Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
First off, I agree that no security system is 100% perfect. That said, if a major component of that system--that being the liquid testing strips--can be scientifically proven to not do what it's intended to do, doesn't it go from a component of a security system to absolute theatrics? And don't you think the boogeyman has people in his employ who are well aware of that, and well aware of how easy it would be to get dangerous liquids aboard? And given that information, isn't it kind of telling that no one's blown up a plane with their bottle of breast milk or their insulin supply?
Actually, the liquid testing is a relatively minor procedure, not even close to a major one. New LBS systems are currently being deployed around the country that will allow some liquids of a reasonable size to pass through the checkpoints. Bottled water, sodas in the 16 to 20 ounce range, etc. Until then we use what we have.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Here's what happened on 9/11: four planes were hijacked. Three made it to their intended targets, as passengers were likely conditioned to expect that, in a hijacking, the safest thing to do is not resist and wait for the hijackers to release you once their demands are met. The passengers on the fourth plane, however, got a heads-up thanks to cell phones, knew what was going on, overpowered the hijackers and foiled the plot. United 93 was proof to terrorists that such an attempt would never succeed again, as passengers would not allow it.
Like I said, we all know that story. What you miss is the other threats that passengers may never get the chance to interdict or have any kind of effect on (except being part of the catastrophe that is).
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Now, as to the notion that the TSA has stopped attack attempts, I offer this analogy. A gang put out hits on four police officers in 2001. Three hits were successful, but the fourth failed because the officer knew what was happening and called for backup to handle the threat. Every day since, that officer has worn riot gear to work, and during that time, he has never been shot. Is that because he's wearing the riot gear, or is it because gangs know that he's expecting it and knows how to handle it going forward, so a similar attack would end in failure?
Interesting analogy, but its apples and oranges. The goal of terrorism is to effect change on a large scale. Its not one police officer they want to kill, its all of them, in the most spectacular way they can. Thereby putting fear into both the police and those they protect. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I’d call the fourth only a partial failure. It didn’t hit its intended target I agree, but many people still lost their lives and helped to damage the global economy, our national economy, and strike fear into our nation as a whole. A net “win” for the terrorists.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
It will be a generation or more--if ever--before there's another successful attack on an American airliner, and the TSA has absolutely zero to do with that.
Interesting “belief”, but that’s all it is. Neither of us knows what is going to happen, what plans or plots are in the work, or if they will be successful. Hijacking is certainly more difficult these days, but explosives are well within the realm of possibility.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
I also want to address the notion of passengers turning each other in by saying that the whole "See Something, Say Something" program is revolting. If you see a guy sitting at McDonald's trying to light his underpants on fire, yeah, say something. But this idiotic, offensive program encourages people to "turn in" anyone who looks suspicious, i.e., the guy wearing a hoodie and standing in a vacant gate. You know, the guy who's just early for his flight and wanted a quiet place to chill beforehand. Or the woman who's so nervous about flying that she's sitting at the gate shaking. Clearly, if you're that nervous, you're a terrorist, right? If I ever see someone playing with a wristwatch connected to a small bag, I'll call 9-1-1 and let a police officer know. Rest assured that I will never, never report anything to a TSA screener.
Your choice. Others are going to make their own choices. Believe it or not
YOU of one of the layers.
So lets play a game. You see something. Because of your personal belief’s you choose to not say something to authorities. When you get to your destination you find out that an aircraft exploded in flight, a flight from the same airport you departed from, and they believe that the cause may very well have had something to do with what you observed. Were you right or wrong in following your beliefs and refusing to notify authorities? If you had said something to security, the police, or even a member of the TSA, could you have made a positive impact on the fate of that aircraft?
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Expanded funding for expensive equipment that will sit unused in a warehouse? Expanded funding so that the Thousands Standing Around become the Tens of thousands Standing Around? Expanded funding for MMW+ATD scanners that are notorious for false positives to the point that, at one or two unnamed airports I've been to, the clones don't even bother to pat you down if there's only one yellow box in a known-falsing area--information that the boogeyman would love to have?
Far too many assumptions there. Not to mention the factual errors.
Puffers didn’t work out. OK, we no longer use them and cant find anyone to sell them to. Parts of the technology are sensitive (information wise) and cannot just be junked. All that’s left is storage fee’s.
MMW+ATD systems have very few “false positive’s”. Since they are designed to detect anomalies and not specific items which can vary in size, composition, and shape, in an many ways as there are products on the planet, they cant be programed for anything else. It’s the personnel working with these units that can miss something important, not the unit. And since you don’t know what the “yellow box” means or what our procedures are in those cases, you are unqualified to venture an opinion on if they were doing their jobs correctly or not.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
No, it means that we choose to question rather than accept, and the answers to the questions don't paint a pretty picture for the TSA. You want to talk about holes? Here's a huge one for you. The weapons used to hijack planes on 9/11 were box cutters--devices that can easily be concealed from carry-on X-rays, and have now been shown to be easy to hide from the AIT scanners that are now used as primary at (wild guess) 80% of passenger airports in the country.
You may question all you like, we invite them. Your assumptions concerning something you have little direct knowledge about are what should be expected from someone in such a situation. Inaccurate, but one cannot reasonably expect anything more. You have quite a way to go, education wise, before you can venture an informed opinion on either the equipment or the procedures.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Think about that. Billions of dollars later, and the TSA, as it exists today, would be incapable of preventing a 9/11-style attack, because its prized detection equipment cannot detect thin strips of metal placed out, alongside the body in a baggy shirt. That's why I have a problem with the TSA. The rallying cry was "9/11! 9/11!". In exchange for the spending of billions upon billions of dollars--money that could have gone to healthcare, education, infrastructure or, God forbid, paying down our debt--and the sacrificing of virtually all personal liberties and dignities in order to get onto a flying Greyhound, we have an organization that would have failed to detect the hijackers, and failed to stop the terrorist attack it was formed in response to.
Mr. “TSAOUTOFOURPANTS”’s video far more than useless, it’s misleading and may very well be more of a fake than you would prefer to believe. I have seen it. His testing method is completely questionable, the video itself proves nothing (other than how bad a cinematographer or investigator he is).
As for your “personal liberties”, the courts have spoken many times on this as concerns airport screening checkpoints. Take a few hours and review what they have said. They at the very least understand the law and how it applies to the subject. More than I can say for just about everyone here.
Originally Posted by
GaryD
Impressive credentials? What credentials? He has provided nothing in that area. And honestly, you should read the whole thread.
Originally Posted by
MrColdShower
Ron, I am likely to regret engaging you, but once in a while you post something with a certain degree of thoughtfulness. Your last post, though polluted with assertions I disagree with, is a case in point.
The regret would be all yours. I enjoy a good discussion.
Originally Posted by
MrColdShower
But however thoughtful your post may be, it is not relevant to the issue at hand. Let’s stop the misdirection and come back to the thread’s subject. You attempted to provide evidence that peroxides could be detected by waving test paper over a liquid. Two individuals with content expertise asserted this was impossible and refuted what you had to say. Did you retract your claim or marshal additional evidence?
Check out this (
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...st-strips.html) thread.
Originally Posted by
MrColdShower
No. Rather, you went on the attack, calling BubbaLoop’s statements “outlandish and unsupported.” Indeed, your “evidence” (and I use that term loosely (well, facetiously)) showed your statements to be outlandish and unsupported. You then launched a borderline personal attack, questioning BubbaLoop’s credentials. You know this argument is a red herring; you can use it any time on an anonymous internet forum such as this. I believe his posts lend credibility to who he says he is; he has posted nothing that leads me believe otherwise.
First lets get some credentials, then and only then I can attack them. You may believe what he says, that does not make it a fact. Again I refer you to the thread listed above, where bubba himself admits that there are test strips that do as I have said.
Originally Posted by
MrColdShower
Your mindset, which seems to run rampant in the TSA, infuriates me. Address the issues haphazardly. Proven wrong? Just employ some misdirection. Or spin. Or attack the messenger. Or not address anything at all. If I wanted such a heaping helping of baloney, I’d go read Blogger Bob.
Once again you are making assumptions. You don’t know my mindset, and therefore are unqualified to comment on it. My “mindset” is that I know far more about the subject than the vast majority of the posters here, and that is proven over and over again by the posters themselves. As for BB, well everything he has posted to the TSA blog has been 100% accurate. It may not go as far as some would like, but none has been false. He makes a great effort to present the facts as well as he can given both his job position and what information is provided to him. No rational person can fault him for that.
Originally Posted by
MrColdShower
You might get away with it when you do it under the color of government authority. But it’s a level playing field here, my friend.
Hmm, level playing field ‘eh? One of me, more than a dozen of you. Nothing I provide is taken as fact (even when it’s a direct quote from a court, a manufacturer, or a recognized expert in the field), but you are willing to accept credentials from a member of the discussion who has presented no credentials of any kind. Please explain to me how that makes it a level playing field?