they need is a good union! This is why when my parents go to florida or mexico… I fly them.

I predict airline passengers will get closer scrutiny then GITMO detainees.

@Tomfafa, exactly so. This leads me back to what I said about security in a previous post on the topic: What kinds of controls exist at the General Aviation gates?

Suppose that I’m a licensed and qualified private pilot… with a deathwish and a grudge, and the means to either buy or rent a plane. (And since anything can be bought on installments, I’m assuming that that’s not an extremely large amount of money, either—probably less than it cost to fly from Africa to Detroit.) How difficult would it be for me to pilot my plane into the course of a jetliner that is either taking off or landing? And what methods can stop that?

@CyanoticWasp There is no screening process for private pilots… except when you apply for and get the license. I get screened because I am rated to fly to canada and mexico.
.....
btw…. I know commercial pilots, who fly large planes and say that they get screened at the gate… shoes and all!

If someone really wants to terrorize won’t they find a way of circumventing any security method?

The next wave of terror will be trains… buses… blowing up a tunnel will paralyze this country… terrorism is like a cancer… it will take drastic action to stop it!