testing eye drops

Old Jul 10, 12, 5:28 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by MaximumSisu View Post
Don't confuse TSO's with facts. It makes their heads hurt.
OK, I'm going to make everyone's head hurt with facts. There is not, as of yet, any non-contact test for peroxide. There might be one on the way, courtesy of a couple of plastics chemists from San Diego.
One of the things we forensic chemists try to do well is qualitative analysis. Give us some "stuff" and we will use the available tools to tell you what the stuff is. TNT (trinitrotoluene) based explosives are a piece of cake - well not actually cake - because of the aromatic rings and nitro groups given off. That is not so with respect to the newer peroxide based explosives, such as triacetone triperoxide. But a new plastic synthesized using a boronic acid (3,6-bis (pinacolatoboron) fluoran is showing some promise in detecting peroxide vapor in the 3 part per billion range. But it's not on the market yet, so Ron is again showing his lack of expertise. At present, there are NO strips that you can wave around to detect peroxide. I'm waiting for a test strip you can wave around in the presence of TSOs to detect rampant bulls%%t.
4nsicdoc is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 5:45 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc View Post
At present, there are NO strips that you can wave around to detect peroxide. I'm waiting for a test strip you can wave around in the presence of TSOs to detect rampant bulls%%t.
Strips of common copy paper would probably work. In the case of TSA, the absence of reaction would be the necessary indicator to detect bulls%%t. It would probably be easier to watch their lips. Are they moving? Bulls%%t detected.

~~ Irish
IrishDoesntFlyNow is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 5:50 am
  #63  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc View Post
a piece of cake - well not actually cake - aromatic onion rings...moronic acid strippers
Simplified for clarity. Don't talk over the head of failed McWorkers.

Mmmmmm...cake.
littlesheep is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 9:54 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by Wally Bird View Post
Which is a pretty damning indictment of the test in itself .

"So simple even a caveman could do it".
Actually, that’s a fairly accurate statement. We are not chemists, therefore they make the systems we use pretty simple to operate. I am not a computer engineer either, but that does not prevent me from using one.

Originally Posted by MrColdShower View Post
Such wise analysis!

May I provide you with a complimentary megaphone? It might increase the chances of reforming your disreputable agency.
Not needed, but thanks for the offer. What is needed is a bit of perspective. We screen just about 2,000,000 passengers each and every day. The system in place is specifically designed to meet that work load and be able to expand if needed. We cannot waste our time on the trivialities that each passenger brings to the checkpoint with them, they have places to go and we a job to do. The rules are pretty clear, but every single minute of every single day people break them. Is the American public truly that stupid? I honestly don’t think so, at least until the next passenger brings his firearm to the checkpoint. At that point I have to wonder.

No security system is 100% perfect. That’s a fact. The government is required to provide for the common good and protect its citizens, its in the constitution. On 9/11/2001 the USA was attacked by … well we all know that story. The government’s response to the threat was to federalize the screening workforce and the system that failed so miserably.

Since 2002 there has not been a successful attack on an airline from a US airport. Attacks there have been, but not from one of the airports secured by the TSA or one of its civilian contract organizations. Is this all because of the TSA? No. It’s because of the US government. Agencies who work with the TSA, for the TSA, and who provide every other kind of support to TSA’s activities. It is also in part to the changes in screening methodology, removing the airlines from the business of screening passengers and letting them put their resources to better use. It is also in part due to the passengers themselves, passengers who will no longer sit idle while someone threatens their aircraft and their lives. People who will take an active part in notifying the authorities of suspicious activities by one of their fellow passengers, people who keep their eyes open and their ears sharp.

In other words its many things. Many people. Much effort. And yes, expanded funding for the required changes. The folks here who complain the loudest are also the type that screamed the loudest for the changes needed, likely the very same people in fact. They will never admit it, but it’s true none the less.

Yet even with all of that, there is still no perfect system. None. There are holes. There are personnel failures, criminal activity, and thoughtlessness. Just because the folks here cannot (or refuse to) understand purposes for the procedures we have, does not mean that they are wrong or meaningless. It just means that they are choosing ignorance over knowledge.
TSORon is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 3:10 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
No security system is 100% perfect. That’s a fact. The government is required to provide for the common good and protect its citizens, its in the constitution. On 9/11/2001 the USA was attacked by … well we all know that story. The government’s response to the threat was to federalize the screening workforce and the system that failed so miserably.
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?

Since 2002 there has not been a successful attack on an airline from a US airport--<snip>--People who will take an active part in notifying the authorities of suspicious activities by one of their fellow passengers, people who keep their eyes open and their ears sharp.
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.

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?

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.

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.

In other words its many things. Many people. Much effort. And yes, expanded funding for the required changes. The folks here who complain the loudest are also the type that screamed the loudest for the changes needed, likely the very same people in fact. They will never admit it, but it’s true none the less.
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?

Yet even with all of that, there is still no perfect system. None. There are holes. There are personnel failures, criminal activity, and thoughtlessness. Just because the folks here cannot (or refuse to) understand purposes for the procedures we have, does not mean that they are wrong or meaningless. It just means that they are choosing ignorance over knowledge.
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.

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.

Last edited by T.J. Bender; Jul 11, 12 at 3:15 am
T.J. Bender is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 6:41 am
  #66  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Actually, that’s a fairly accurate statement. We are not chemists, therefore they make the systems we use pretty simple to operate. I am not a computer engineer either, but that does not prevent me from using one.



Not needed, but thanks for the offer. What is needed is a bit of perspective. We screen just about 2,000,000 passengers each and every day. The system in place is specifically designed to meet that work load and be able to expand if needed. We cannot waste our time on the trivialities that each passenger brings to the checkpoint with them, they have places to go and we a job to do. The rules are pretty clear, but every single minute of every single day people break them. Is the American public truly that stupid? I honestly don’t think so, at least until the next passenger brings his firearm to the checkpoint. At that point I have to wonder.

No security system is 100% perfect. That’s a fact. The government is required to provide for the common good and protect its citizens, its in the constitution. On 9/11/2001 the USA was attacked by … well we all know that story. The government’s response to the threat was to federalize the screening workforce and the system that failed so miserably.

Since 2002 there has not been a successful attack on an airline from a US airport. Attacks there have been, but not from one of the airports secured by the TSA or one of its civilian contract organizations. Is this all because of the TSA? No. It’s because of the US government. Agencies who work with the TSA, for the TSA, and who provide every other kind of support to TSA’s activities. It is also in part to the changes in screening methodology, removing the airlines from the business of screening passengers and letting them put their resources to better use. It is also in part due to the passengers themselves, passengers who will no longer sit idle while someone threatens their aircraft and their lives. People who will take an active part in notifying the authorities of suspicious activities by one of their fellow passengers, people who keep their eyes open and their ears sharp.

In other words its many things. Many people. Much effort. And yes, expanded funding for the required changes. The folks here who complain the loudest are also the type that screamed the loudest for the changes needed, likely the very same people in fact. They will never admit it, but it’s true none the less.

Yet even with all of that, there is still no perfect system. None. There are holes. There are personnel failures, criminal activity, and thoughtlessness. Just because the folks here cannot (or refuse to) understand purposes for the procedures we have, does not mean that they are wrong or meaningless. It just means that they are choosing ignorance over knowledge.
Why haven't you answered BubbaLoop's perfectly reasonable question (asked after he provided his impressive credentials at your request), raised on this very thread on July 9, at 7:02 a.m., see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18894842-post54.html:

Since I seem to miss "quite a bit" of your information, could you please point me exactly to the part in which a test strip (not an electronic "sniffer" like the one you showed here, which, by the way, also does not detect peroxides) waved above a solution is capable of detecting peroxides.
For your original claim, about peroxides and testing strips, see your post here on June 29, at 1:39 p.m.:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18843282-post27.html

I have used the strips and can say as a professional that they work just fine. Peroxides are the easiest to detect, some others not so much.
So?

Last edited by GaryD; Jul 11, 12 at 7:07 am Reason: provide further context for question
GaryD is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 7:07 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 203
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.
MrColdShower is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 7:32 am
  #68  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by MrColdShower View Post
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.
Keep in mind that whether or not they're actually a TSA employee, anyone who'd claim in public to be a TSA employee simply can't be trusted.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 10:10 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by T.J. Bender View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
Why haven't you answered BubbaLoop's perfectly reasonable question (asked after he provided his impressive credentials at your request), raised on this very thread on July 9, at 7:02 a.m., see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18894842-post54.html:
Impressive credentials? What credentials? He has provided nothing in that area. And honestly, you should read the whole thread.

Originally Posted by MrColdShower View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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?
TSORon is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 10:43 am
  #70  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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).
I don't mean to derail this topic, but he has posted new videos showing his trip through the checkpoint more clearly.

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...-get-defeated/

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...-camera-in-hd/

It sure looks like he got that metal box in his side pocket through the scanner undetected.
spd476 is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 10:51 am
  #71  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by spd476 View Post
I don't mean to derail this topic
You aren't responsible for that.

Anyway, I'm debating...do I continue this, or not? I know it's hopeless, but it's SO...DANG...HARD....
MrColdShower is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 10:58 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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?
I specified that I would gladly tell the police if I saw something genuinely not right. I will not, however, go tell the roaming clones that someone is sitting in a dark corner pushing buttons on their cell phone. I will not report anything to the TSA, because, frankly, I believe the vast majority of TSOs to be incapable of handling a real threat. That's what 9-1-1 is for, and if you don't believe that there would be a near-instantaneous LE response to a 9-1-1 call from an airport concourse, you've got some education of your own to do.

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.
If puffers didn't work, why were so many ordered? Who was responsible for the testing and pilot process, and why weren't the problems caught then?

MMW+ATD systems have very few “false positive’s”.
I very strongly beg to differ. Very, very strongly. That's not just based on personal experience; it's also based on conversations with fellow travelers and, you guessed it, TSOs.

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.
Unless the TSO readily admits when you ask why they're not patting the yellow box area that the machine falses there all the time, and they don't even worry about that area unless something else is detected. Maybe in Ron's Super Secret Secret World information like that isn't disclosed, but in the real world, TSOs are much more apt to divulge things in response to simple questions (or in conversation) than you might expect. It's amazing what some of them will tell you. Did you know that the priority line WTMD at one checkpoint of a major, major airport malfunctions frequently, the TSOs there are fully aware of it, and yet they send people through anyway because they don't want to do resolution pat-downs on almost everyone who comes through?

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.
You certainly know the book for TSA procedures and the company line surrounding them very well, but I'd venture a guess that many of us on the passenger side of the equation here better know how those procedures are actually carried out, and how the technology is really being used, than anyone. Let me ask you, how often do you take personal trips? When you do, do you ever strike up a quick conversation with the TSOs at the checkpoint, or even ask a question of them? Do you ever stop to have a few words with the TSO standing by the vacant gate? Try it sometime. You'd be amazed at how much many of them will say if you just mention that you didn't get much of an explanation at the checkpoint, and you're wondering how that body scanner you just went through works. On a handful of occasions, the TSO's response has been that it doesn't.


His testing method is completely questionable, the video itself proves nothing (other than how bad a cinematographer or investigator he is).
If his video is useless and proves nothing, why did a TSA rep strong-arm news outlets into not covering it?

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.
I have, in fact. The courts gave the TSA an inch under the administrative search doctrine, and the TSA has taken a mile. What the TSA has done with the underlying reasoning for the decisions made is to essentially spit in the courts' faces, and I have a good degree of confidence that the courts will ultimately rein the TSA in and force them to abide by the permissions given them--not make up their own rights in addition to the ones laid out.

I stand by my assertion, based upon personal experience and conversations with TSOs, that the TSA would be incapable of stopping a 9/11-style attack, as its technology is faulty, its methods are flawed, and a sizable number of screeners seem not to care. I'd feel more safe with the local high school's Junior ROTC guarding airport checkpoints, because I know they'd take it more seriously than many TSOs I encounter do. But hey, what can you expect when your agency, tasked with national security, is hiring people off of pizza boxes?

Last edited by T.J. Bender; Jul 11, 12 at 12:04 pm Reason: typo
T.J. Bender is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 11:30 am
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Impressive credentials? What credentials? He has provided nothing in that area. And honestly, you should read the whole thread.
Here they are again, right in the very post I linked to:

I am a scientist, a full professor in one of the world´s most prestigious universities. One of the many things we do in my laboratory is detect peroxides in liquid solutions. According to both Scopus and the Web of Knowledge I have ~30 peer-reviewed publications in indexed journals with the word "peroxide" or "H2O2" in the title or abstract.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18894842-post54.html

Did I suggest I haven't read the whole thread? I have.

Now, again, to the question you seem to be unable to answer:

Since I seem to miss "quite a bit" of your information, could you please point me exactly to the part in which a test strip (not an electronic "sniffer" like the one you showed here, which, by the way, also does not detect peroxides) waved above a solution is capable of detecting peroxides.
There appears to be no evidence that those test strips can detect peroxides, among the documents that you linked to. Just this morning, in another thread in this forum, you repeated your claim that "they detect chemicals," two days after being asked to substantiate that.

Well, I don't believe it, thanks to your tactics.

Last edited by GaryD; Jul 11, 12 at 11:34 am Reason: "detect" not "identify"
GaryD is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 2:04 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
The rules are pretty clear yet every single minute of every single day people break them. Is the American public truly that stupid? I honestly don’t think so, at least until the next passenger brings his firearm to the checkpoint. At that point I have to wonder.
There may be another possibility. Maybe the rules aren't that clear. If a private company produced a product that every single minute of every day customers used incorrectly, do you think that would assume a: they are stupid, b: they are purposely using it wrong, or c: we need to rewrite the directions for use
ratherhike is offline  
Old Jul 11, 12, 2:15 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by ratherhike View Post
There may be another possibility. Maybe the rules aren't that clear. If a private company produced a product that every single minute of every day customers used incorrectly, do you think that would assume a: they are stupid, b: they are purposely using it wrong, or c: we need to rewrite the directions for use
Welcome to FT! As much as I like where you're going with this answer, I will give Ron credit for one thing: rules like, "Don't pack heat in your carry-on," should be pretty simple and self-explanatory, and the few who do so anyway absolutely fit into Category A.

That said, I pretty frequently see people get anything from a lecture to a chewing-out because they left their toothpaste in their bag, didn't think that the ID in their pocket would trigger the NOS, or, my favorite, didn't take their belt off before going through the WTMD/NOS. That last one's my favorite because taking your belt off is not a requirement, just a suggestion.

While I can get behind some of the TSA's rules, like, you know, no guns on planes, it's the inane little ones like the shoe carnival and the Freedom Baggie that I see accidentally broken so often that I would agree with your thoughts entirely that it's not stupid passengers, it's stupid rules.
T.J. Bender is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread