The new administrator of the TSA, John Pistole, tried to address the issue of why we still need to keep the ban on liquids when we fly. His reasoning may have sounded plausible, until you read the comments. That’s where the truth lies.

The liquids rule continues to be a necessary step because current intelligence shows that liquids are still a threat, and until TSA has the technology to screen liquids at checkpoints, the only other alternative is to ban all liquids. We’re not going to do that. TSA is getting closer to finalizing upgraded software for X-rays that will allow liquids to be screened. Until this happens, we will continue with 3-1-1 to keep you safe when you fly.

Thus, Mr. Pistole claims all he is trying to do is keep Americans safe. Then, you start reading the comments.

If liquids are such a threat please explain how the TSA screens the tens of thousands of bottles of soda, water, and other beverages that are sold in airports?

Further, if liquids are such a threat, why is the threat disposed of without care or consideration in waste bins near the checkpoint? Surely explosive liquids disposed in such a way would pose a threat to at least as many people as a liquid bomb on a plane would.

I can go one step further by asking why my soda was such a threat that the TSA agent needed to remove it from my bag, then give it to another TSA agent, who opened it and promptly drank it before I was even out of eyesight.

You guys are completely useless. You serve no other purpose than to make naive people feel secure, and I don’t even think you do a great job of doing that.

Can’t say I disagree with this statement either.

If these liquids are such a threat then why are aircrew exempt from these same regulations?

Why does TSA violate EPA hazardous waste storage and disposal regulations by combining unknown and possibly explosive liquids in common trash containers.

How many ounces or baggies of liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated from terrorists over the last month? Over the last 6 months? Over the last year? Since the program’s inception?

Come to think of it, I’d like to know the answer to that too. The best comments, however, come from the user Adrian.

Terrorists have wanted to (and tried to) use liquid explosives for decades before the limits went into effect. One was actually detonated on a flight, killing one passenger in the mid 1990s. Why didn’t we overreact then?

Most explosives come in solid form, and there have been far more terrorist attacks using solid explosives. Why don’t we limit the amount of solids through the checkpoint?

The UK plot involving liquid explosives also depended upon a second (solid) explosive/detonator disguised as a AA battery. Why haven’t we banned all batteries from flights? Can the X-ray machine tell the difference between a real Duracell and an explosive wrapped to look like one?

The fact of the matter is, that solid or liquid, explosives require a detonator. Detonators are hard to get through the checkpoint because they look funny on x-rays and they set off the metal detectors. Some may even be detected by the random residue testing. That’s a big reason why Mr. Sizzlypants failed last Christmas. That is a security success. We don’t need absurd restrictions on liquids. (We also don’t need to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on privacy-invading whole-body imaging machines.) The only reason this stupidity isn’t undone, is that nobody wants to admit it was stupid.

And if that doesn’t explain why this is all security theater to you, well, you’re just too stupid to see it.