I fundamentally don't understand the danger of "traditional" (box cutters, etc.) weapons getting through airport security. I understand that we need to continue testing for bombs and anything that can actually bring a plane down.
It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall.
Airline personnel and the typical cohort of passengers would simply never let a terrorist take the cockpit, which effectively removes that entire element of danger. The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort.
The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense, and truly does feel like security theater at this point. I'd be all-for doubling down on bomb-sniffing dogs, behavior analysts, and all that; but this apparent focus on "traditional" weapons seems totally asymmetric to the risk it presents.
The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. I think Schneier's point is correct that spending the same amount of money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response would keep us safer than screening what innocent passengers bring on to airplanes, but current procedures for airport security are still a reaction to 9/11 as it happened then. I look forward to the day when we dial back airport security procedures to the new reality of reinforced cockpit doors and passengers who will fight would-be hijackers to save their lives.
"The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense"
I hate debating based on speculative estimates..
That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight.
I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.
I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.
Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process.
At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.
While TSA are examining my shoes and scanning my bum, they let through without fanfare my carry-on device: a solid brick of chemicals surrounded by advanced electronics including a radio receiver.
Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.
I seem to recall just a couple of months ago the FAA proposed relaxing the rules so that small knives would be legal. Immediately following that, the media reported widespread public condemnation of the proposal by people concerned for their safety.
So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.
"it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall"
You are right. However, the one difference is the reaction to an attack. It is fairly straightforward (these days) to get responders on the scene in a mall. A shooting or knife fight in an airplane is much harder to contain or react to.
Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.
"It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall."
Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.
Well the truth of the matter is that a bunch of angry guys living in caves in the desert really hated American freedom, so they pooled together some money, flew to America, and sneaked past the notoriously anal TSA.
These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them.
That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.
It may be my libertarded paranoia, but I think airport security screening in the last decade has been largely about diverting public money into private hands.
Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanners, and x-ray backscatter passenger scanners--those things are new, big, and shiny, and no one responsible for budgeting knows how much they should cost.
Meanwhile, Schneier repeatedly and convincingly argues that the measures that we are paying through the nose for them to use are worthless to increase the physical security of the airplanes and their passengers. But the TSA already bought them. It doesn't matter if they work. They have them: they use them.
All that remains now is to justify the budget for the labor force. The ID checker, that's a job. The pat-down guy, that's a job. The guys that stand in front of the tablet app that digitally flips a coin to see if you get your hands swabbed and chromatographed, apparently that's three jobs. The guy who stands at the exit to make sure no wrong-way traffic gets through, that's a job for every exit.
Except they're proposing that the exit guard jobs be replaced with expensive machines now, too. Give it another few years and you'll have DNA sequencers and single-use biological test chips involved somehow. Perhaps after the next airborne pathogen scare, they will be introduced to reassure passengers that no one on their plane has ebolaria or influengue or tubercuningitis or whatever.
Conspiracy hypotheses are easy if you just follow the money.
This is neoliberalism 101, you don't even have to bring up "military-industrial complex". The state is increasingly working with industry (pseudo-privatization), in return the industry increasingly influences state policy. The system keeps working as long as contracts keep going to a small group of big companies (the only ones capable of "working the system") and as long as the big companies can keep influencing politics.
It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.
Even if we ignore the independent investigations from third parties, what more evidence could we ask for that the TSA is ineffective and superfluous, if not its own admission?
The irony is that the majority of the terrorist attacks on planes in recent memory have been stopped by vigilant passengers on the plane itself. Since 9/11, using the plane as the weapon is no longer an option. The passengers are going to fight back, without question, a la Flight 93. Additionally, reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors post 9/11 has put a stop to physical takeover of the aircraft, along with an expanded air marshal program. Bag through an x-ray and walk through a metal detector should be more than sufficient. At the airport in Jakarta, Indonesia, that is how it works.
Of course, the problem is that we now live in a fear driven society where the bad people are literally around every corner and each time we step onto an airplane we are taking our own life into our hands.
I typically think Schneier is too cavalier about "security theater", but in this case I agree completely. On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back: There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack.
TSA actually seems to be making an effort to get smarter about its screening. Trusted passenger programs are expanding dramatically, and I expect the overall burden on the traveling public to decline over time.
> On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back
It absolutely should be drastically scaled back. Or eliminated entirely. The thing you're ignoring is that the current level of airport security kills a lot of people. It does so largely by making flying more expensive and inconvenient so people drive instead of fly and as a result die in auto accidents. The TSA makes us all poorer and causes a great many deaths for no clear benefit whatsoever. The hypothetical attackers who you are postulating might be deterred are a sufficiently weird edge case that it's unlikely they exist at all. Basically, you're imagining somebody who has all the following attributes at once. He or she:
(a) is highly motivated to do evil things that kill lots of people in a high-profile fashion
(b) has the resources to actually implement a plan to do these evil things.
(c) is SMART enough that the attack WOULD succeed were it not for security. If they made a bomb, they were successful at figuring out how to make one that would work well (unlike the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber)
(d) but is DUMB enough that they just can't figure out any way to get around security.
(e) but is SMART enough to REALIZE they can't get around security, so they don't try to do so anyway (explaining the fact that security has never ever caught even a single person trying to do so)
(f) but is DUMB enough that they can't think of any way to use the same resources to carry out some OTHER attack that kills a similar number of people with similar terrorizing effect, like by attacking the security line or a bridge or a tunnel or a shopping mall.
If you can find anybody with all those characteristics at once, THAT is the person who airport security has saved us from.
> There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack.
This is the point that is always missed when talking about "security theater".
Smart and practiced people can make anything look easy. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.
Making an attack difficult on a plane also eliminates the majority of severally mentally unstable from carrying it out. You can kill 300+ people in one instant, it is impossible to stop the truly motivated and capable (ultra tail risk) attacker, but it is crucial to stop the rest of the tail from casually taking down an airliner.
airport security is not built to prevent evil geniuses to act out a brilliant act of terror macguyver style.
airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11.
it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types.
it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it is constrained by cost. it also relies on chance and probability. for every post here about sneaking stuff through you have posts of people being held in interrogation or even denied flying triggered by minor details.
and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play.
> airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11
That's the point of this sort of thing - it won't. As the article demonstrates, the tools to put together a weapon more lethal than a boxcutter are available within the airport terminal.
> airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife
Sorry, but no. Sharpened edge of a credit card, pieces of belt, metal parts of the shoes, pins from the hat - that's just what I can come up with in seconds - these are the things I always get on the plane without issues and would be just as effective as weapons as the boxcutter knife. They may prevent boxcutter knifes, but they don't prevent sharp items in general.
If you want to go for dangerous, cutting items, you don't even have to take them with you. Buy a bottle of wine and smash the bottom off in the toilet - it's both better to hold in hand and more damaging when you wave it around.
"and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play."
Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.
At this point, airport security is there to make people feel safe. That's it.
Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it?
On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks?
Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used.
There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.
"I think the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk. There are very few actual terrorists, and..."
This is very true. Terrorism isn't a very serious problem or threat - it just got disproportionate attention from a combination of 9/11 and ignorance of the American public. I almost hate to say it, but it is sadly true.
I've 'evaded' airport security a few times - and they give me extra hassle for being an arab. I have nothing against profiling - even if it wastes my time it is /sensible/ and not racist at all.
By far the worst case is the one time I turned up at an airport suited and booted and looking especially white. They found the liquids in my hand luggage that I accidentally left there, and let me keep them.
Its all for show, the idea that a government is in control and secure when they make 101 security fuckups like meeting in the same place regularly (!).
If I was in anyway inclined to be a terrorist the result would be devastating - I'm glad the people we are dealing with in that regard are exceptionally rare and stupid (stupid enough to try what they do... as well as stupid enough to not have anything like an organised or well prepared strategy).
If you want to really worry - think about all the Iraqui and Afgani insurgents that for the last 10 years have waged war against US and survived. They have worldclass IED making capabilities and it is not that hard to smuggle them in US to begin ground warfare.
Security is hard. Physical security is hard too. Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. So if someone wants to set an alarm bomb with some destructive chemical it is possible, no? Though I am in favor of airport security - even if false sense is better than zero. If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should. Yes, you can't prevent more major terrorist attack easily - one could just drive a van full of gas and explode in the lobby if one wishes to do so - but we still need that basic security if it is doable.
The truth is we as a civilization tends to blame all the time. When we fear danger we blame the government not doing enough and when we find inconvenience we ask for less protection. I see no one has yet attempt to provide a better solution - only complaint.
Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine. Is it embarrasing when someone stops you and scans you? I have been stopped before for carrying a coin in my pocket before going through the scanner. It's okay. Everyone is too busy to get through.
The last point is last time when Schneier talked about the dry ice bomb he was wrong it being harmless. He just won't admit he is wrong.
Don't they also use screening by looking at passengers? Don't know about USA but in my country there's usually a few security people just looking at the people who go through the security check. I suppose they are trained to see nervous people behaving oddly and so forth.
The videos are short on details, and I'm a little sceptical. A lot of it seems to involve removing Lithium from Lion batteries. I'm told that can be done with wire cutters, but I don't think you can buy those inside the sterile zone.
Absolutely nothing, except maybe panicking some passengers. Planes are pressurized, and the exits all open inward. It's not possible for a human being to overcome that force.
Bruce Schneier is and has been one of the most outspoken critics of the TSA for years. This article isn't going to change any three-letter agency's opinion of him.
>the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk
It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait.
[+] [-] pkfrank|12 years ago|reply
It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall.
Airline personnel and the typical cohort of passengers would simply never let a terrorist take the cockpit, which effectively removes that entire element of danger. The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort.
The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense, and truly does feel like security theater at this point. I'd be all-for doubling down on bomb-sniffing dogs, behavior analysts, and all that; but this apparent focus on "traditional" weapons seems totally asymmetric to the risk it presents.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easy_rider|12 years ago|reply
I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.
[+] [-] viraptor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasur|12 years ago|reply
Not entirely true. If you can get some Mercury on board, it's party-time. Mercury just loves Aluminium...
[+] [-] jksmith|12 years ago|reply
At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.
[+] [-] iconjack|12 years ago|reply
Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|12 years ago|reply
So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.
[+] [-] san86|12 years ago|reply
Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.
[+] [-] larrys|12 years ago|reply
Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.
[+] [-] pearjuice|12 years ago|reply
These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them.
That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.
[+] [-] logfromblammo|12 years ago|reply
Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanners, and x-ray backscatter passenger scanners--those things are new, big, and shiny, and no one responsible for budgeting knows how much they should cost.
Meanwhile, Schneier repeatedly and convincingly argues that the measures that we are paying through the nose for them to use are worthless to increase the physical security of the airplanes and their passengers. But the TSA already bought them. It doesn't matter if they work. They have them: they use them.
All that remains now is to justify the budget for the labor force. The ID checker, that's a job. The pat-down guy, that's a job. The guys that stand in front of the tablet app that digitally flips a coin to see if you get your hands swabbed and chromatographed, apparently that's three jobs. The guy who stands at the exit to make sure no wrong-way traffic gets through, that's a job for every exit.
Except they're proposing that the exit guard jobs be replaced with expensive machines now, too. Give it another few years and you'll have DNA sequencers and single-use biological test chips involved somehow. Perhaps after the next airborne pathogen scare, they will be introduced to reassure passengers that no one on their plane has ebolaria or influengue or tubercuningitis or whatever.
Conspiracy hypotheses are easy if you just follow the money.
[+] [-] dmix|12 years ago|reply
It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.
[+] [-] elwell|12 years ago|reply
[0] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubTrNKYf-8
[+] [-] chimeracoder|12 years ago|reply
The TSA itself has admitted that terrorist threats to aviation are nonexistent: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...
Even if we ignore the independent investigations from third parties, what more evidence could we ask for that the TSA is ineffective and superfluous, if not its own admission?
[+] [-] swalkergibson|12 years ago|reply
Of course, the problem is that we now live in a fear driven society where the bad people are literally around every corner and each time we step onto an airplane we are taking our own life into our hands.
[+] [-] twoodfin|12 years ago|reply
TSA actually seems to be making an effort to get smarter about its screening. Trusted passenger programs are expanding dramatically, and I expect the overall burden on the traveling public to decline over time.
[+] [-] glenra|12 years ago|reply
It absolutely should be drastically scaled back. Or eliminated entirely. The thing you're ignoring is that the current level of airport security kills a lot of people. It does so largely by making flying more expensive and inconvenient so people drive instead of fly and as a result die in auto accidents. The TSA makes us all poorer and causes a great many deaths for no clear benefit whatsoever. The hypothetical attackers who you are postulating might be deterred are a sufficiently weird edge case that it's unlikely they exist at all. Basically, you're imagining somebody who has all the following attributes at once. He or she:
(a) is highly motivated to do evil things that kill lots of people in a high-profile fashion
(b) has the resources to actually implement a plan to do these evil things.
(c) is SMART enough that the attack WOULD succeed were it not for security. If they made a bomb, they were successful at figuring out how to make one that would work well (unlike the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber)
(d) but is DUMB enough that they just can't figure out any way to get around security.
(e) but is SMART enough to REALIZE they can't get around security, so they don't try to do so anyway (explaining the fact that security has never ever caught even a single person trying to do so)
(f) but is DUMB enough that they can't think of any way to use the same resources to carry out some OTHER attack that kills a similar number of people with similar terrorizing effect, like by attacking the security line or a bridge or a tunnel or a shopping mall.
If you can find anybody with all those characteristics at once, THAT is the person who airport security has saved us from.
[+] [-] wtvanhest|12 years ago|reply
This is the point that is always missed when talking about "security theater".
Smart and practiced people can make anything look easy. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.
Making an attack difficult on a plane also eliminates the majority of severally mentally unstable from carrying it out. You can kill 300+ people in one instant, it is impossible to stop the truly motivated and capable (ultra tail risk) attacker, but it is crucial to stop the rest of the tail from casually taking down an airliner.
[+] [-] kfk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinaceae|12 years ago|reply
airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11.
it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types.
it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it is constrained by cost. it also relies on chance and probability. for every post here about sneaking stuff through you have posts of people being held in interrogation or even denied flying triggered by minor details.
and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|12 years ago|reply
That's the point of this sort of thing - it won't. As the article demonstrates, the tools to put together a weapon more lethal than a boxcutter are available within the airport terminal.
[+] [-] darkarmani|12 years ago|reply
Why? They don't seem to be attacking large stadiums or subways.
[+] [-] viraptor|12 years ago|reply
Sorry, but no. Sharpened edge of a credit card, pieces of belt, metal parts of the shoes, pins from the hat - that's just what I can come up with in seconds - these are the things I always get on the plane without issues and would be just as effective as weapons as the boxcutter knife. They may prevent boxcutter knifes, but they don't prevent sharp items in general.
If you want to go for dangerous, cutting items, you don't even have to take them with you. Buy a bottle of wine and smash the bottom off in the toilet - it's both better to hold in hand and more damaging when you wave it around.
[+] [-] mikeash|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larrys|12 years ago|reply
Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.
[+] [-] Ryoku|12 years ago|reply
Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it? On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks?
Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used. There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.
[+] [-] jheriko|12 years ago|reply
This is very true. Terrorism isn't a very serious problem or threat - it just got disproportionate attention from a combination of 9/11 and ignorance of the American public. I almost hate to say it, but it is sadly true.
I've 'evaded' airport security a few times - and they give me extra hassle for being an arab. I have nothing against profiling - even if it wastes my time it is /sensible/ and not racist at all.
By far the worst case is the one time I turned up at an airport suited and booted and looking especially white. They found the liquids in my hand luggage that I accidentally left there, and let me keep them.
Its all for show, the idea that a government is in control and secure when they make 101 security fuckups like meeting in the same place regularly (!).
If I was in anyway inclined to be a terrorist the result would be devastating - I'm glad the people we are dealing with in that regard are exceptionally rare and stupid (stupid enough to try what they do... as well as stupid enough to not have anything like an organised or well prepared strategy).
[+] [-] hawkharris|12 years ago|reply
It's indicative of a shortsighted, reactionary way of thinking that glosses over the nuances of the problem.
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yeukhon|12 years ago|reply
The truth is we as a civilization tends to blame all the time. When we fear danger we blame the government not doing enough and when we find inconvenience we ask for less protection. I see no one has yet attempt to provide a better solution - only complaint.
Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine. Is it embarrasing when someone stops you and scans you? I have been stopped before for carrying a coin in my pocket before going through the scanner. It's okay. Everyone is too busy to get through.
The last point is last time when Schneier talked about the dry ice bomb he was wrong it being harmless. He just won't admit he is wrong.
[+] [-] thisiswrong|12 years ago|reply
Follow the money and you will find that the same 'security' profiteers are surprisingly linked to events surrounding 9/11:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-g...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement
Just look at how easy it is to profit from and sell false 'security' in war-torn Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector...
[+] [-] scrrr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dspeyer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kunil|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] executive|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BorgHunter|12 years ago|reply
http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/
[+] [-] willvarfar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheald|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pearjuice|12 years ago|reply
It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait.
[0] http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm
[+] [-] aaronem|12 years ago|reply