Skip to comments.
San Fran airport evacuated...explosive residue found on passenger shoe
MSNBC
Posted on 01/30/2002 7:05:40 AM PST by Conservababe
MSNBC reporting that SF airport evacuated because of explosive residue found on passenger shoe at check point. Passenger left area before being questioned further.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-176 next last
To: Conservobabe
Security became suspicious when he tried to light his shoe with this:
121
posted on
01/30/2002 9:08:21 AM PST
by
lds23
To: dhfnc
"Radio news just said the man somehow was lost in the crowd."
How could this possibly happen? It makes no sense. I don't know, seems possible, tho. Judge Crater is still missing.
122
posted on
01/30/2002 9:15:06 AM PST
by
bwteim
To: a_witness
No security officer could be that incompetent, even in SF.One trip thru SFO and you'd change your mind.
123
posted on
01/30/2002 9:19:59 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: mountaineer
Is that a firecracker in your shoe or are you happy to see me?:^)
124
posted on
01/30/2002 9:22:32 AM PST
by
MaeWest
To: skeeter
No security officer could be that incompetent, even in SF.One trip thru SFO and you'd change your mind.
People here cannot imagine the imbecility of the San Fran. secuirty people without visiting it. For one, most of them can't speak clear English. Just another minimum-wage "appearance of security" scam.
125
posted on
01/30/2002 9:25:15 AM PST
by
Shermy
To: blackbag
Just as I suspected - the old 'explosive residue on 40 year old white male's shoe' trick.
126
posted on
01/30/2002 9:25:25 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: skeeter
I'd add that the checker, gave the guy a pass, a supervisor found out and went bezerk. You WILL NOT hear the real story why the man got by in the first place because it will suggest that the procedures, staff and policies are incompetent and inadequate. This would cut into profits and threaten the contractor, therefore the story will be kept murky.
127
posted on
01/30/2002 9:28:35 AM PST
by
Shermy
To: Shermy
People here cannot imagine the imbecility of the San Fran. secuirty people without visiting it. For one, most of them can't speak clear English. Just another minimum-wage "appearance of security" scam.Those of us who use SFO better pray that the collection of morbidly obese & geriatric non-english speakers that pass for security never have to run down a real terrorist.
128
posted on
01/30/2002 9:31:29 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: Shermy
Fox News interviewed an airport security manager (from NY I think, not SF) who stated the explosive residue was the same as on TWA 800. When asked by Fox for more about the 800 residue, he repeated the (lame) official story that the residue on 800 had been left due to the botched 'explosive test' performed earlier on that plane.
To: Myrddin
I'll bet my shoes are covered with "residue" from walking around at my indoor shooting range. My next flight should be lots of fun. Well, we are Americans here, and I think we could come up with some solutions.
As a medical professional, I wear lightweight disposable gowns and shoe covers over my clothing. Yes, I know that it is reverse protection, but it can still work for traveling on airlines.
In your workplace, wear protection over your clothes and shoes if you cannot launder them before a flight, and then just dispose of the outerwear.
Me, if I were flying now, I would traipse down to the discount store for a NEW cheap sweatsuit and tennies to wear during the flight and save myself a hassle. Fashion, i will forsake for safety.
To: Conservobabe
The enemy knows they can cause untold damage to the economy simply by showing up at an airport and doing something "odd" (like running the wrong way up an escalator).
No simple solution to feigned terror attacks.
To: lelio
Haha--reminds me of that commercial for a network security thingy (I'm not into computers):
Alarm sounds, robotic voice repeats "intruder alert, Sector 12, intruder alert..."
Two security guys see the intruder and sprint after him. They are gaining ground when they suddenly halt.
The camera pulls back to reveal a line on the wall behind the two men dividing "Sector 12" and "Sector 13." One man says proudly into his walkie talkie, "Sector 12 clear."
The intruder, obviously, gets away.
To: LibertyGirl77
So, this guy is still just walking around???? With his shoes on? They wouldn't let my husband (in Houston)even get NEAR the terminal until they had security, police and asked about 30+ questions.
Maybe it is a test by Homeland Security. But don't you think they would have alerted the SF Airport by NOW??? Or are they treating this as a "missing sole" case????
133
posted on
01/30/2002 10:35:21 AM PST
by
DJ88
To: Conservobabe
I thought the mention of RDX is in the context of "it could have been ____" if I heard that right. It could therefore be any nitrate.
They just might come out and admit that this may also just have been a false positive.
What I find really insightful is that this event is a pure exaample of the difference between the airlines needs and the police needs -- the airlines want a screen to keep planes from blowing up, that's all. The police want to catch a perpetrator and could care less about the airline's desires. So those who argue for more professional law enforcement out of the screeners will forever want to use this event as an example why.
Comment #135 Removed by Moderator
To: aomagrat
He got away while the National Guardsman was fumbling around in his pocket for his bullet for the key to the lock box downstairs that contained the radio which is used to call the airport commander who would then put the paperwork in motion which would allow the hearing to see if the National Guardsman had a good reason to REQUEST a bullet for his gun.
To: Conservobabe
This is ludicrous. Didn't SF fight for the "right" to retain their security rather than having to fire those who did not meet standards?
137
posted on
01/30/2002 10:56:50 AM PST
by
Ruth A.
To: vollmond
Long before the Sept. 11 incident, I had been stopped at security checkpoints on a few occasions for explosive
residue in my gym bag. They did another test, and found it to be nothing. So maybe this is a similar case.
138
posted on
01/30/2002 11:03:13 AM PST
by
Jadge
To: Conservobabe
Me, if I were flying now, I would traipse down to the discount store for a NEW cheap sweatsuit and tennies to wear during the flight and save myself a hassle.That's what I told my girlfriend after I took my first post-911 flight. I took a 2-hop round-trip flight and got frisked 4 times. Next time it's sweats, slip-on shoes (or slippers), no hat, no jewelry/metal and minimal carry-on.
139
posted on
01/30/2002 11:07:35 AM PST
by
randog
To: randog
One day, security cleared travellers will adopt the Star Trek skin tight chic apparel. It's coming. Should be interesting when some of America's overweight pour into one of those babies.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-176 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson