|
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth
(Post 29429338)
"Bad guys"? I'm sorry, but that sort of simplistic two value judgment clouds understanding of actual threat and risk. There is literally almost nothing stopping people from blowing up/shooting down US aircraft if they wanted because TSA is wholly ineffective and incapable of performing their job: the fact it hasn't happened has *nothing* to do with TSA or DHS protecting people from Bad Guys (tm) and everything to do with the fact that the threat is over hyped and close to nil. The US will never admit that because they've spent the last ~50 years creating the Enemy Dictator of the Week for Americans to fear and now fear is the only thing they know.
I agree, anyone seriously bent on taking out an airplane can do so. But it is also significantly more difficult to do so now, at least as a passenger as compared to pre-9/11 even as most of the visible security in place now would not have stopped 9/11. That people and entities make gobs of money from stoking fears by exaggerating potentialities does not equate to the threats and risks do not exist and the risks are certainly not nil. |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 29439693)
bad guys (its usually men) = bad actors = any person(s) with bad intent. use whatever term you want, but the bad guys are out there.
I agree, anyone seriously bent on taking out an airplane can do so. But it is also significantly more difficult to do so now, at least as a passenger as compared to pre-9/11 even as most of the visible security in place now would not have stopped 9/11. That people and entities make gobs of money from stoking fears by exaggerating potentialities does not equate to the threats and risks mean do not exist and the risks are certainly not nil. In some ways, it’s easier now than ever before. But planes aren’t the most favored target of “bad guys”. Laptops as IED threat vector has been around for decades. To get a laptop to explode airside or on a plane isn’t all that difficult, but “bad guys” wanting to do that and capable of doing that are far more rare than angry American gunmen wanting to go after landside targets. |
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 29434106)
Which "people in the know"?
In what "know"? Which "bad guys"? Making what a reality, and how? And how "close" are they? Specific answers to specific questions is how you are supposed to formulate plans and strategies for security (or anything else in life, for that matter). Vague innuendo that "real smart people know stuff about bad that we don't know" is nothing but fear mongering and paranoia. And it's how we got to this point. 9/11 was caused by a "failure of imagination." But the current invasive (and largely ineffective due to lack of focus and mission creep) aviation security apparatus came about as a result of overactive imagination. It used to be that we couldn't imagine that there were bad guys out there who wanted to do us harm. Now we can't stop imagining that there are bad guys everywhere, around every corner, behind every shrub, loitering in every suburban shopping mall, waiting for the slightest opportunity to kill our fathers, rape and murder our sisters, burn our homes, shoot our dogs, and steal our bibles. And even when we stop one bad guy, if there's one rule of paranoia - bad guys have brothers! Laptop bombs are what I would call a non-threat. If a bomb is put into a laptop, the best tools for detection of these bombs are 1) x-ray scanners, and 2) combination of ETD and sniffer dogs. The crazy ideas of making people boot their devices or taking the back covers off or limiting sizes or banning them altogether are completely un-necessary. But paranoid people will always call for extreme, insane measures to combat their imagined threats, and the more that those threats fail to materialize, the more the paranoid will double-down on the crazy. Regular folks who put food on their table by working in aviation security and learning what the bad guys (see previous post as to what bad guys means) are attempting to do and how well they are doing it. 9/11 was caused by real persons, not by a failure of imagination. 9/11 was "allowed" (not prevented) not by a failure of imagination but by a lack of communication. You might call laptop bombs a non-threat. But the intel and security analysts and specialists who do study the bad guys for a living know that the bad guys are getting better at their tradecraft and the ability to successfully make device appear to be a inoffensive laptop battery. Our security experts work diligently to find ways to defeat our defenses; we have highly trained experts with almost unlimited funds and resources working with equipment manufacturers to figure out how to defeat the equipment and processes/procedures. That the bad guys have not figured out the ways we know how to defeat our equipment is not for lack of trying... they have lots of stolen money and drug proceeds to obtain/facilitate testing stolen or misappropriated equipment. Yes, scanners, ETD and detection dogs are currently our best defense - that doesnt mean they will always be the best defense. The options of powering-on, opening up cases or banning are only unnecessary, extreme and insane if one is willing to accept losses. But we have a public discourse that mostly excoriates those who say, "some risk is tolerable" (especially if that loss is likely to be someone else's family member). But that is risk management, isn't it? |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 29439759)
If it’s more difficult, it’s no thanks to the DHS/TSA (nor DOJ/FBI). In some ways, it’s easier now than ever before. But planes aren’t the most favored target of “bad guys”. Laptops as IED threat vector has been around for decades. To get a laptop to explode airside or on a plane isn’t all that difficult, but “bad guys” wanting to do that and capable of doing that are far more rare than angry American gunmen wanting to go after landside targets. |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 29439817)
It is more difficult to attack an aircraft from the inside as a passenger. True, as some vectors have been made more difficult others have become more likely (not necessarily easier) as they are now the weakest link. I think western aviation is a highly prized and effective target even if it is not the most attacked right now. Agreed, we are our own worst enemy; but it has been that way since the 1960's. The domestic security situation in the US and western Europe was exceptionally violent compared to now. But most of the "faces" remain the same....
”Weatern aviation”. “Most of the ‘faces’ remain the same”. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 29439781)
Regular folks who put food on their table by working in aviation security and learning what the bad guys (see previous post as to what bad guys means) are attempting to do and how well they are doing it. 9/11 was caused by real persons, not by a failure of imagination. 9/11 was "allowed" (not prevented) not by a failure of imagination but by a lack of communication. You might call laptop bombs a non-threat. But the intel and security analysts and specialists who do study the bad guys for a living know that the bad guys are getting better at their tradecraft and the ability to successfully make device appear to be a inoffensive laptop battery. Our security experts work diligently to find ways to defeat our defenses; we have highly trained experts with almost unlimited funds and resources working with equipment manufacturers to figure out how to defeat the equipment and processes/procedures. That the bad guys have not figured out the ways we know how to defeat our equipment is not for lack of trying... they have lots of stolen money and drug proceeds to obtain/facilitate testing stolen or misappropriated equipment. Yes, scanners, ETD and detection dogs are currently our best defense - that doesnt mean they will always be the best defense. The options of powering-on, opening up cases or banning are only unnecessary, extreme and insane if one is willing to accept losses. But we have a public discourse that mostly excoriates those who say, "some risk is tolerable" (especially if that loss is likely to be someone else's family member). But that is risk management, isn't it?
The amount of money being spent by government gives the security industry good reason to maintain the fear mongering. Look at how many jobs count on keeping things as they are now. |
There have been attempts since 9/11, just nothing very effective at anything but supporting wasteful expenditure in the name of security.
|
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 29439781)
Regular folks who put food on their table by working in aviation security and learning what the bad guys (see previous post as to what bad guys means) are attempting to do and how well they are doing it. 9/11 was caused by real persons, not by a failure of imagination. 9/11 was "allowed" (not prevented) not by a failure of imagination but by a lack of communication. You might call laptop bombs a non-threat. But the intel and security analysts and specialists who do study the bad guys for a living know that the bad guys are getting better at their tradecraft and the ability to successfully make device appear to be a inoffensive laptop battery. Our security experts work diligently to find ways to defeat our defenses; we have highly trained experts with almost unlimited funds and resources working with equipment manufacturers to figure out how to defeat the equipment and processes/procedures. That the bad guys have not figured out the ways we know how to defeat our equipment is not for lack of trying... they have lots of stolen money and drug proceeds to obtain/facilitate testing stolen or misappropriated equipment. Yes, scanners, ETD and detection dogs are currently our best defense - that doesnt mean they will always be the best defense. The options of powering-on, opening up cases or banning are only unnecessary, extreme and insane if one is willing to accept losses. But we have a public discourse that mostly excoriates those who say, "some risk is tolerable" (especially if that loss is likely to be someone else's family member). But that is risk management, isn't it?
WHICH regular folks? To whom, specifically, are you referring? Feds? Locals? Military? Civilian? FAA? TSA? DHS? FBI? CIA? EIEIO? 9/11 was caused by nobody imagining a kamikaze attack with a hijacked airliner. Except Tom Clancy, that is. But how many people ever read one of his novels? Terrorists have lots of drug money? That's news to me (though it's been a topic of fanciful fiction for quite some time). I always thought drug cartels had better things to spend their money on than funding terrorism, like maybe smuggling more of their products from source to customer without attracting law enforcement attention or causing tighter border security. Source, maybe? |
regular, career security and intel analysts and specialists whom I work with; all of the alphabet agencies you mentioned and counterparts from other countries and others.
I know Richard Clark and many others in the business disagree with your assessment of lack of imagination on types of threats. You really need to expand your imagination if you think only the drug cartels are involved in the illegal drug industry. Terrorists have long financed their activities through drugs, extortion, weapons, human trafficking, bank robbery, theft, poaching, cyber-crimes, theft of natural resources, and many other activities. |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 29451027)
regular, career security and intel analysts and specialists whom I work with; all of the alphabet agencies you mentioned and counterparts from other countries and others.
The threat exists, but it simply isn't a large threat. It should certainly be guarded against, but almost nothing TSA/DHS does is geared towards actual airline safety. It's not a "failure of imagination" on the part of those with an interest in destroying airlines. It's a lack of interest. The US *isn't* a target per se. The US is a foil to use in order to generate publicity for more local efforts - just as the US has been using the foil of "international terrorism" as a foil to erode civil liberties and extend government power and control inside the US. Until the US learns this basic lesson of power politics it will continue to blunder around taking actions that support and promote global terrorism by playing into the narrative the nutters want. |
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth
(Post 29455738)
None of which gets you past the fact that US aviation security has wide, gaping holes and yet no one has made any serious attempt from within the US to bring down a US carrier aircraft since 2001.
The threat exists, but it simply isn't a large threat. It should certainly be guarded against, but almost nothing TSA/DHS does is geared towards actual airline safety. It's not a "failure of imagination" on the part of those with an interest in destroying airlines. It's a lack of interest. The US *isn't* a target per se. The US is a foil to use in order to generate publicity for more local efforts - just as the US has been using the foil of "international terrorism" as a foil to erode civil liberties and extend government power and control inside the US. Until the US learns this basic lesson of power politics it will continue to blunder around taking actions that support and promote global terrorism by playing into the narrative the nutters want. And I think many people have lost sight that the 9/11 terrorists didn't try to introduce contraband on those airplanes. They used the lax federal security rules (more lack of imagination) in place at the time to take control of the airplanes and used them as guided missiles. The blades they carried on where allowed by the federal government (there's that lack of imagination again), the security screening agencies didn't fail as so many believe. They also took advantage of the fact that cockpits were accessible and flight crew guidance was to cooperate with hijackers. Add in that passengers were complacent, all factors added up and the terrorists won the day. Even with TSA missing somewhere between 70 to 90% of threat items we are safer today than on 9/11. I question the need for TSA at all given the other safeguards put in place. If the "bad guys" are not neutralized before getting to the airport then success on some scale is likely, either at a congested TSA screening checkpoint or elsewhere in the terminal. Any aircraft incident will likely be from an under wing attack. Another 9/11 would be difficult to pull off. Locked cockpit doors and wary passengers would likely stop any such attempt. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 29456451)
It certainly seems to be a lack of imagination on the part of these "regular, career security and intel analysts and specialists whom I work with; all of the alphabet agencies you mentioned and counterparts from other countries and others" who refuse to protect the public from easy unscreened access of airport workers who have the ability to load contraband on airplanes. What right thinking agency would take steps to lock the front door yet leave the backdoor standing wide open?
And I think many people have lost sight that the 9/11 terrorists didn't try to introduce contraband on those airplanes. They used the lax federal security rules (more lack of imagination) in place at the time to take control of the airplanes and used them as guided missiles. The blades they carried on where allowed by the federal government (there's that lack of imagination again), the security screening agencies didn't fail as so many believe. They also took advantage of the fact that cockpits were accessible and flight crew guidance was to cooperate with hijackers. Add in that passengers were complacent, all factors added up and the terrorists won the day. Even with TSA missing somewhere between 70 to 90% of threat items we are safer today than on 9/11. I question the need for TSA at all given the other safeguards put in place. If the "bad guys" are not neutralized before getting to the airport then success on some scale is likely, either at a congested TSA screening checkpoint or elsewhere in the terminal. Any aircraft incident will likely be from an under wing attack. Another 9/11 would be difficult to pull off. Locked cockpit doors and wary passengers would likely stop any such attempt. |
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth
(Post 29455738)
None of which gets you past the fact that US aviation security has wide, gaping holes and yet no one has made any serious attempt from within the US to bring down a US carrier aircraft since 2001.
The threat exists, but it simply isn't a large threat. It should certainly be guarded against, but almost nothing TSA/DHS does is geared towards actual airline safety. It's not a "failure of imagination" on the part of those with an interest in destroying airlines. It's a lack of interest. The US *isn't* a target per se. The US is a foil to use in order to generate publicity for more local efforts - just as the US has been using the foil of "international terrorism" as a foil to erode civil liberties and extend government power and control inside the US. Until the US learns this basic lesson of power politics it will continue to blunder around taking actions that support and promote global terrorism by playing into the narrative the nutters want. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 29460853)
Drone-dropped guns getting into passenger hands airside at US airports doesn’t take genius imagination. It requires less imagination than for a laptop bomb to be smuggled via the scanner belts. At the airports that I've been in once a person clears security there is no outside access for passengers. So how is that gun going to be air dropped to a passenger? Even if a passenger had a gun they still can't take control of an airplane. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 29462095)
At the airports that I've been in once a person clears security there is no outside access for passengers. So how is that gun going to be air dropped to a passenger? Even if a passenger had a gun they still can't take control of an airplane.
And at some airports where it’s only jetbridge use generally, there are ways for a passenger to try to mess with the jetbridge without someone calling them out for it until perhaps after the damage is done. In such cases or otherwises, it’s sometimes back to stairs. Airside valet service, by drone. ;) And onward air connections from a perceived weak point can be exploited by criminals and nuts of sorts. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:17 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.