-
Orlando airport after battery explodes in bag, causing panic and evacuation
Posted by Rick Law on 13 Nov, 2017 05:32 -
November 11, 2017 (approx 5pm)
Long delays at Orlando airport after battery explodes in bag, causing panic and evacuation
...
“It was pandemonium,” he said. People sprinted past the security checkpoint to take cover.
...
According to the Orlando Police Department, the incident that prompted the delays was a lithium camera battery that overheated and exploded in the main terminal.
...
Above quoted from:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-airport-orlando-noise-scare-20171110-story.html -
And yet despite knowing it was just a noise, TSA cleared the airport, including recalling aircraft back to the gate to deplane and re-screen everyone... de facto shut down the airport for 4h. Makes no damned sense to me (other than in the context of security theatre, where making a show of "security" is more important than actual security...).
-
It wasn't the battery that caused the TSA's reaction it was people running past the security screening to air-side.
The TSA couldn't take the chance that the battery incident hadn't been a diversion to enable someone with nefarious intent to get airside in the ensuing chaos.
Already de-gated planes were required to return to the gates in case said nefarious person has also got onto the apron.
If panicking people hadn't gone past security it would have been resolved a lot quicker.
Whilst, with the benefit of hindsight, I do think security (especially american) often over-reacts and I would have mightily pissed off if my plane had been cancelled/delayed I can understand the decision making/procedures used.
And now I've put on my flame suit ready for everyone telling me I'm an apologist for the government and am a brain-washed sheep with no independent thought who believes the fake news/mainstream media.
-
We've reached the point where our own actions do the damage, rather than those of our enemies. Considering that has been their goal from the beginning, we're not doing too well.
-
It wasn't the battery that caused the TSA's reaction it was people running past the security screening to air-side.
Ohhhhh, from the reports I'd read, I didn't realize that unscreened pax had gone to the sterile side. That makes sense then. (Re-screening the terminal that is. Re-screening the pax already on airplanes seems kinda ridiculous all the same.)
The TSA couldn't take the chance that the battery incident hadn't been a diversion to enable someone with nefarious intent to get airside in the ensuing chaos.
Already de-gated planes were required to return to the gates in case said nefarious person has also got onto the apron.
If panicking people hadn't gone past security it would have been resolved a lot quicker.
Whilst, with the benefit of hindsight, I do think security (especially american) often over-reacts and I would have mightily pissed off if my plane had been cancelled/delayed I can understand the decision making/procedures used.
And now I've put on my flame suit ready for everyone telling me I'm an apologist for the government and am a brain-washed sheep with no independent thought who believes the fake news/mainstream media.We've reached the point where our own actions do the damage, rather than those of our enemies. Considering that has been their goal from the beginning, we're not doing too well.
^^^^This x10^9. People forget the "terror" in "terrorism" -- the goal isn't to cause damage, it's to cause us to live in fear. In this sense, with regards to USA (and UK), the terrorists have won in spectacular style. -
No one visibly gives a fuck here in the UK apart from people who's job it is to give a fuck about it. That's SOP here
Having got stuck in the whole 7/7 bomb thing, most people were just annoyed about not being able to get home or there being a coffee drought than actually worrying about being blown up. -
It wasn't the battery that caused the TSA's reaction it was people running past the security screening to air-side.
The TSA couldn't take the chance that the battery incident hadn't been a diversion to enable someone with nefarious intent to get airside in the ensuing chaos.
Already de-gated planes were required to return to the gates in case said nefarious person has also got onto the apron.
If panicking people hadn't gone past security it would have been resolved a lot quicker.
Whilst, with the benefit of hindsight, I do think security (especially american) often over-reacts and I would have mightily pissed off if my plane had been cancelled/delayed I can understand the decision making/procedures used.
And now I've put on my flame suit ready for everyone telling me I'm an apologist for the government and am a brain-washed sheep with no independent thought who believes the fake news/mainstream media.
Nope, you are absolutely spot on! At least according to the Government and Law Enforcement agencies in Australia. It's this kind of mentality that keeps us safe. Police aren't just trained to respond to the immediate scene, but to "stand back" and look at the bigger possibilities.
No one likes delays, but I'd much rather my flight be re-scheduled than having to face a real threat whilst in the air. -
About the size of it.
I never did understand why the "Islamic" terrorists are seen as being more of an issue then the IRA was? They were actually good at it.
The **NICE** thing about suicide bombers is that they are all by definition inexperienced amateurs, and the thing has to be kind of self limiting, really not worth worrying about.
These clowns using vehicles in crowds are an unfortunate development, but still small beer in the scheme of things.
Regards, Dan.
-
IRA were very good. This is the truth...
-
No one likes delays, but I'd much rather my flight be re-scheduled than having to face a real threat whilst in the air.
Tipping a lounge has serious financial impacts on an airline and follow on with the airport operator. They like it even less than we do, but as others have said it can pose a very real threat. They really only do it if they have no other choice.
-
About the size of it.
I never did understand why the "Islamic" terrorists are seen as being more of an issue then the IRA was? They were actually good at it.
The **NICE** thing about suicide bombers is that they are all by definition inexperienced amateurs, and the thing has to be kind of self limiting, really not worth worrying about.
Unfortunately it's not necessarily small beer when they get control of an aircraft with a couple of hundred people and eleventy millions tons of Jet A on board. It's one of those "once bitten twice shy" things. While the US has devolved and the TSA are generally held as a laughing stock globally, developed countries routinely intercept real threats that don't make the news.
-
IRA were very good. This is the truth...
Number of deaths in Hungary due to terrorism:
1970-2017: 0
I'm not gonna post any other statistics, as it would assume a causality. -
We've reached the point where our own actions do the damage, rather than those of our enemies. Considering that has been their goal from the beginning, we're not doing too well.
That's obvious to thee, me and anyone with half a brain but the government types seem to have forgotten that terrorism is asymmetric warfare designed to induce fear. If you don't have the resources to deliver effective military blows you put the effort into terrorising your enemy and let them do the damage for you.
If, as a target government, you over-react on every opportunity possible, and continue over-reacting to specific tactics well after any individual style of threat has lost any real effectiveness (because you now know about it) you're acting as a force multiplier for the enemy. Our governments respond to every new tactic by creating new highly specific laws, and institutionalizing ineffective but highly visible security measures. Instead of defusing the tactics by reassuring the public, they potentiate the tactics by introducing as many continual reminders of the threat as possible.
It's quite easy to see why the conspiracy nuts think these things are an 'inside job' because the official response is exactly what you would do if you wanted to spread fear and instil a sense that you need a repressive government to protect you from the apparently massive outside threat. Less romantically the real government motivation is stupidity, incompetence and, in a small number of cases, opportunism to extend some department's budget or power.
-
Quote
If, as a target government, you over-react on every opportunity possible, and continue over-reacting to specific tactics well after any individual style of threat has lost any real effectiveness (because you now know about it) you're acting as a force multiplier for the enemy. Our governments respond to every new tactic by creating new highly specific laws, and institutionalizing ineffective but highly visible security measures. Instead of defusing the tactics by reassuring the public, they potentiate the tactics by introducing as many continual reminders of the threat as possible.
That said, security theatre is reassuring to many. Somebody being seen to do something makes you feel safe - even if it is a bit illusionary (please note this is not decrying the other agencies who actually do stop terrorists on a fairly regular basis).
In some ways it ties back to the media portrayal of counterterrorism: "airport grinds to halt while security double check everything in case of suspected terrorist attack" sounds impressive, it sounds like we're in control - it's good - it's reassuring, and most of all, it's very visible to any observer it...
Now compare that to... "Investigators spend 18 months following paper trails, cooperating with international agencies, conducting espionage, intercepting communication, and navigating political minefields before signing off on the paperwork to authorise the raid on some suspected terrorists".
Much less impressive. It was a lot of work just understanding it all - and the timescale makes us look bad. Most of it happened quietly and invisibly behind closed doors. The number of agencies involved makes us look weak. It makes us look like we aren't really in control...
And even worse, it makes a pretty poor headline...
-
No one visibly gives a fuck here in the UK apart from people who's job it is to give a fuck about it. That's SOP here
Having got stuck in the whole 7/7 bomb thing, most people were just annoyed about not being able to get home or there being a coffee drought than actually worrying about being blown up.
One can make a Darwinian argument here.
In the second world war London got the arse bombed out of it. In a bombing raid the quickest way to get killed is to run around like a headless chicken, the best way to stay alive is to remain relatively calm and find cover. So those (common people) who survived the WWII Blitz were those genetically predisposed to relative calmness in the fact of danger.
On the other hand, the ruling classes were either in their country homes or in bunkers under Westminster. So they suffered no evolutionary pressure from the Blitz that bred out the instincts that cause fear-driven deaths.
So we reach the current day, where the common people (i.e. thee and me) say "keep calm and carry on, it's not a significant threat" and the ruling classes run around like headless chickens who think the sky is falling and legislate for sky wardens, the pointless building of sky props and a standing sky defence force*.
*This not a mixed metaphor, it's a scrambled [egg] metaphor. -
Interesting point there!
-
Eh?IRA were very good. This is the truth...
Number of deaths in Hungary due to terrorism:
1970-2017: 0
I'm not gonna post any other statistics, as it would assume a causality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Budapest_bombing -
1. It was a nutjob, and not a terrorist
Eh?IRA were very good. This is the truth...
Number of deaths in Hungary due to terrorism:
1970-2017: 0
I'm not gonna post any other statistics, as it would assume a causality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Budapest_bombing
2. Nobody died -
One can make a Darwinian argument here.
Even though it's a compelling story, I doubt that such a immediate, profound and lasting effect can be seen. Not in small part because the bombs simply fell where they did. Being calm or smart doesn't save you, which is one of the cruelties of war.
In the second world war London got the arse bombed out of it. In a bombing raid the quickest way to get killed is to run around like a headless chicken, the best way to stay alive is to remain relatively calm and find cover. So those (common people) who survived the WWII Blitz were those genetically predisposed to relative calmness in the fact of danger.
On the other hand, the ruling classes were either in their country homes or in bunkers under Westminster. So they suffered no evolutionary pressure from the Blitz that bred out the instincts that cause fear-driven deaths.
So we reach the current day, where the common people (i.e. thee and me) say "keep calm and carry on, it's not a significant threat" and the ruling classes run around like headless chickens who think the sky is falling and legislate for sky wardens, the pointless building of sky props and a standing sky defence force*.
*This not a mixed metaphor, it's a scrambled [egg] metaphor.
Obviously, I would love any statistics that make the argument. -
No one visibly gives a fuck here in the UK apart from people who's job it is to give a fuck about it. That's SOP here
I have to disagree there. Even though the general public might carry on with their lives, the response of society has been to introduce and support a number of laws in the name of national security which could easily be classified as draconic.
Having got stuck in the whole 7/7 bomb thing, most people were just annoyed about not being able to get home or there being a coffee drought than actually worrying about being blown up. -
And yet despite knowing it was just a noise, TSA cleared the airport, including recalling aircraft back to the gate to deplane and re-screen everyone... de facto shut down the airport for 4h. Makes no damned sense to me (other than in the context of security theatre, where making a show of "security" is more important than actual security...).
That's madness, let the planes take off. -
1. It was a nutjob, and not a terrorist
There is no difference my friend. -
NOTICE: Keep this thread on track or it gets locked or off-topic political posts deleted.
-
That said, security theatre is reassuring to many.
...
And even worse, it makes a pretty poor headline...
I don't disagree with a word of that, but you omit what seems to be the natural conclusion to your argument: "That it's all about appearances."
Given a choice between "looking good but still allowing people to be terrified" and "quietly getting on with the job of prevention and reassuring people" I know which seems preferable to me.
In the UK we have some concrete past examples to draw on, the whole IRA thing. The IRA actually blew up the hotel that Maggie Thatcher and most of the cabinet were staying in during the 1984 Conservative Party Conference. This led to exactly zero laws being created or modified, let alone on a knee jerk. Yet nowadays every terrorist incident, no matter how minor, generates immediate calls for new laws and often gets them. (It did lead to changes in security for Party Political conferences, but they were mostly subtle, largely unseen by the public, and most importantly, only inconvenienced people who were physically near the conferences, and were conducted as quietly as possible not as pieces of grand theatre. Some things were publicly visible but like a duck, most of the real action was going on under the water line.) -
Even though it's a compelling story, I doubt that such a immediate, profound and lasting effect can be seen. Not in small part because the bombs simply fell where they did. Being calm or smart doesn't save you, which is one of the cruelties of war.
Obviously, I would love any statistics that make the argument.
Not really meant to be taken seriously, except as a social parable.