Within TSA there is so much malice and stupidity there is no need to attempt to apply logic. The entire organization defies logic and sensible security process.

Your next flight could be hit by a meteorite or collide with a piece of falling space junk. Among other things far more likely than a 6 year old carrying sheet explosive.

Let's try to keep some perspective, shall we ?

Did I ever say it was likely? The purpose of what I said was to say that a child could carry enough explosives to do actual damage. Nothing more than that.

And until 9/11 no terrorist group had ever used a commercial aircraft as a WMD. And until Orville and Wilbur Wright took off at Kitty Hawk no one had ever flown a powered aircraft before. And until Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin got fired into space aboard Vostok 1 on 11 April 1961 no one had ever orbited the earth before.

I trust I have made my point.

Wrong. A square foot of C4 based sheet explosive could weigh as much as a pound, and when placed in near-direct contact with the interior of the aircraft pressure hull It is more than enough to open a very large hole in an aircraft. The Bojinka plot used far less than a pound of explosive (home-made and therefore far less explosive) and opened a hole in Philippine Airlines Flight 434 large enough to pass a full sized human through to the cargo compartment, and it was not in contact with the exterior wall of the aircraft.

Kids are not usually terrorists (some parents might at times disagree). But children are going to carry what they are told to carry when at an airport. They would not have packed the bag, an adult would have. And adults have been known to be terrorists.

The number one reason terrorists won't use children to carry explosives through a checkpoint, is because it would be so much easier for them to just pack the explosives in condoms and swallow them along with a small detonator. They could then walk strait through the strip search scanner unmolested while the TSA was distracted feeling up some 6 year old.

ok...deleted

English is not her first language. It's weird to try to invalidate someone's concerns based on ESL mistakes.

In a way. But the hijackers used boxcutters. The airplanes cockpit door was not hardened against attack. Did they have a child carrying some type of explosive? Why no, they did not. Onto the other two incidents of the underwear and shoe bombers. Both flights originated outside the US. The passengers subdued them. No TSA were involved.

Were either of these flights out of the US? Did a child carry the explosives onto the plane? I would venture that a NO is the answer to both.

Ah yes, like the 6 year old who went through the scanner and then got the patdown could have been a terrorist? And I bet her parents did pack her bag. With clothes. Not explosives. But your whole premise is that we have to be vigilant and on guard for anything. And the problem with that is that most reports on getting items through security show that the TSA fail to actually do their job and stop prohibited items from getting on.

Wrong. We always let our kids pack their own bags. What came out of them wasn't always great, but they packed their own bags.

Yes. You've made your point that "anything can happen."

The fact remains that in any encounter between a passenger and an employee of the TSA, it is almost infinitely more likely that the TSA employee will be a thief, rapist, kidnapper, or other type of criminal than the passenger be an actual terrorist planning to destroy the aircraft by whatever means.

The other fact remains that the GAO itself isn't convinced that the body scanners are worthwhile, nor the judiciary agree that the so-called "pat-downs" used by the TSA are as unintrusive and effective as they need to be to clear the bar.

This "hole" was considerably larger.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3_fuselage.png

That flight (Aloha Airlines 243) landed with one fatality. I still believe that the TSA is deliberately overstating the potential threat from whackjobs with bombs to air travel - just so a bunch of thugs can keep their overpaid jobs doing not one iota in contribution to actual security while their sponsors continue to line their own pockets with taxpayer money paid for machines that simply don't do what they're claimed to do.

[QUOTE]As usual you got most of it wrong again.

Clément Ader, France — October 9, 1890 He reportedly made the first manned, powered, heavier-than-air flight of a significant distance (50 m) but insignificant altitude from level ground in his bat-winged monoplane, the Ader Éole . Seven years later, the Avion III (a different machine) was said to be flown upon 300 metres (in fact just lifted off the ground, and lost control). The event was not publicized until many years later, as it had been a military secret. The events were poorly documented, the aeroplane not suited to have been controlled; there was no further development. Later in life Ader claimed to have flown the Avion II in 1891 for over 200 meters.


During WWII Gemany used converted airlines as war planes that bomb Allied targets. That would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.

I think you got it right with Gagarin.


Could not this same pound of C4 be inserted anally or vaginally and easily make it past TSA screening?


I'll take my chance with the children if it means Pistole's Perverts don't get to feel them up.

Interesting theory.

How long does it take for something like that to pass through the digestive system to a toilet? Can it be timed to ensure that all the necessary components exit the body while on board the intended target flight, that they will be in good enough condition to combust, and that the amount is sufficient to actually bring an aircraft down?

Explosives are toxic, and as many drug mules have found out condoms do not react all that well to stomach acid. How does your theory account for that?

OTOH, parents hiding things in diapers and among all the other things associated with traveling with a small child is quite common. Or did your theory not account for that?

There are several users here who have significant problems with the English language. We try our best to not prevent their issue distract us from the information they are trying to provide. If you are having problems understanding please feel free to ask for a clarification, they are pretty nice about doing their best to help us understand.

Please supply the data that supports your conclusion. I look forward to reading it.

As I keep saying, opinions vary. The judiciary has not provided us with their thoughts yet, so your conclusion on that is a bit premature.

Yes, but if you actually read what I wrote you will find that the hole you show in your picture is not the one I was referencing.

Ahh, that explains it. You are referencing a different incident that I. I am talking about Philippine Airlines Flight 434, not Aloha Airlines 243 which was the victim of a structural failure on the aircraft and not a terrorist action. Philippine Airlines Flight 434 was the target of a terrorist explosive device placed by Ramzi Yousef on December 11, 1994. Try Wikipedia, they have a pretty good article on it.

I was responding to someone who belittled another poster for a couple of grammatical mistakes. He has since deleted his original post.

Exactly how do you define quiet quite common?

If 2 million people fly per day (14 million per week) and TSA finds say a total of 17 firearms like was reported last week then just how often are one of those 17 found on or in the clothing of a child? Keep in mind that TSA claims no concealed prohibited items were found last week.

Is it worth the cost to find those 17 items out of 14 million people?

I think not!

Let's use Boston as an example - according to the TSA's published statistics, more than 56,000 passengers are screened on a given day. According to published reports, not one terrorist with nefarious plans has ever been reported caught by TSA screeners at Boston.

That's in the entire time the TSA has been working at Boston. Zero terrorists captured.

In just the last two years, two sex offenders working for the TSA at Boston have been arrested and charged - Sean Shanahan and Andrew Cheever.

On sex offenders alone, two divided by zero is well, infinite - that's why we're not allowed to divide by zero.

And Boston's not even that bad when it comes to comparisons with, say, LAX or Newark.

I think it'd be a better return on investment to body-cavity-search every TSA employee going off shift to see what they've stolen.

The numbers are a lot better for finding stolen items in the possession of a TSA employee than for finding sheet explosives stuck to a skinny six-year-old under a thin shirt.

I think you are unfamiliar with the concept of terrorists boarding airplanes with bombs. THEY ARE SUICIDE BOMBERS!!!!! No need for suicide bombers to pass, swallowed explosives. Swallow dozens of condoms full of explosives. Swallow condom with miniature timer/battery/blasting cap. Walk through strip search scanner confident you wont have to face one of those pesky metal detectors they used to have that might detect metallic detonator components...... except they stopped using those in favor of feeling up six year olds. Terrorist takes his seat on the plane and waits for his 72 virgins. That would be a very easy way for a terrorist to blow up a plane and recent TSA policy changes have made it easier now than ever.

Contrast that with a plan where....... Step one......... Procure child for bombing mission........ I think in this step alone, 'most' bombing missions would fail. Sure it is theoretically possible for terrorists to obtain a child/ use their own child but since it is an unnecessary step that only makes the terror mission MORE difficult. Why would any terrorists do it when they have many times easier alternatives.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dig...system/an00896

It could definitely be timed properly on longer flights. Especially since they could just take a mild laxative once they board the flight. For testing they could just wrap some food in a condom and see how long it takes to pass. I don't think it would vary very much in the same individual. As for the rest who knows? Maybe. Surely you are not going to argue that body bombs are impossible. Although that does seem to be the official TSA line.

I wish I had a reference for this but some years ago I saw a segment on a discovery channel program about explosive chocolate chip cookies. Someone apparently had figured out a way to make a nontoxic plastic explosive that could be mixed as a cookie dough and actually baked. I think they were intended to be detonated electrically though. Not sure how that would work. I wouldn't be too sure about all explosives being toxic. Also they would have to be so toxic that they made you immediately and severely ill. Longer term health effects wouldn't be a problem obviously.

Have explosives ever been found in a child's diaper at a TSA checkpoint? Somehow I think the answer is no. A child's diaper is not a security threat to any sane person.

Consider the source; he defines it and everything else however he feels.

Either the TSA does not keep such statistics or they do but keep them super-secret, so it is impossible to prove that someone from the TSA is talking through his diaper. Personally, I don't need any proof.

You always illuminate and enforce your point with masterful ease.