Should the TSA allow knives to be carried on airplanes?

Remember, on 9-11-01(also known as 9-11 LOL), the hijackers didnt try to blow up the planes with bombs. Instead, amazingly, just a few not-so-muscular terrorists managed to take over 4 airplanes with hundreds of passengers, with "box cutters" and then they flew 3 of them into buildings. The 4th was flown into a field in Pa because those passengers were able to figure out what the eventual plan of the terrorists was, so they fought back.

Then, we had 3 other attempts where terrorists tried using bombs. Well, since then the TSA has focused on detecting bombs, but they also had banned passengers from carrying knives on planes, because....well....4 planes were taken over by box cutter wielding terrorists!

But now, they are continuing to try and make it legal to carry small pocket knives with blades of somewhere around 2-3/4" max onto planes. The excuse is, "well, we know that terrorists have been focusing on bombs and not knives, so why ban knives from planes"? Well, umm, remember those 4 planes that killed 3,000 people, which, again, were taken over using 3/4" box cutters?

This idea that it is set in stone that terrorists will NEVER consider using a strategy that worked WELL for them before(Knives), and instead they will ONLY try bring down planes with bombs is ludicrous! Any half-intelligent person will go with what works. If bombs arent working anymore, but the TSA is allowing knives back on board planes again, then why not go with the plan that gave you the most success, ie knives?

The second TSA excuse is that the cockpit doors are now armored, but all it would take is to wait til a stewardess opens the door and rush in, or take a stewardess or passenger(s) hostage and demand they open the door, and start killing people if they dont open the door. After a little while, they probably will open that door if that were to happen.....


The question is, why is it so important to allow people to carry knives onboard the plane while its flying? Are people really being inconvenienced by not carrying knives onboard? Besides, if you want to bring a knife on your trip, cant you check it in your luggage, or do you really need the knife on your person, in the airplane, so you can whittle out a soap box derby car while you're flying? I just dont see the need to have my knife with me while I'm sitting in the airplane seat. (A flashlight yes)

What do you think about this?

Much to do about nothing, trained terrorist commandos took everyone by surprise when the normal reaction was to stay calm and let the hijackers do what they wanted without anyone getting hurt.

Hijackings had been a part of flying since the 1930s and America had it's first flight hijacked to Cuba in 1962.

Today a 2 inch key chain knife is not going to control a plane load of Americans.

Absolutely. It's not for someone else to decide what inconveniences me and what doesn't I must use my knife 5 times a day. When I'm not carrying it I pat my pocket and think I lost it. I would have no problem checking it in my bag, but I don't normally check a bag. Plus I've had bad experiences with things disappearing from my checked bag when its not in my possession.

Knives alone didn't work last time. The complacency of our security and passengers is what worked. Most passengers then thought the planes would get diverted to another airport, they had no idea what was in store. It was a new type of enemy, with a new thought process. I strongly believe that if something similar would happen again, dozens of passengers would jump on a 1 inch box cutter. I know I would. Continuing to ban kintting neeedles, nail clippers, bottles of water, 4oz toothpaste and making old people in wheelchairs walk through scanners is not the solution.

I vote against any knives carried by passengers, period. Regarding the 911 events, as I recall, many of the bodies on the A/C were found/identified, including the terrorists. At least one stewardess had her throat slashed. Deep cuts to other passengers were not conclusively identifiable as coming from an edged weapon. I do vote in favor of Pilots carrying weapons, even though a few of them had problems handling the weapon and accidentally fired a shot. And then there are the Air Marshalls, many of whom are identifiable with a bit a observation as to where they sit, etc.

I'm happy to be able to carry a knife on, even a tiny one. Opening snack packages, trimming a fingernail, cutting a loose thread etc. are all practical uses I find myself needing a knife for on a plane.

If you are concerned about tiny Swiss Army knives on planes you should check out the TSA blog and see what sort of things your neighbors are trying to bring on planes. Much, much more dangerous objects. And think about all the things you can still carry that would potentially be dangerous if a person wanted to use them in a violent way.

Anyways, all along you could bring 7 inch tools on planes. A 2 inch, 1/2 inch wide blade on a non locking multitool is a toy compared to a 7 inch screwdriver IMO.

The focus went from box cutters to bombs because the pilots can keep the bad guys from crashing the plane....but a bomb can take the plane down even if no one can get the pilot/co-pilot, etc.

Back when hi-jacking was the fear...it wasn't worth fighting, you'd just put up with being re-routed and the associated delays, and people rarely got hurt.

So, people pull what looks like that on 9-11, and no one is thinking about fighting...its not like they're in danger if they just let them re-route the plane, etc.

As soon as they realize these are fick sucks who are going to get them all killed anyway...those box cutters are not exactly like having an M60 nest to face the charging angry passengers.

So, the pilot can now shoot the guy with the swiss army knife....or, leave the door locked and fly on. The Sky Marshall, if on board, can then deal with the locked out guy with the swiss army knife.




Seriously, all the shoe changing shampoo purging, etc, is all reactive....and none of what they seem to do is pro-active.

I've yet to see any evidence of the authorities sitting down and PLANNING/DESIGNING how to combat terrorism in this venue.


Its always:

Terrorists try a shoe bomb = OK, we check shoes

Terrorists try a liquid explosive = OK, we limit the volume of the liquids

Terrorists use a sharp edged weapon = we restrict sharp edged weapons

and so forth.

Its never "What might they try next, and, how might we institute measures now, that would counter that if they later try it?"


Its also hard to get good people trained properly to DO security work. I can't tell you how many scans, etc, I've seen done so wrong that I cringe watching it.

Even upping the quality of the staff, via training, better pay to attract sharper knives from the employment pool drawer, etc...might do more than the current zoo.


My personal feeling is that they seem to do a burst of what evers...and then move on and do something else, leaving us fretting over what they did already, and not looking for what's next.

As we don't seem to anticipate anything...we're too busy reacting to historical events...this leaves the terrorists free to invent the next chapter...which doesn't need to involve planes.


Public transportation is a very low hanging fruit as far as access, and, if they have enough terrorist feet on the ground...well, how hard would it be to do a few random attacks and cause everyone to be terrified of taking a bus or train?

We'd then institute a gazillion security measures to screen bus passengers, etc...while they then go after say reservoirs, or bridges, or supermarkets and so forth.


We need to get pro-active instead of reactive.

The entire security procedure is more to make passengers feel safe than to actually do anything concrete to increase safety. I've read enough stories of the TSA searching old ladies and children to realize they're just putting on a show for the passengers. Let people carry knives, guns, whatever. The more people are armed, the less chance a bunch of terrorists will get control of a plane. It doesn't affect me either way. I flew once in my life. After 9/11 happened, I decided to never fly again.

TEEJ said:

Public transportation is a very low hanging fruit as far as access, and, if they have enough terrorist feet on the ground...well, how hard would it be to do a few random attacks and cause everyone to be terrified of taking a bus or train?

Click to expand...

They tried buses and trains in Europe and the Middle East. Not good targets, trains especially. They're too hard and you don't kill all that many people. Remember they chose planes not so much to kill the hundred or so passengers on the plane, but to fly them into buildings and kill thousands (which they incidentally succeeded in doing). These attacks lose their effect unless they get larger, so I'd be more worried that they might do something like detonate a dirty bomb, or drop Ebola in a large city. Nobody is going after buses or trains any more. I doubt even planes make good targets any more, now that it's much harder to enter the cockpit. They want to kill at least tens of thousands in the next attack. A sports stadium during a big event like the Super Bowl might make an excellent target (watch the movie Black Sunday for one idea on how to pull this off).

TEEJ said:

<snip>

Its also hard to get good people trained properly to DO security work. I can't tell you how many scans, etc, I've seen done so wrong that I cringe watching it.

Even upping the quality of the staff, via training, better pay to attract sharper knives from the employment pool drawer, etc...might do more than the current zoo.

<snip>

We need to get pro-active instead of reactive.

Click to expand...

I certainly concur on the proactive aspect. The problem is that there is no funding until there is a body count - or almost.

As for the infamous TSA agents and their ability to scan, there are many stories, but here are a couple:

1. An agent sitting behind a scanner called back a bag to be rescanned. I heard her comments when she pointed at a bag relatively far down the conveyor by then. Some other agent retrieved a bag, the bag was scanned, rescanned, then finally the operator realized that the wrong bag was grabbed. The 3 TSA agents looked down the busy hallway somewhat helplessly, then everyone went back to normal business.

2. A few years ago there was a flight from point A to point B. My boss and managers transited all security at point a. Everyone arrived w/o interference at point B, conducted their business in that city, and returned to the point B airport. They started thru the security process and suddenly my boss was surrounded by several TSA agents acting rather up-tight. It was not visible what all was going on, but after some discussion in a side room, he was released to continue his flight. What happened? it seems that he went camping and forgot to clean out his backpack. That backpack with fully loaded 9mm clip cleared security at point A and was caught only before the return flight at point B.

3. Some time ago, before anyone was scanning for what passengers carried on board A/C, more than once I carried weapons and ammunition on board in a "flight bag" that today would be easily caught and have me spread-eagled on the floor somewhere. At that time, the nebulous security left me alone probably because I was in uniform, but these were not military weapons. Times change!

moldyoldy said:

.... as I recall, nearly all of the bodies on the A/C were found/identified, including the terrorists. At least one stewardess had her throat slashed. Deep cuts to other passengers were not conclusively identifiable as coming from an edged weapon.

Click to expand...

Any references? All accounts I have seen indicate that the A/C (at least the 3 that crashed into buildings) were completely destroyed and even vaporized (including large metal parts such undercarriage, wings/stabilizers and engine components) due to the high temp of burning fuel.

rmteo said:

Any references? All accounts I have seen indicate that the A/C (at least the 3 that crashed into buildings) were completely destroyed and even vaporized (including large metal parts such undercarriage, wings/stabilizers and engine components) due to the high temp of burning fuel.

Click to expand...

Yes, I figured that statement would attract attention. I do remember quite clearly that various bodies were found, including at least some terrorists. Certainly not all were found - too many body parts that could not be identified. Unfortunately I retained no info, which in any case was subsequently buried in the chorus of conspiracy theorists. The most rational evaluations that I saw or heard were presented at a symposium at a couple Universities with the reviewers being Mechanical or Civil Engineers & Architects. In my view, press releases are generally biased to suit the editors or fill column inches. I do recall a NYTimes (?) article near the end of the cleanup that made a summarizing comment. Nevertheless, I did not retain any info. I have since regretted that lapse many times.

I went back and edited that post to remove that leading statement since I otherwise was no better than the newspaper articles.

Edit update: although I cannot remember many specifics about 911 reporting, other than the many conflicting stories, the grey matter is slowly accessing some old memory cells. I am fairly certain of my primary sources of info on 911:

The structural collapse was reviewed by some University professors using various video angles of the collapses. That review was open to students, but poorly attended. However later PBS showed a similar/same video of a further analysis by various engineers of the building collapses.

The security aspect probably came from StratFor, which is a private civilian organization with intelligence roots. I had a Stratfor subscription for several years, but retirement is forcing many $$ constraints. Although I like Stratfor, it also has it's biases. However, Stratfor is about as good as a civilian organization will be w/o breaking security. Sign up for the free newsletter. http://www.stratfor.com/

Another good intel source is "Aviation Leak and Space Technology", which ranks up there with some interesting finds. http://www.aviationweek.com/

jtr1962 said:

They tried buses and trains in Europe and the Middle East. Not good targets, trains especially. They're too hard and you don't kill all that many people. Remember they chose planes not so much to kill the hundred or so passengers on the plane, but to fly them into buildings and kill thousands (which they incidentally succeeded in doing). These attacks lose their effect unless they get larger, so I'd be more worried that they might do something like detonate a dirty bomb, or drop Ebola in a large city. Nobody is going after buses or trains any more. I doubt even planes make good targets any more, now that it's much harder to enter the cockpit. They want to kill at least tens of thousands in the next attack. A sports stadium during a big event like the Super Bowl might make an excellent target (watch the movie Black Sunday for one idea on how to pull this off).

Click to expand...

I think the focus has always been more about terrorizing as many as possible, with a high body count as gravy.

IE: If they can disrupt our lives by blowing up a few trains across the country, randomly, so there's fear that the next one MIGHT BE YOURS, you stop taking the train, and or they institute massively disruptive train security measures.

That's the primary objective...to have as much impact as possible.

Its easier to cause terror when you create constant fear in your targets that "you're next".

Now, most flyers feel safe but inconvenienced.

No significant plane based event have occurred other than non-terrorist caused events.


So, my guess is that now with all the attention on them, the cells, etc, are laying low and waiting for complacency to settle in again....and then re-mobilize when they think they can get away with it, etc.

Plotting is the primary topic now for them I would imagine, as they need SOMETHING to do while waiting us out. People can be very creative. Given all that time, I bet they come up with some doozies.

I'll also bet we'll react to them as we always do...and, chase the sequence rather than predict it, etc.

sigh.

TEEJ said:

I think the focus has always been more about terrorizing as many as possible, with a high body count as gravy.

IE: If they can disrupt our lives by blowing up a few trains across the country, randomly, so there's fear that the next one MIGHT BE YOURS, you stop taking the train, and or they institute massively disruptive train security measures.

Click to expand...

Except train travel isn't a major way people get around other than in a few urban areas. And there's no way you can institute TSA-style security measures on, say, the NYC subway, not with the passenger volumes it has. At best, you could have bomb sniffers in the turnstyles.

That's the primary objective...to have as much impact as possible.

Its easier to cause terror when you create constant fear in your targets that "you're next".

Click to expand...

Yes, and I've thought a good terrorist strategy might be to make people feel unsafe in the one place most feel safe-namely their automobiles. Put in a few hundred car bombs randomly spread around the country and our economy will grind to a halt because people will be afraid to use their cars. Or you could even attack something ubiquitous like shopping malls.

Now, most flyers feel safe but inconvenienced.

Click to expand...

It's beyond inconvenience. When you need to show up 2 hours early for a flight which you used to show up for 15 minutes early you're adding 3.5 hours total to your round trip travel time. This negates a lot of the speed advantage of air, to the point driving is often faster if you're only going a few hundred miles.

So, my guess is that now with all the attention on them, the cells, etc, are laying low and waiting for complacency to settle in again....and then re-mobilize when they think they can get away with it, etc.

Plotting is the primary topic now for them I would imagine, as they need SOMETHING to do while waiting us out. People can be very creative. Given all that time, I bet they come up with some doozies.

I'll also bet we'll react to them as we always do...and, chase the sequence rather than predict it, etc.

Click to expand...

Two ways to deal with these people. The best way is to stop doing things which **** them off enough to want to attack the US. Maybe pulling our troops out of certain countries as we're planning will accomplish that. The second best way is to preemptively go after terror cells before they hit us. We're probably doing that also, but I would guess for security reasons we only make announcements when we take out major terror cells.

The OP is about bringing pocket knives on planes, not how to dismantle terrorist organizations; probably can try to bring it back around...

HighlanderNorth said:

The question is, why is it so important to allow people to carry knives onboard the plane while its flying? Are people really being inconvenienced by not carrying knives onboard? Besides, if you want to bring a knife on your trip, cant you check it in your luggage, or do you really need the knife on your person, in the airplane, so you can whittle out a soap box derby car while you're flying? I just dont see the need to have my knife with me while I'm sitting in the airplane seat. (A flashlight yes)

What do you think about this?

Click to expand...

Mighty nice of you to decide for me what tools I carry are important. I carry a minimum of 2 knives on any given day. One usually 3"+ blade and my sub 2", Leatherman Squirt, that also has a nail file and screw drivers on it. As mentioned before....many of us travel for work for a few days at at time and never check luggage. It's not about having it on you on the plane, but having it when you get where you are going.

jtr1962 said:

Except train travel isn't a major way people get around other than in a few urban areas. And there's no way you can institute TSA-style security measures on, say, the NYC subway, not with the passenger volumes it has. At best, you could have bomb sniffers in the turnstyles.


Yes, and I've thought a good terrorist strategy might be to make people feel unsafe in the one place most feel safe-namely their automobiles. Put in a few hundred car bombs randomly spread around the country and our economy will grind to a halt because people will be afraid to use their cars. Or you could even attack something ubiquitous like shopping malls.


It's beyond inconvenience. When you need to show up 2 hours early for a flight which you used to show up for 15 minutes early you're adding 3.5 hours total to your round trip travel time. This negates a lot of the speed advantage of air, to the point driving is often faster if you're only going a few hundred miles.


Two ways to deal with these people. The best way is to stop doing things which **** them off enough to want to attack the US. Maybe pulling our troops out of certain countries as we're planning will accomplish that. The second best way is to preemptively go after terror cells before they hit us. We're probably doing that also, but I would guess for security reasons we only make announcements when we take out major terror cells.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

See what a royal PITA they can cause with that sort of campaign?

As for "Stop doing things that **** them off", well, that means we need to change religions in some cases....are you willing to do that?

They are also killing people in their own countries who they feel need to convert as well.

Most Americans see "Muslims", but, the sub groups within that broad category are killing each other. It would be analogous to the Catholic and Protestants in the USA demanding that the other group convert or die.

Frankly, I doubt the leadership sending these poor human bombs is that religious, but, like most governments have for millenia, they get the great unwashed all worked up and ready to die for a cause...for whatever political objective du jour is involved.


I saw a show where they were interviewing people in the middle east to see how they felt about the US, and the rest of the world. Holy cow, either WE'RE really uninformed, or, THEY are.

For example, ~ WWII, Israel attacked Germany, and threw the Germans into ovens and gas chambers....which is referred to as the Holocaust. They also fire bombed Dresden. This was ALSO known as the Holocaust.

The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan, but they didn't work, so they fire bombed it and said it worked...

Recent:

The USA attacked Iran, and lost in a crushing defeat that collapsed the US economy.

White Christians run the USA as puppets of the Jews.


For all I know, the interviews could be analogous to the "street interviews" done by late night talk shows, etc...where the answers are cherry picked, etc...except its was supposed to be ad documentary.


Anyway - IMHO, terrorism is probably best combated by the potential perps having hope. A hope that there's something to live for, that they are NOT better off dead...and that maybe there are ways to make things better, to get out of poverty, etc.



Perhaps we make a re-make of "Its a Wonderful Life" in the needed translations, and broadcast it worldwide?

nbp said:

The OP is about bringing pocket knives on planes, not how to dismantle terrorist organizations; probably can try to bring it back around...

Click to expand...

Y'all couldn't take note of the voice of reason? Discussing the topic of the thread could have gone on as long as you wished. Discussing what it has been become can be discussed too; but do so in the Underground.