|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18895973)
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.
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18895973)
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.
Have a nice day. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18895973)
it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives
|
Oh, wait. That's the randomizer. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18895973)
My point has nothing at all to do with whether I think that the AIT scanners are effective.
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. But wait, there's more: If I walk through AIT with a block of modeling clay under my shirt, it will alarm. If I walk through AIT with IHOP pancakes in my underwear, it will alarm. If I walk through AIT with a thick hairdo on my head, it will alarm. If I walk through AIT with sweat on my body, it will alarm. However... If I walk through AIT with a block of C4 in a hidden latteral pocket on my shirt, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives. If I walk through AIT with a C4 suppository, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives. If I walk through with a 1/4" layer of C4 inside the soles of my socks, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives. AIT is worse than useless; it actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives. Like, um, screening 100% of all cargo that goes onto planes, or maybe screening the thousands of boxes of frozen Wopper patties that go to airside food courts each year. |
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 18896732)
AIT is worse than useless; it actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives.
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18880401)
What's your point? The reason for the AIT scanners is clearly for explosive detection, something that the WTMD can not do. No technology is, or will ever be, perfect.
As WillCAD noted, the TSA mistaken reliance on this technology "actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives." TSA is nothing more than Kabuki Theater designed by its creators to create the illusion of security. |
Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the German-based World Uyghur Congress which campaigns for Uighurs’ rights, said that it wasn’t a hijacking attempt, rather an in-flight brawl over a seat dispute. Mike |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18897177)
You mean like five pounds of C4 in baggage STILL IN A LABELED WRAPPER?
That stuff was being carried by a Real American Hero, who had a perfectly rational explanation why he was carrying a prohibited item in his bag and was thus completely above suspicion after it was confiscated... Wait, that still doesn't add up. Okay, I've got it: That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it. |
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 18899444)
...Okay, I've got it:
That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it. |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 18899994)
Objection: triply redundant. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 18896182)
I'll call it simplistic and leave it there.
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 18896732)
If I walk through AIT with a block of C4 in a hidden latteral pocket on my shirt, will it alarm?
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 18897507)
Do you realize that the AIT nudeoscopes have a success rate of detecting an explosive - at best - of 60%?
Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18902307)
Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it.
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15278872,00.html |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18902307)
We can always count on you to make an argument personal, can't we Wally?
You posted that it's "simpler to say AIT can detect explosives". With reference to the points raised by me and others (qv) that is an over-simplified contention. IOW; simplistic. Now I will really leave it :cool: . |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 18895973)
My point has nothing at all to do with whether I think that the AIT scanners are effective.
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. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:10 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.