Racial Profiling at BOS

Old Sep 7, 12, 9:06 am
  #151  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by spd476 View Post
AIf the TSA can test liquids at the gate, why can't they test them at the checkpoint? I still haven't figured out why one 500 mL bottle of water is dangerous, but five 100 mL bottles are not.
It's not theatrical enough if they do it at the checkpoint.

They have to find the water bottle, yell at you for it, confiscate it, and force you to go buy another one down the concourse so they can have one of their idiots wave magic paper over it and show everyone what an awesome job they're doing in protecting the world from water bottles on airplanes.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 10:15 am
  #152  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
As far as the video, his answer could have been taken differently based on the questions before. The vid is only 22 seconds and cuts off as soon as he says "yes", he could have been responding to the questioning of (paraphrasing here) "does this make us safer", as opposed to the "this is retaliatory for the water".
I think that you and I have a different hearing of the words. Not sure how much more context would be necessary for this as it seems pretty much self-contained (though I would have liked to hear the remainder and the resolution, which appears to be she was not allowed to board the plane).

Pax: Do you think I am honestly a threat?

TSO: No, No, No, but with your attitude

Pax: Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. This is not making the airways safer; it is retaliatory.

TSO: Pretty much [garbled word].

Pax: Is that legal?

TSO: Yes it is.


If she was considered to be a disruption, then that call is to be made by the airline at the gate and not the TSA. Since no WEI had been found, she should have been cleared by the TSA.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 10:31 am
  #153  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
I think that you and I have a different hearing of the words.
I'm reasonably certain that's not the only difference between you and anyone accepting a paycheck from the TSA.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 10:50 am
  #154  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,259
Originally Posted by spd476 View Post
Are there material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the test strips and chemicals being used in this testing? I'm not sure of the regulations, but I think OSHA would require that the TSA have them. If they are available, will a passenger be allowed to see them upon request? I've never run into this testing, but I would be concerned about chemicals being near something I'm consuming.

If the TSA can test liquids at the gate, why can't they test them at the checkpoint? I still haven't figured out why one 500 mL bottle of water is dangerous, but five 100 mL bottles are not.
I know we have MSDS sheets locally, but I am not involved in that process and do not know what exactly is in them. As for the access by the public, I do not know it that is something they do.

There are some differences of opinion on the 500ml V 5 X 100ml, some say there is a possibility of condensing the items past the checkpoint to make a larger device capable, there are those that argue the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
My question was not about what you would do nor did it ask about TSA policy, I asked what you thought.

I take it you have no opinion about one of these magical TSA explosive liquids and the consumption of them?
I know that I am not a chemistry major, nor an explosives expert, so I can't render a well informed answer. Do I think that it is likely? Probably not, but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?
gsoltso is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 10:55 am
  #155  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
I know we have MSDS sheets locally, but I am not involved in that process and do not know what exactly is in them. As for the access by the public, I do not know it that is something they do.

There are some differences of opinion on the 500ml V 5 X 100ml, some say there is a possibility of condensing the items past the checkpoint to make a larger device capable, there are those that argue the exact opposite.



I know that I am not a chemistry major, nor an explosives expert, so I can't render a well informed answer. Do I think that it is likely? Probably not, but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?
Just following orders.
Darkumbra is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 2:54 pm
  #156  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IAH mostly.
Programs: I still call it Onepass every now and then. Platinum.
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?
There's your answer right there, folks, and why we have to put up with this nonsense. They can only perpetrate this power play with people who don't know enough to question orders.

For what it's worth, the water is physically incapable of burning as an energy source. It's basic chemistry. The torches you're referring are scams that use electricity to actually provide the energy to the water that hydrolyzes it and burns the resultant hydrogen. So unless a passenger has brought an arc generator into the sterile area, he's not going to be using that bottled water as a weapon.

If we could use water as an energy source the world would be a much different place.
cottonmather0 is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 3:36 pm
  #157  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,053
Originally Posted by cottonmather0 View Post
If we could use water as an energy source the world would be a much different place.
Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?
Ari is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 3:44 pm
  #158  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by cottonmather0 View Post
They can only perpetrate this power play with people who don't know enough to question orders.
Unfortunately, they've got at least 60,000 of those available right now.

The others can't even make a mark other than "X" on a TSA employment contract.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 4:00 pm
  #159  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,570
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
I know we have MSDS sheets locally, but I am not involved in that process and do not know what exactly is in them. As for the access by the public, I do not know it that is something they do.

There are some differences of opinion on the 500ml V 5 X 100ml, some say there is a possibility of condensing the items past the checkpoint to make a larger device capable, there are those that argue the exact opposite.



I know that I am not a chemistry major, nor an explosives expert, so I can't render a well informed answer. Do I think that it is likely? Probably not, but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?
Once again I did not ask for a well informed answer just an opinion. Surely you can find it in yourself to take a stand on a simple question.

I can't read an ancient Mayan calendar but I don't think the world will end on December 21, 2012. See that is an opinion, it really isn't all that hard.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Sep 7, 12, 4:17 pm
  #160  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Surely you can find it in yourself to take a stand on a simple question.
You're asking this of someone who has admitted in public to being a TSA employee.

"Taking a stand" isn't in the cards for such a "person."
Caradoc is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 5:22 pm
  #161  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?
The source of energy in a hydroelectric dam is not the water but rather force it exerts as it falls down from the lake level upstream of the dam to the outflow. If you could magically transform the water in the lake to benzene or alcohol or any other liquid the effect would be essentially the same. (Before anyone jumps in, I said "essentially". I well understand that differences in density, volatility of the liquid, etc. would affect the design and efficiency of the power generation.)
T-the-B is offline  
Old Sep 7, 12, 9:42 pm
  #162  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,824
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
I think that you and I have a different hearing of the words. Not sure how much more context would be necessary for this as it seems pretty much self-contained (though I would have liked to hear the remainder and the resolution, which appears to be she was not allowed to board the plane).

Pax: Do you think I am honestly a threat?

TSO: No, No, No, but with your attitude

Pax: Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. This is not making the airways safer; it is retaliatory.

TSO: Pretty much [garbled word].

Pax: Is that legal?

TSO: Yes it is.


If she was considered to be a disruption, then that call is to be made by the airline at the gate and not the TSA. Since no WEI had been found, she should have been cleared by the TSA.
So basically gsolclerk is lying, pretending the words on the video are ambiguous or that there is more than one reasonable way to construe them. It's a 22-second video, but in that 22 seconds, the clerk is admitting to committing an illegal act.

So, gsolclerk, let me ask you this. What's the reason for summoning an sclerk if a passenger consumes a drink rather than letting the clerk test it? It's not being brought on the airplane, right? What violation has the passenger committed? Disrespecting the clerk? Is that the function of TSA, forcing passengers to show proper respect for the clerks? Then why have the TSA? If there were no TSA, there wouldn't be any clerks for passengers to show disrespect to. Travel would be easier and more efficient, and there would be less of a threat from terrorists.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Sep 8, 12, 2:59 am
  #163  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,259
Originally Posted by cottonmather0 View Post
There's your answer right there, folks, and why we have to put up with this nonsense. They can only perpetrate this power play with people who don't know enough to question orders.

For what it's worth, the water is physically incapable of burning as an energy source. It's basic chemistry. The torches you're referring are scams that use electricity to actually provide the energy to the water that hydrolyzes it and burns the resultant hydrogen. So unless a passenger has brought an arc generator into the sterile area, he's not going to be using that bottled water as a weapon.

If we could use water as an energy source the world would be a much different place.
I said run on, and it is only a scam if it doesn't give you a good cost ratio (tons of jewelers use these torches). I have also seen what looks like computer cable take down cinder block walls. The point I was making, is that I do not know everything, and our explosives experts have indicated that there is a valid thought process behind the limitations.

I agree, the world would be much different, most likely it would disintegrate after a couple of decades if we find a way to use water for a viable energy source, people would build dams and lakes and instead of the gold standard we would wind up with the water standard!

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric dam?
^

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Once again I did not ask for a well informed answer just an opinion. Surely you can find it in yourself to take a stand on a simple question.

I can't read an ancient Mayan calendar but I don't think the world will end on December 21, 2012. See that is an opinion, it really isn't all that hard.
I gave you my opinion already. Please reread the previous comments.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Sep 8, 12, 5:59 am
  #164  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,570
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post

I gave you my opinion already. Please reread the previous comments.
I know that I am not a chemistry major, nor an explosives expert, so I can't render a well informed answer. Do I think that it is likely? Probably not, but I have also seen torches that run on distilled water, so what do I know?
If this was your opinion then I guess you did. I just don't understand the need for deflection contained in your comment.
Boggie Dog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: