Why there will never another 9/11

Old Jul 9, 12, 10:01 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
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.
I'll call it simplistic and leave it there.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 10:18 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
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.
And a WTMD can detect a hidden metal box on a passenger's side while AIT apparently cannot.

Have a nice day.
saulblum is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 10:25 am
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives
No, it cannot.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 11:07 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP, MR Gold, HH Gold
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
Funny, it can detect my underwire bra and the rivets in my jeans....

Oh, wait. That's the randomizer.
lovely15 is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 11:21 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,130
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
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.
Sure, if I walk through AIT with a block of C4 under my arm, it will alarm.

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.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 12:24 pm
  #36  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
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.
You mean like five pounds of C4 in baggage STILL IN A LABELED WRAPPER?
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 1:11 pm
  #37  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 44,525
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
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.
Do you realize that the AIT nudeoscopes have a success rate of detecting an explosive - at best - of 60%? That the German government, after testing them extensively, rejected the technology as not worth the expense?

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.
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 1:51 pm
  #38  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,530
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.
I'd believe it if the carrier had been Spirit.

Mike
mikeef is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 6:36 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,130
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
You mean like five pounds of C4 in baggage STILL IN A LABELED WRAPPER?
Not a fair example at all. That stuff was being carried by a Real American Hero, who aroused no suspicion... oh, wait, he had been caught with a smoke grenade.

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.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 8:27 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (usually), GVA (occasionally)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 5,206
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
...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.
Objection: triply redundant.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Jul 9, 12, 8:44 pm
  #41  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
Objection: triply redundant.
Quadruply, with the implication that all of the above refers to "TSA employees."
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 7:54 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 7,014
Originally Posted by Wally Bird View Post
I'll call it simplistic and leave it there.
We can always count on you to make an argument personal, can't we Wally?

Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
If I walk through AIT with a block of C4 in a hidden latteral pocket on my shirt, will it alarm?
Give it a try and report back with your results.

Originally Posted by halls120 View Post
Do you realize that the AIT nudeoscopes have a success rate of detecting an explosive - at best - of 60%?
Certainly better than the WTMD's success rate of 0%.

Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 7:59 am
  #43  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it.
The German testing of the body scanners ended up with a 70% false positive rate, among other notable issues.

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15278872,00.html
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 8:40 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
We can always count on you to make an argument personal, can't we Wally?
Not intended to be personal, but I can see how it could be taken so.

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 .
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 10, 12, 8:36 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
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.
A brick of c4 may or may not be detected by a nude-o scope. Same with a detonator or gun. A metal detector Will find the detonator and gun. Do the math.
Pesky Monkey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: