# New to Me (fun fat stuff at airport security)



## Cat (Dec 21, 2009)

When flying to Minneapolis last week, I walked through the metal detector at the SLC airport and was told to stand off to the side. The guard manning the detector then called for the woman to come over for a "bulk check" on my legs. 

At 4:30 in the morning, I thought it was more fascinating than anything. 
So, the woman comes over, kneels in front of me and proceeds to feel up my "cute legs." (Those were her words, not mine!)

As she's kneeling down there I say, "Wow, I didn't know they provided this service." A quick way to deflect my sleepy awkwardness and at least she got a giggle.

Anyway, this is just my word of warning. It could happen to you if you have fat legs and look like you're packin' drugs/weapons/TNT in your tights.


----------



## Webmaster (Dec 21, 2009)

This whole airport "security" stuff has gotten WAAAAY out of line. At this point it's probably more a self-perpetuating, lucrative bureaucracy than anything else. Does it have some benefit? Probably, but so would mandatory governmental safety guards in front of your shower or bath tub.


----------



## 99Haints (Dec 21, 2009)

Cat said:


> When flying to Minneapolis last week, I walked through the metal detector at the SLC airport and was told to stand off to the side. The guard manning the detector then called for the woman to come over for a "bulk check" on my legs.
> 
> At 4:30 in the morning, I thought it was more fascinating than anything.
> So, the woman comes over, kneels in front of me and proceeds to feel up my "cute legs." (Those were her words, not mine!)
> ...



Same thing happened to me a few years back! It was equally perplexing. I was pulled aside after going through the detector by a female officer, who called to a male one to come "check the bulk". When he dallied, she gave me a nice belly rub herself to insure it wasn't a removable weapons cache. I would've been much more supportive of the patriotic act if they'd written in that kind of belly play, liberties be damned!


----------



## Cat (Dec 21, 2009)

Because of the inconsistency of the rules that are enforced, the feeling of "security" is lacking. 

If I knew that every time I went, my legs would be felt up, that's one thing, but never knowing exactly what to expect from the staff is unnerving. 

In addition to the legs thing, I've gone through security 8 times this past year and never had my tiny contact solution removed from the suitcase. This time, however, it was an "issue" and my carry on had to go through twice because of the infraction. This was after the leg fiesta. It was good times all around!

By the way, I'm looking for some guards for my tub...it's slippery in there!


----------



## TallFatSue (Dec 21, 2009)

Sometimes I wonder if inconsistent rule enforcement is part of the idea, so any would-be criminals can't know what might catch them. Nahhhh, it's probably just the inefficient bureaucracy perpetuating itself. Maybe the airport security could improve their image if they hired some slick public relations firm to say that "frisking isn't a hassle, it's a *service!*" And if the airlines offered in-flight leg massages I might fly more regularly, because I'm always "packin' fat."


----------



## stan_der_man (Dec 21, 2009)

Just an off the wall tangent to this Cat... The oddest thing I ever saw regarding airport security was in Oakland. There was a family of Sikhs (I believe...) that were on my flight. They were wearing turbans and carried a couple of swords and wore kirpans (ceremonial daggers) which is traditional attire. Needless to say they were heavily scrutinized in the security area, and after being searched and cleared, three TSA security officers followed them to the boarding area. Upon entering the plane, the family was again patted down and searched, and other "random" individuals who were not part of their group, were also patted down and searched before they boarded the airplane. The TSA didn't want to appear to be profiling I suppose...


----------



## SocialbFly (Dec 21, 2009)

Cat said:


> When flying to Minneapolis last week, I walked through the metal detector at the SLC airport and was told to stand off to the side. The guard manning the detector then called for the woman to come over for a "bulk check" on my legs.
> 
> At 4:30 in the morning, I thought it was more fascinating than anything.
> So, the woman comes over, kneels in front of me and proceeds to feel up my "cute legs." (Those were her words, not mine!)
> ...



you know what i love?? if you go thru their screen and your ass accidently touches the wall, they make you do it again, and again, until you do it right....dont be too sleepy and do it...you might have to do it over and over again like me, lol...


----------



## SocialbFly (Dec 21, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> Just an off the wall tangent to this Cat... The oddest thing I ever saw regarding airport security was in Oakland. There was a family of Sikhs (I believe...) that were on my flight. They were wearing turbans and carried a couple of swords and wore kirpans (ceremonial daggers) which is traditional attire. Needless to say they were heavily scrutinized in the security area, and after being searched and cleared, three TSA security officers followed them to the boarding area. Upon entering the plane, the family was again patted down and searched, and other "random" individuals who were not part of their group, were also patted down and searched before they boarded the airplane. The TSA didn't want to appear to be profiling I suppose...



how in the hell could they carry knives aboard??? someone needs to explain that one to me...


----------



## Tooz (Dec 21, 2009)

Excuse me, ma'am, but it looks like there's an AK47 under your gut. I must check. *grope*


----------



## Linda (Dec 21, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> This whole airport "security" stuff has gotten WAAAAY out of line. At this point it's probably more a self-perpetuating, lucrative bureaucracy than anything else. Does it have some benefit? Probably, but so would mandatory governmental safety guards in front of your shower or bath tub.



Uhmm.. I hate to interrupt this serious conversation becasue I agree...things are way out of control. But I was simply wondering where I might get me a couple of those shower guards?? :blush:


----------



## stan_der_man (Dec 21, 2009)

Linda said:


> Uhmm.. I hate to interrupt this serious conversation becasue I agree...things are way out of control. But I was simply wondering where I might get me a couple of those shower guards?? :blush:



Actually, I'd like to get me one of those air spritzer devices that they have at the airport in Newark NJ, which they made me walk through many years ago... might be nice on a hot summer day... 



SocialbFly said:


> how in the hell could they carry knives aboard??? someone needs to explain that one to me...



I don't really know too much about the Sikh religion, but I believe the knives are ceremonial (a duty to defend one's community, or something like that...) The knives may have been blunt, but their religious beliefs require the knives to be carried with them at all times if I remember correctly.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 21, 2009)

Tooz said:


> Excuse me, ma'am, but it looks like there's an AK47 under your gut. I must check. *grope*



Looks like I found my new pick-up line.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Dec 21, 2009)

Thanks for the heads up. Knowing I might get a free body rub out of the deal makes me look forward to flying a tiny, tiny bit more.


----------



## stan_der_man (Dec 21, 2009)

Tooz said:


> Excuse me, ma'am, but it looks like there's an AK47 under your gut. I must check. *grope*



Gut bombs will soon be on the TSA's list of banned substances... mark my word.... and they'll be feelin' for them.


----------



## sunnie1653 (Dec 21, 2009)

Yet another reason why I don't fly -- I'd be absolutely *mortified*


----------



## sobie18 (Dec 21, 2009)

Yeah, I just spent some LONG hours flying from Georgia-Palau and back...

I remember when my military ID card meant something. Not anymore...


----------



## pdgujer148 (Dec 21, 2009)

I blame this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY


----------



## liz (di-va) (Dec 21, 2009)

This happened to me in Manchester, NH. They took me off to a side room (!). More privacy. I could not stop cracking jokes (it was hilarious, as well as pretty yoiks). I think it might have happened another time too.

I M BULKEEEEEEEEEE


----------



## Littleghost (Dec 22, 2009)

TallFatSue said:


> Sometimes I wonder if inconsistent rule enforcement is part of the idea, so any would-be criminals can't know what might catch them. Nahhhh, it's probably just the inefficient bureaucracy perpetuating itself. Maybe the airport security could improve their image if they hired some slick public relations firm to say that "frisking isn't a hassle, it's a *service!*" And if the airlines offered in-flight leg massages I might fly more regularly, because I'm always "packin' fat."



It can be, sometimes. There's actually been studies done that seem to support that random spot checks are the most efficient in both preventing trouble and things flowing smoothly. I don't remember all the reasoning behind it, but it makes sense at least from a psychology point of view. Doesn't seem like it'd actually work to catch the person in the act if the person wasn't intimidated, though.

Frankly, Cat, you don't strike me as the shifty type. What are the odds that the searcher was an FA?


----------



## Paquito (Dec 22, 2009)

Is that an AK-47 in your pocket or are you just happy to be frisked?


HIT THE DECK DOUCHENOZZLE


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2009)

sobie18 said:


> I remember when my military ID card meant something. Not anymore...


Not after what happened at Fort Hood...


----------



## Weirdo890 (Dec 26, 2009)

Cat said:


> When flying to Minneapolis last week, I walked through the metal detector at the SLC airport and was told to stand off to the side. The guard manning the detector then called for the woman to come over for a "bulk check" on my legs.
> 
> At 4:30 in the morning, I thought it was more fascinating than anything.
> So, the woman comes over, kneels in front of me and proceeds to feel up my "cute legs." (Those were her words, not mine!)
> ...



Well, that would be a new experience for me. I've been told that I have cute legs too, but they've never been frisked like that. I don't think I would feel too comfortable with that either. Well, I'm glad you made it through.


----------



## Webmaster (Dec 26, 2009)

Well, after this latest incident with the guy trying to blow up a plane with explosives he smuggled in his pants, we'll probably see even more intense searching.


----------



## toni (Dec 26, 2009)

Cat said:


> At 4:30 in the morning, I thought it was more fascinating than anything.
> So, the woman comes over, kneels in front of me and proceeds to feel up my "cute legs." (Those were her words, not mine!)



Did you get her digits?


----------



## Laura2008 (Dec 26, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Well, after this latest incident with the guy trying to blow up a plane with explosives he smuggled in his pants, we'll probably see even more intense searching.



Yeah I read that today. How in the heck was he able to get explosives through? Are we really any safer now with all the increased security?


----------



## gangstadawg (Dec 26, 2009)

Laura2008 said:


> Yeah I read that today. How in the heck was he able to get explosives through? Are we really any safer now with all the increased security?



he got through on the amsterdams side of security. they dont do checks for liquids from what i heard and it seems that he knew that as well.


----------



## Captain Save (Dec 26, 2009)

Based on an article in Newsweek, the Dutch didn't clear the flight without approval from a division of U.S. Homeland Security. The intelligence community seems to be in possession of information that might have prevented this, verifying concerns about government bureaucracy. 

I would imagine airport security is about to get VERY uncomfortable for passengers.


----------



## BlubberGirl (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm thinking at this point, we will all need to be at the airport 4 hours early, pack only see-through luggage (and no carry-on), then have to strip naked and be strapped into our seats for the entire flight. All for the "convenience" of air travel.

Traveling by plane STINKS for anyone - regardless of size. I avoid it whenever possible.


----------



## Laura2008 (Dec 29, 2009)

BlubberGirl said:


> I'm thinking at this point, we will all need to be at the airport 4 hours early, pack only see-through luggage (and no carry-on), then have to strip naked and be strapped into our seats for the entire flight. All for the "convenience" of air travel.
> 
> Traveling by plane STINKS for anyone - regardless of size. I avoid it whenever possible.



Being fat and trying to fit in the seat is just the icing on the cake now. I suspect it's going to get worse from here on out.

I travel to Chicago for my job often. It's a 5 hour drive from Detroit. People always ask why I drive instead of fly. I tell them it's quicker to drive then go through all the airport crap. I can throw whatever I want in my bag and head out.


----------



## stan_der_man (Dec 29, 2009)

The whole irony of this is that if airport security can't even keep a skinny guy from strapping explosives to his underwear, why is the TSA making what appears to be an emphasis on patting down fat people? As intrusive as they may be, I am all for having those body scanning machines if it can keep these sort of things from happening; keeping people from bringing explosives onto planes and keeping security from targeting certain groups of people for unfair emphasized searches. I agree with what others here have posted, I think flying in general is about to become more miserable experience than it already is for all passengers because of this latest incident.


----------



## lovebbws13 (Dec 29, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Well, after this latest incident with the guy trying to blow up a plane with explosives he smuggled in his pants, we'll probably see even more intense searching.



Yeah and I've got something in my pants they can check. Let 'em touch that "weapon" and sh*t will hit the fan.


----------



## mossystate (Dec 29, 2009)

lovebbws13 said:


> Let 'em touch that "weapon" and sh*t will hit the fan.



Shit?...you sure about that? Get thee to a doctor.


----------



## Inhibited (Dec 29, 2009)

Am flying today am feeling abit nervous now, though i think our rules have been relaxed so hopefully no one will put any gloves on..


----------



## moore2me (Dec 30, 2009)

Cat, Since these "bulk" checks will probably be expanded, I have been thinking about airport security and have a question for you. In looking for hidden weapons, why in the heck did airport security insist on searching your legs and ignoring your obvious assets? Were the people running the screening (pick all that apply)?

a. blind or blindfolded
b. stoopid
c. drunk/tweeked/toked
d. seriously directionally challenged (Up??? vs. Down????)
e. 'fraid of real wimmen
f. other

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I think it is probably a good idea to search suspicious people that are on a "security risk" list or folks meeting criteria like the Unabomber or the Shoebomber. But when it comes down to body searching or bulk searching Cat, my mom, your grandmother, or others who meet no hazard assessment other than we're fat . . . sure, search us. But, pay to do it!

Give out coupons good for ticket price reductions based on type of search. Suggested reimbursements:

1. $50 off/per foot - for bare foot search (must have chair & stool ready).
2. $100/per leg - for touching bare skin above the knee, but below the pubic area (must have screen ready).
3. $500 for checking underwear (screen needed). If underwear is kept by screener, an extra $500 is awarded.
4. $750/each for checking breasts (privacy needed).
5. $1000 for checking underneath stomach (pannus) also privacy needed
6. $5000 for body cavity check. Gynocologist or MD needed to perform exam.

You can also demand double coupons if you are not treated humanly or courteously during the search. A searcher can also be arrested and jailed for sexually abusing his/her professional duties. (In case that a search goes into a criminal category, there is no limit on penalty awards.) 

View attachment cat1.jpg


----------



## CleverBomb (Dec 30, 2009)

TallFatSue said:


> Sometimes I wonder if inconsistent rule enforcement is part of the idea, so any would-be criminals can't know what might catch them. Nahhhh, it's probably just the inefficient bureaucracy perpetuating itself. Maybe the airport security could improve their image if they hired some slick public relations firm to say that "frisking isn't a hassle, it's a *service!*" And if the airlines offered in-flight leg massages I might fly more regularly, because I'm always "packin' fat."


Actually, it _is_ part of the system. 
If someone tries a "dry run" (to see if they can get Item X or Y through security) and succeeds, it makes it possible to foil an attack that depends on getting that item (say, one of the two parts of an explosive compound) through -- and is less intrusive and disruptive than doing the same check on everyone all the time. 

-Rusty


----------



## CleverBomb (Dec 30, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> Gut bombs will soon be on the TSA's list of banned substances... mark my word.... and they'll be feelin' for them.


So much for those White Castle burgers I was gonna bring home from Ohio...

-Rusty


----------



## Fonzy (Dec 30, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Shit?...you sure about that? Get thee to a doctor.



LOL  Nice one Mossy

Seriously though, the guy was supposed to be on a list of people under survalence as potential terrorist threats! His own father has admitted that his son went of the rails and reported it to US officials about a month before the incident, but nothing was done about it. All I know is that I'm gonna be particularly nervous since I'm flying Stateside again in the new year, I'm also a young mechanical engineer :doh: 

"No, I'm sorry officer, that isn't a plastic container of volatile liquid strapped to my inner thigh, but I should warn you that yes my knob is almost as deadly!" :happy:


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 30, 2009)

moore2me said:


> Now, I think it is probably a good idea to search suspicious people that are on a "security risk" list or folks meeting criteria like the Unabomber or the Shoebomber. But when it comes down to body searching or bulk searching Cat, my mom, your grandmother, or others who meet no hazard assessment other than we're fat . . . sure, search us. But, pay to do it!



Can't profile so can't really pick specific people out of line to do searches on. If someone looks out of place, or looks to be wearing padding or possbibly have soemthing stuffed in their clothing they should be searched. I'm down for whatever needs to be done to make sure that flying is as safe as possible. That episode on the Delta flight could have ended much worse than it did...


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 30, 2009)

CleverBomb said:


> Actually, it _is_ part of the system.
> If someone tries a "dry run" (to see if they can get Item X or Y through security) and succeeds, it makes it possible to foil an attack that depends on getting that item (say, one of the two parts of an explosive compound) through -- and is less intrusive and disruptive than doing the same check on everyone all the time.
> 
> -Rusty



I was gonna say something similiar but from the other side of the coin. Everyone has to know that there are terrorist cells that operate from within the United States, these people ARE flying, they ARE watching, and I'm sure as I breath that they are testing the waters when they can. I'm glad that the TSA doesn't seem to be consistent from airport to airport that keeps people on their toes and makes it more difficult for people to take things on planes that shouldn't be there.


----------



## Hathor (Dec 30, 2009)

There's no way I'd want strangers feeling up my stomach and legs. Just saying... 

I'd rather drive myself somewhere. Makes my vacation more of an adventure. =D


----------



## toni (Dec 30, 2009)

I don't mind the security measures in the airport. If it keeps my family and me safe, it is worth it. I have traveled many times and have never had a problem. I usually show up to the airport no later than 30-45 minutes before my (domestic) flight. The reason why I breeze through security is because I come prepared. Before I leave, I check the airline's website for all current security measures. I do not pack things that are banned. My liquids are packed in a little baggie. My camera and laptop are easily accessible. My ID stays in my pocket ready to be checked. I wear loose clothing and shoes that easily slip on and off. 

It amazes me how many people still bring full sized bottle of shampoo and perfume in their carry on and then want to argue and ask 100 questions in line. It is so time consuming. Then they want to bitch about security. It is their own fault.


----------



## Cat (Dec 31, 2009)

moore2me said:


> In looking for hidden weapons, why in the heck did airport security insist on searching your legs and ignoring your obvious assets?



I thought it was a bit peculiar. If I seriously looked suspicious, I have LOTS of places to hide stuff. My legs do not even fit into the top 5 of fleshy bits. Heck, I use my boobs to hold all sorts of stuff. Cell phone, etc. And my tummy? I can hide small children there. 

I'm hoping terrorists don't figure out the secrets of supersize bodies, or they'll step up their efforts to recruit radical fatties.


----------



## MrChipz (Jan 1, 2010)

SocialbFly said:


> how in the hell could they carry knives aboard??? someone needs to explain that one to me...



Packing steel is a religious obligation for Sikhs. Some Sikh families are rich enough to afford the kind of legal firepower that can get a Supreme Court ruling against the TSA.

The TSA doesn't really care, because its real purposes are:
Create more well-paid government jobs to pass out as Party favors
Remind us that we are subjects, not citizens
Appear to be Doing Something.


----------



## loveembig (Jan 1, 2010)

Cat said:


> I thought it was a bit peculiar. If I seriously looked suspicious, I have LOTS of places to hide stuff. My legs do not even fit into the top 5 of fleshy bits. Heck, I use my boobs to hold all sorts of stuff. Cell phone, etc. And my tummy? I can hide small children there.
> 
> I'm hoping terrorists don't figure out the secrets of supersize bodies, or they'll step up their efforts to recruit radical fatties.



When I was younger I had a real interest in some kind of career in security but for some strange reason I chose engineering instead. This incident might just make me consider a career change.


----------



## PamelaLois (Jan 1, 2010)

While my mother is nowhere near BBW size (she tops out at about 90 lbs) she just had an interesting encounter with the TSA while flying back to Florida this week. They scanned her carry-on and told her to step off to the side, there were items in the bag they couldn't identify. She did what they said, and the poor kid from the TSA opened my mom's bag to find, neatly folded in a star-spangled blue triangle, the flag from my father's casket. The TSA girl felt like a heel hassling the recently deceased veteran's widow, but there were still things that they didn't recognize, so she had to keep searching. She carefully removed the flag, dug under some file folders to find............

5 hard boiled eggs :doh:

I said "Mom, WTF? You brought EGGS?"

Her reply was "I didn't want them to go to waste"


----------



## CleverBomb (Jan 1, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Can't profile so can't really pick specific people out of line to do searches on. If someone looks out of place, or looks to be wearing padding or possbibly have soemthing stuffed in their clothing they should be searched. I'm down for whatever needs to be done to make sure that flying is as safe as possible. That episode on the Delta flight could have ended much worse than it did...


And the reason you can't profile is that in establishing a category of people who are suspect. you're also creating a category of people who are above suspicion. And then all a hostile group needs to do is recruit someone from the latter group who will then just pass through unquestioned. 
-Rusty


----------



## Lovelyone (Jan 4, 2010)

This happens to me every time I fly. I get frisked, bulk checked...groped, and woman-handled (cos they make women frisk women, thank goodness). Last year the woman who frisked me, asked me to "lift my belly up so that she could check under it." and I told her I would not do that in front of all the people that were watching, as we were out in the open--standing in an area with masking tape X's on the floor for the friskees to stand on. So she and another attendant led me to a bathroom where she gently put her hands under my belly roll (with her palms up so as not to touch my private area) and then she felt from my upper thigh (under my belly) down the front of my legs and then she put her hands behind my knees, where I have more fat rolls. When she was finished, I could tell it was as awkward for her as it was for me cos her face was red and she didn't look me in the eyes all that much. I just smiled and said to her "No worries, I know that is as awkward for you as it is for me. I know that you are just doing your job..and knowing that you take that extra step makes me feel all the more comfortable about flying." she responded with..."You have NO idea how awkward it is for me to ask someone to do that. I don't want to...I HAVE to. I am so relieved that you weren't shitty about it, cos MOST people are. Often times I have to bring women in here in burkas, bigger people, people in wheelchairs, sometimes smaller people who are pissed off about being frisked in public, anyone who sets off the metal detector alarm more than 3 times in a row (which I told her I do all the time cos my body touches the sides of the detector every time I go through)--I could go on and on. I try to be as professional as I can". I reassured her that she did a nice job and didn't offend me or touch me in any manner that was inappropriate. 
I had to think about how many people she must have to bulk check every day--I can imagine that not all people are understanding about it, and that she probably has to deal with confrontational people all day long in that regard.


----------



## bigbri (Jan 5, 2010)

Mr. Chipz has it pegged, political jobs to promote political patronage. As to profiling, we must not accept the reasoning that profiling is automatically racial in nature. Take the Xmas plane bomber, he fits at least 5 profiles that have nothing to do with race: 1)male; 2)under age 30; 3) one-way ticket; 4)cash transaction; 5) no baggage checked. Anyone meeting even one of these profile points should receive additional security scrutiny and searches. Profiling can be effective and not be based on race or national origin. We just need REAL professionals and not political hacks in charge.


----------



## Cat (Jan 10, 2010)

Flew again yesterday out of Las Vegas, and again my legs...only my legs were frisked.
This time, the woman frisking me asked if "I had any sore areas"...of course this was near the end of the frisk rather than the beginning. After walking around Vegas for a few days, my feet were a little sore. Maybe she was going to offer a massage??

Anyway, something is definitely up. Four security checks in a month and two of them resulted in a leg frisk.

Since I flew several times last year (and even many, many times in recent years) without the leg check, I'm thinking fat legs are being dubbed dangerous this year.


----------



## Jes (Jan 11, 2010)

well, we aren't using full-body scanners, so checks need to be more aggressive. I do wonder how people feel about scanners that show more...


----------



## Cat (Jan 11, 2010)

I'd prefer the full body scanner. It goes back to the idea of "you can look all you'd like, but don't touch the merchandise."

There's an idiot congressman here that has written legislation that would ban the use of the scanners. He actually said in an interview, "The TSA just wants to see me naked.." Sure, dude...like you've got anything sooooo spectacular that would prompt the TSA to wanna see your goods. 

Peeps against the full body scans are deluded into thinking they've got something unique under their clothing. I'm sure after 10000 scans, the TSA has pretty much seen it all...and I do mean allll....


----------



## Jes (Jan 11, 2010)

Cat said:


> Peeps against the full body scans are deluded into thinking they've got something unique under their clothing. I'm sure after 10000 scans, the TSA has pretty much seen it all...and I do mean allll....



I'd agree with you. It'd be faster, I'd think, v. the individual pat downs and more accurate, at least in the beginning. I'm just confused by people who are angry at the TSA and who think terrorists are on every plane, but who find the full-body scanning to be invasive. I say scan away. If they wanna know how big my peener is, I'm happy to show them. I have nothing to hide!!


----------



## tjw1971 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ok, first off ... I just now got a chance to read this message thread. I shouldn't exactly be surprised or anything, yet I still *am*! I never heard of them pulling people off to the side for a "bulk check" - simply because they were a larger than average individual. Everyone goes through the metal detectors, and everyone's carry-on items get screened. So WHAT else do they expect to find, hidden up someone's leg or under their stomach?

Here's reality. If you really want to know how efficient our airport screening procedures are, you need to tally up all the times they successfully caught someone trying to sneak a weapon or bomb onto a flight. (I bet they won't even reveal that statistic, claiming it's "in the interest of national security" to hide it.) But I'm willing to bet that it's a VERY small number! That means, we're getting an incredibly poor return on investment of our tax dollars with this stuff!

The "terrorist cells" operating in this country are always going to be here, as long as our nation makes enemies with its foreign policies. That's nothing new, though. All they've done in recent years (mostly post the 9-11 attacks) is put FEAR into people that these factions pose serious threats to us. (Though mysteriously, we're supposed to accept that it's only airline flights they're interested in terrorizing. You don't see all this screening happening when you try to go to a movie, or a game at a stadium, or when you buy a ticket and board a train, or .....)





fatgirlflyin said:


> I was gonna say something similiar but from the other side of the coin. Everyone has to know that there are terrorist cells that operate from within the United States, these people ARE flying, they ARE watching, and I'm sure as I breath that they are testing the waters when they can. I'm glad that the TSA doesn't seem to be consistent from airport to airport that keeps people on their toes and makes it more difficult for people to take things on planes that shouldn't be there.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jan 11, 2010)

Jes said:


> well, we aren't using full-body scanners, so checks need to be more aggressive. I do wonder how people feel about scanners that show more...



I think the scanners are great and will be happy when more airports are using them. The person viewing the pictures isn't anywhere within the eyesight of the person being scanned so there is no uncomfortable eye contact with the person who just saw through your clothes. The scanners will help the tsa catch stuff that the metal detectors and pat downs don't, so I'm all for it.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jan 11, 2010)

tjw1971 said:


> Ok, first off ... I just now got a chance to read this message thread. I shouldn't exactly be surprised or anything, yet I still *am*! I never heard of them pulling people off to the side for a "bulk check" - simply because they were a larger than average individual. Everyone goes through the metal detectors, and everyone's carry-on items get screened. So WHAT else do they expect to find, hidden up someone's leg or under their stomach?



ummmm how about explosives sewn into someone's underwear?



tjw1971 said:


> Here's reality. If you really want to know how efficient our airport screening procedures are, you need to tally up all the times they successfully caught someone trying to sneak a weapon or bomb onto a flight. (I bet they won't even reveal that statistic, claiming it's "in the interest of national security" to hide it.) But I'm willing to bet that it's a VERY small number! That means, we're getting an incredibly poor return on investment of our tax dollars with this stuff!



I don't want them to reveal that statistic, because it is in the interested of national security. You're a fool if you think that people don't try to sneak bombs and guns onto airplanes. What do you think that incident with the plane coming from Amsterdam was? It was a test, plain and simple. If he had succesfully ignited the device then great a bunch of people would die and it would be another blow to our country's confidence. Didn't ignite? Well that's ok too because now they know that they are able to get that type of explosive material past the TSA security.


----------



## Jes (Jan 11, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I think the scanners are great and will be happy when more airports are using them. The person viewing the pictures isn't anywhere within the eyesight of the person being scanned so there is no uncomfortable eye contact with the person who just saw through your clothes. The scanners will help the tsa catch stuff that the metal detectors and pat downs don't, so I'm all for it.



I was just watching a news story on CNN.com and it didn't paint a great picture of the abilities of full-body scanners. Certainly, we are always behind the terrorists in our actions, which is depressing.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 12, 2010)

Body scans have been around for a very long time and for a very long time it has been possible to look at people's intimate parts.


Many, many years ago today when I was a teenager and they still did chest x-rays in various communities I happened to come across a trashcan full of 3 x 3 or 4 x 4 x-rays that, after it was determined that the person being x-rayed it did not have tuberculosis, were thrown away. I started looking at the small x-rays simply to see what chests and x-rays looked like. After examining a few I suddenly realized that I could also get to see a faint outline of the women's breasts. At that time I was a male and I found this to be very interesting.

Perhaps some of those who object to full body scans could reduce everybody's level of anxiety by wearing a skimpy bathing suit under their regular clothes. If a passenger took off all of their clothing except for their bathing suit the security person should be able to see everything that he or she wishes to see in the same time the passenger would be wearing what they would wear on the bathing beach where they would also be wearing it in front of hundreds of people.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 12, 2010)

Perhaps 15 years ago I went through a medical detector at an airport in the Washington DC area. I was wearing steel toed shoes and a fireman's raincoat with lots of metal buckles. The metal detector never made a sound.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 12, 2010)

In the spring of 2007 I took a 30 day 8000 mile train trip around the country. As I was arranging this trip I read a number of different notices about all the things I would need to have on me to be able to get through railroad security.

The reality was that in almost every instance, before they would let me on the train, all I needed to prove was that I had a ticket.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 12, 2010)

In 2002 a friend and I took a trip to Bosnia. On the way there and the way back we both had to go through security five times. Each time he was passed right through and I was given a detailed inspection.

The thing I find most interesting was that I am an American born American citizen who had never been to Europe and my traveling companion, who was never given a detailed inspection, was not a US citizen, barely spoke English, had grown up in a Muslim community and was named Ahmet.

He told mutual acquaintances that, after the first time, he learned to just go through airport security, find a chair, and wait until they had finished inspecting me.


----------



## 99Haints (Jan 13, 2010)

Russell Williams said:


> find a chair



The solution is simple: They suspected you of chairrorism.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 17, 2010)

Russell Williams said:


> we both had to go through security five times. Each time he was passed right through and I was given a detailed inspection.


They must have heard about your McDonalds protest.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 17, 2010)

But in the past I would go into stores and tell them that i would not patonize them until they took down their Colored Served to Take Out Only Signs.

That may be what put me on a watch list.

I realize that I will now hear from those who think that it is silly to protest racial discrimination and, had they been alive at the time they would have pointed out that people doing sitins to protest racial discrination were as silly as those who do siting to protest size discrimination- Unless they happen to believe that it is morally wrong to practice racial discrimination but perfectally acceptable to practice size discrimination.

Russell Williams
Activist


----------



## indy500tchr (Jan 17, 2010)

Russell Williams said:


> But in the past I would go into stores and tell them that i would not patonize them until they took down their Colored Served to Take Out Only Signs.
> 
> That may be what put me on a watch list.
> 
> ...




I doubt that participating in racial discrimination protests would put you on the terrorist watch list 50 years later at airport security.


----------



## 99Haints (Jan 17, 2010)

Russell Williams said:


> sitins



But what would you reccomend to someone who finds themselves in the ironic quagmire of wanting to attend a size acceptance sit-in, but unable to find a large enough chair?


----------



## mszwebs (Jan 17, 2010)

Jes said:


> well, we aren't using full-body scanners, so checks need to be more aggressive. I do wonder how people feel about scanners that show more...



Man, I would rather get to my destination in 1 friggin piece than be concerned about some poor schmo/schmoette who has to see my nekkid self in a scanner.

Yeah, ok, embarrassing I GUESS, but if they're in another room and I don't know who it is, which is how I have heard it will happen, I'm not even going to think that much about it. Half the TSA people I've encountered have been chunky anyway lol.


----------

