Originally Posted by
PhoenixRev
I didn't say "checkpoint." I said "before your flight leaves the gate." I am fully aware of the layers including the apparently short-lived but completely ridiculous checking of drinks purchased airside with chemical test strips.
Yes. "Could." That conditional phrase, however, doesn't change the fact that saying "we are here to prevent another 9/11" (or similar terminology) is pure puffery. I guess you could say it is just someone giving an opinion but you and I both know full well that there is a quantitative difference between some average person saying "The TSA is there to prevent another 9/11" and a TSO saying "We are here to prevent another 9/11."
What did Argenbright do wrong on 9/11?
Correct, I said checkpoint. In some cases where screening is conducted airside at the gates and in those areas, I guess a case could be made that we are the last line of security before you get on the plane, but that is not a completely true statement. Each individual person is their own last line of defense if you look at it literally (whether they choose to defend themselves or not). The point I was making is TSA is not the last line of security, it is the largest and most visible component of the security network.
The reason I say it is simply opinion is there are just way too many variables and it happened in the past - we have no way of determining what would have happened. TSA, TSAs opponents or 3rd party persons could conduct all kinds of theoretical testing and experiments and conjecturing and discussion - but it will always boil down to what seems to be the general consensus of each group... A majority opinion formed by that group. This is not a forensic situation where you have a clear set of steps or pathological checklists you can use to determine a definite outcome. Things could have gone better, things could have gone worse, things could have stayed exactly the same. We could drive ourselves crazy trying to prove things either way, and it would still come down to an opinion in the end.
Saying something like preventing another 9/11 is an exceptionally broad statement. I come to work everyday with the intention of doing my job, doing the best I can and learning something new everyday to prevent any kind of an attack from happening. Another 9/11 is not a likely occurence in the current climate of this country - a plane with 200+ people on it blowing up is a much more likely outcome. I think the majority of TSOs come to work with a similar thought process. Like I mentioned earlier - false bravado or (to quote JKH again) "mock heroism" just does not have a place, as it serves no real purpose. However, working for TSA because you have a deep seated belief that you want to prevent attacks from happening on airplanes because of 9/11 is not truly a bad thing, in my opinion.
Argenbright did everything they were supposed to (according to what I have read) on 9/11. It is also one of the reasons that so many of the rules for TSA keep changing, and HQ incorporates "intentional inconsistency" in the way they do things. The bad guys knew the rules, circumvented them, and exploited the situation in a spectacular fashion from their point of view. The inconsistencies are built into the system to help provide less of a chance for someone to know what they can get away with. I personally am not a huge fan of that system, but there is some merit in that thought process. It can disrupt many things that are planned out by simply foiling one aspect of the plan. On the downside, it makes it a logistical nightmare for passengers trying to figure out what they can and can't take with them, and it is a constant PR bash for TSA because of that.