We don't have to have direct knowledge of the impossibly specific situation you've constructed.
Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through).
And how utterly provincial are so many people on here? What backwaters do they live in? Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that.
Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. We don't know what explosive material the sensor detected, but by the response it seems likely that it was rare.
Finally, this isn't just about racism
Indeed, it isn't, even though the overwhelming majority of comments, and the title itself, portends racism. In another comment someone criticizes me for apparently claiming that their treatment is reasonable. Yet never did I say their treatment was reasonable. Who would?
they wouldn't even tell him what they had found
Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity. They likely imagine that giving that information away shows their hand.
>Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through).
You are correct that anecdotal reports of white people not being harassed after setting off the detectors is not particularly strong evidence.
> Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that.
Racism is not a matter of "white or non-white". The "blows up planes" stereotype is specific to people who look "Arab". And of course they're not harassing everyone who fits their stereotype; the explosive detector surely did play a role (and people suggesting that it was intentionally triggered are being silly). It's just that your estimate of that being "95% of this story" is grotesquely optimistic.
>Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant.
Perhaps the FBI agent didn't have a sense of the situation before he arrived. I would guess, given his position and the fact that he seemed to be the most competent and perceptive person the author dealt with, that his assessment is as reliable as we can expect to get. It certainly isn't irrelevant. That it was said in conversation is not very relevant. Are you suggesting that he made that comment inaccurately to reassure the author? "You have to understand, we're just very racist"?
As for various things that other commenters have said, I'm not sure what response you want from me. I didn't say them. I'm sorry people can't read?
>> they wouldn't even tell him what they had found
> Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity
No, it's rather common sense actually.
If a suspect wanted to blow something up, he would never admit he has the chemicals he has with him (because he wouldn't be sure that the cops have actually detected that chemical, and not made some other mistake that will let him go through).
But if the cops tell him what they've found, then he'll know he's screwed, and will try to make up an excuse.
On the other hand, if he admits what the chemical is himself (probably with a proper excuse), chances are that he's probably innocent, and they'd let him go.
So, telling him what he's being accused of having actually makes it harder for him to get himself out of the mess plausibly.
I find your reasoning that the terrorist "would never admit" anything about the real chemicals. If he used ammonium nitrate, he can easily say "I was using some fertilizer in my garden". If he used gunpowder, he can say "I was at the shooting range earlier", or "I was setting off fireworks with friends last night". If neither of those are what they found, they're still normal-sounding excuses that a person might give. He can give a long list of innocuous chemicals with those thrown in, and you won't have any way of distinguishing his story from that of an innocent person.
But if the terrorist hasn't thought this far ahead, then his excuse is probably not going to be very good. Tell a person exactly what you found, and you might catch the terrorist off guard and be able to tell that they're lying from the weird excuse, while a normal person will either say "I don't know where that would have come from", or would actually have a plausible excuse.
It's still not a very useful question even in that latter case, but it's marginally more useful if you actually name the chemical.
Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through).
And how utterly provincial are so many people on here? What backwaters do they live in? Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that.
Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. We don't know what explosive material the sensor detected, but by the response it seems likely that it was rare.
Finally, this isn't just about racism
Indeed, it isn't, even though the overwhelming majority of comments, and the title itself, portends racism. In another comment someone criticizes me for apparently claiming that their treatment is reasonable. Yet never did I say their treatment was reasonable. Who would?
they wouldn't even tell him what they had found
Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity. They likely imagine that giving that information away shows their hand.