Why there will never another 9/11
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
The backscatter and MMW scanners don't detect explosives - as clearly stated by the people who invented the damned things.
Based solely on observation of the TSA's activities over the years, one might as well surmise that their purpose is not explosives interdiction, but drug interdiction. And they fail at that all too often too because their employees are so willing to accept bribes. Cheap ones, too.
#17
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
You guys need a little more imagination if you're going to become good terrorists...
The passenger rebellion factor is relatively easy to overcome. Use the same techniques that we use to find lightly booked flights to get easier upgrades, or heavily booked flights to get IDB vouchers, to find lightly booked flights then put more hijackers on each airplane. 50 random passengers aren't going to have much change against 20 young, fit, trained hijackers in the small confines of an airliner.
Harder to overcome, though not impossible, are the locked cockpit door and no cooperation procedures. Getting past that locked door would likely require some kind of diversion which looks nothing at all like a hijacking. i.e. Medical problem, small cabin fire, etc.
The security hole that David Burke used on PSA1771 was closed in the early 1990s when the electronic ID badge access systems were installed in all commercial airports. The airlines can now turn off an employees airport access immediately. Once off, the only way for the employee to get air-side is through security.
Actually, it's not.
The main focus of TSA is preventing explosives from getting on board as evidenced by all of the technologies and procedures that they have implemented over the past ten years aimed squarely at explosive detection. 100% screening of checked baggage for explosives, better x-ray scanners which can highlight the difference between organic and inorganic materials in carry-on bags, ETD screening, AIT scanners, and the all-popular enhanced pat-down procedure.
While preventing weapons which would aid in a conventional hijacking is still part of their mission, the chances of such an attack succeeding has been reduced and the terrorists have switched their method of attack to explosives.
The passenger rebellion factor is relatively easy to overcome. Use the same techniques that we use to find lightly booked flights to get easier upgrades, or heavily booked flights to get IDB vouchers, to find lightly booked flights then put more hijackers on each airplane. 50 random passengers aren't going to have much change against 20 young, fit, trained hijackers in the small confines of an airliner.
Harder to overcome, though not impossible, are the locked cockpit door and no cooperation procedures. Getting past that locked door would likely require some kind of diversion which looks nothing at all like a hijacking. i.e. Medical problem, small cabin fire, etc.
The security hole that David Burke used on PSA1771 was closed in the early 1990s when the electronic ID badge access systems were installed in all commercial airports. The airlines can now turn off an employees airport access immediately. Once off, the only way for the employee to get air-side is through security.
Actually, it's not.
The main focus of TSA is preventing explosives from getting on board as evidenced by all of the technologies and procedures that they have implemented over the past ten years aimed squarely at explosive detection. 100% screening of checked baggage for explosives, better x-ray scanners which can highlight the difference between organic and inorganic materials in carry-on bags, ETD screening, AIT scanners, and the all-popular enhanced pat-down procedure.
While preventing weapons which would aid in a conventional hijacking is still part of their mission, the chances of such an attack succeeding has been reduced and the terrorists have switched their method of attack to explosives.
#18
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
"The purpose of a system is what it does."
The backscatter and MMW scanners don't detect explosives - as clearly stated by the people who invented the damned things.
Based solely on observation of the TSA's activities over the years, one might as well surmise that their purpose is not explosives interdiction, but drug interdiction. And they fail at that all too often too because their employees are so willing to accept bribes. Cheap ones, too.
The backscatter and MMW scanners don't detect explosives - as clearly stated by the people who invented the damned things.
Based solely on observation of the TSA's activities over the years, one might as well surmise that their purpose is not explosives interdiction, but drug interdiction. And they fail at that all too often too because their employees are so willing to accept bribes. Cheap ones, too.
It was only later, after they were deployed, that their obvious flaws became, well, obvious to the flying public. But by then, some of them were already deployed, and logic and reason did not dissuade TSA from their planned course of making us all "safe" by looking at naked pictures of us and irradiating some of us.
#19
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The AIT scanners purpose is to find non-metallic items which are concealed in, or under, a passengers clothes--something that the WTMD can not do. They'll also find metallic items as well. The threat of explosives, which would pass through the WTMD without any chance of detection, is what led to the adoption of the AIT scanners.
Not sure which "x-rays" you're talking about.
The x-ray scanners used for carry-on bags were quickly upgraded, after the TSA took over, with the ability to show the difference between organic and inorganic material to give the operator more information. The scanner doesn't "detect" anything, it produces an image that the operator views to determine if the bag needs to be physically searched.
The CTX scanners that check checked luggage can clear the majority of bags without any human intervention. Some bags can't be cleared automatically and are diverted for a physical search and/or ETD scan. The purpose of the CTX screening is to prevent explosives from being shipped in checked baggage.
The x-ray scanners used for carry-on bags were quickly upgraded, after the TSA took over, with the ability to show the difference between organic and inorganic material to give the operator more information. The scanner doesn't "detect" anything, it produces an image that the operator views to determine if the bag needs to be physically searched.
The CTX scanners that check checked luggage can clear the majority of bags without any human intervention. Some bags can't be cleared automatically and are diverted for a physical search and/or ETD scan. The purpose of the CTX screening is to prevent explosives from being shipped in checked baggage.
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
The AIT scanners purpose is to find non-metallic items which are concealed in, or under, a passengers clothes--something that the WTMD can not do. They'll also find metallic items as well. The threat of explosives, which would pass through the WTMD without any chance of detection, is what led to the adoption of the AIT scanners.
Next?
#21
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
#22
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
*Leaving aside kickbacks, bungs or other financial shenanigans.
#23
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Programs: CO Platinum
Posts: 283
Actually, the WTMD does a much better job of detecting conventional explosives than AIT...and a much better job of detecting firearms, and other weapons.
...But the WTMD isn't very good at detecting your little bag of pot. So props to the AIT for finding pot! Otherwise, some stoned dude might get on the plane and eat a bag of Cheetos next to you.
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
As stated - "the purpose of a system is what it does." The AIT scanners do not detect explosives, therefore that is not their purpose.
#25
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
The security hole that David Burke used on PSA1771 was closed in the early 1990s when the electronic ID badge access systems were installed in all commercial airports. The airlines can now turn off an employees airport access immediately. Once off, the only way for the employee to get air-side is through security.
Yes, I think I'm smarter than the average bear and I KNOW I have more experience and training in these things than the average bear but then again there are people out there who know more than I do and have a vested interest in doing bad things so I'm sure there are others who could, and WOULD do what I know CAN be done.
#26
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
ra·tion·ale/ˌraSHəˈnal/
Noun: A set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief
The definitions of reason and reasonable are not related.
They do not detect explosives either.
de·tect/diˈtekt/
Verb: Discover or identify the presence or existence of.
eas·y/ˈēzē/
Adjective: Achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties.
While possible, it certainly would present more than a few difficulties. If your point is that the system is not perfect, then you're right. No system is. The airplanes, the mechanics that service them, and the pilots who fly them aren't perfect either but perfection is not possible and is not required to have a very safe system.
#27
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
The AIT scanners can discover or identify the presence or existence of explosives which is the definition of "detect"
de·tect/diˈtekt/
Verb: Discover or identify the presence or existence of.
de·tect/diˈtekt/
Verb: Discover or identify the presence or existence of.
#28
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
LarryJ, I think what Wally Bird meant when he said "rationale" was "stated reason", which is not always the same as the "actual reason." In other words, I think he meant that AIT was put into place for reasons other than those stated by TSA.
de·tect/diˈtekt/
Verb: Discover or identify the presence or existence of.
Nope, AIT cannot do that with explosives. Or pretty much anything else, either, at least not reliably or consistently.
There are two types of AIT - those with ATR and those without.
Those without ATR detect absolutely nothing - NOTHING. They merely create a digital image which is viewed by a human operator, and the human operator examines the image in an attempt to identify prohibited items on the image's subject. This is fraught with flaws, not the least of which being the fact that the operator might be asleep at the wheel, or might be a genuine perv who sends cutie pies or little children through the scan multiple times to get his jollies while ignoring his assigned task of looking for WEI. But be that as it may, non-ATR AIT doesn't actually "detect" a damn thing, any more than my phone's camera "detects" anything when I take a picture with it. It merely creates an image; any detection of anything is done with my own eyes, by examining the image.
AIT with ATR, on the other hand, doesn't create an image. Rather, it runs the scan returns through a software analysis, which is supposed to "detect" prohibited items by identifying "anomalies", i.e. "stuff which does not match the scan return properties of human skin." But this software, and the rationale behind it, is severely flawed.
You see, almost any object in the universe other than human skin fits the profile of "stuff which does not match the scan return properties of human skin," so the scan is basically looking for "the whole universe except human skin." But the whole universe does not consist of prohibited items, so even when the software identifies a scan return that doesn't match human skin, it hasn't really discovered or identified anything; it's up to the human operators to discover and identify the object which made the non-skin scan return - almost all of which are NOT prohibited items, such as folds of cloth, rolls of fat, or human sweat, which thus qualify as false alarms or false positives.
eas·y/ˈēzē/
Adjective: Achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties.
Okay, how is this for easy - two guys get jobs, one at the Burger King in Concourse A-B at BWI, the other for the food service delivery company that supplies Burger King with its consumables. Delivery guy stops his truck at a truck stop or WalMart parking lot on the way to BWI and hides prohibited items inside the boxes of frozen burgers, trays of buns, or bags of Coke syrup. Burger King guy then retrieves the prohibited items when the supplies are delivered and hides them within the sterile area.
Bingo. Easy.
de·tect/diˈtekt/
Verb: Discover or identify the presence or existence of.
Nope, AIT cannot do that with explosives. Or pretty much anything else, either, at least not reliably or consistently.
There are two types of AIT - those with ATR and those without.
Those without ATR detect absolutely nothing - NOTHING. They merely create a digital image which is viewed by a human operator, and the human operator examines the image in an attempt to identify prohibited items on the image's subject. This is fraught with flaws, not the least of which being the fact that the operator might be asleep at the wheel, or might be a genuine perv who sends cutie pies or little children through the scan multiple times to get his jollies while ignoring his assigned task of looking for WEI. But be that as it may, non-ATR AIT doesn't actually "detect" a damn thing, any more than my phone's camera "detects" anything when I take a picture with it. It merely creates an image; any detection of anything is done with my own eyes, by examining the image.
AIT with ATR, on the other hand, doesn't create an image. Rather, it runs the scan returns through a software analysis, which is supposed to "detect" prohibited items by identifying "anomalies", i.e. "stuff which does not match the scan return properties of human skin." But this software, and the rationale behind it, is severely flawed.
You see, almost any object in the universe other than human skin fits the profile of "stuff which does not match the scan return properties of human skin," so the scan is basically looking for "the whole universe except human skin." But the whole universe does not consist of prohibited items, so even when the software identifies a scan return that doesn't match human skin, it hasn't really discovered or identified anything; it's up to the human operators to discover and identify the object which made the non-skin scan return - almost all of which are NOT prohibited items, such as folds of cloth, rolls of fat, or human sweat, which thus qualify as false alarms or false positives.
eas·y/ˈēzē/
Adjective: Achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties.
Okay, how is this for easy - two guys get jobs, one at the Burger King in Concourse A-B at BWI, the other for the food service delivery company that supplies Burger King with its consumables. Delivery guy stops his truck at a truck stop or WalMart parking lot on the way to BWI and hides prohibited items inside the boxes of frozen burgers, trays of buns, or bags of Coke syrup. Burger King guy then retrieves the prohibited items when the supplies are delivered and hides them within the sterile area.
Bingo. Easy.
Last edited by WillCAD; Jul 8, 2012 at 6:48 am Reason: Easy...
#29
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Not being party to the evolution I don't know how it went, but I can imagine:
1. Chertoff being oversold (with or without financial encouragements) on the capabilities of the machines;
2. the TSA as a whole being oversold or bullied by Chertoff into accepting those capablilties;
3 the press and public (most of them) being duped into accepting them "To Keep Us Safe".
If the 'reason' behind body scanners is that they detect explosives, then that is patently incorrect since they don't. It is therefore unreasonable (or a better word if anyone has one) to accept and promote their use on that basis.
Don't know if that's any clearer.
And on the other point, there are many ways in which explosives could pass undetected through a checkpoint, but I'm not going to detail them. The TSA may not know or acknowledge this, but other agencies do.
#30
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
My point was that the TSA's focus is, and has been, on the detection of explosives. Most of the changes that they have made over the past decade to both procedures and equipment are targeted at improving their ability to prevent explosives from passing through screening.
As far as the definition of "detect"... If you walk through a WTMD with a brick of C4 under your shirt the WTMD will not alarm. If took that same brick through an AIT scanner there's a very good chance that it would alarm. Some are saying that alarm doesn't count as "detecting the explosive" because the AIT scanner didn't label it an explosive. So what? The procedure that follows an AIT alarm will find the brick and the subsequent ETD test will determine that it is an explosive. The result is that the explosive is detected due to the AIT alarm.
Call that whatever you want but it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives while the WTMD can not. If someone can't see the difference between those two screening results then maybe they're getting a bit too wrapped up with their animosity toward the TSA.