:D You made me snort at work.

I'm siding with Spiff on this argument.

I still think and know TSA is a joke. . .

Yeah, you sure can't speak for Hartsfield-Jackson (ATL). Just ask anyone exiting baggage claim from an AA flight . . .

Only person who gave up a 6-figure job (even LOW 6) to work for the TSA is a crackhead. :D

... or mall security, walmart security:p , or TSO, apparently.

Spiff, clearly your hard work and that of others in exposing the failures and shortcomings of the $6 billion a year federal jobs program that is the TSA is working, they are sending shills out to bemoan our criticism.

I have wondered what would happen if we took one of the above mentioned suburban soccer moms who say Oh, ANYTHING for safety" and sent her through the breast and crotch groping, give her athlete's foot from the filthy floors we have to walk on barefoot or in stocking feet and had a $100 bottle of her favorite perfume confiscated by the TSA if she would STILL be saying "Oh, ANYTHING for safety!"

I notice that the TSA posters are not responding to the fact that their agency is accountable to no one, their entire workings are hidden from their employers (US) and that their efficacy scores are pathetically low and screeners DO make stuff up as they go along.

--PP

Hmm....

Thank you!!!!!! Finally someone from the TSA is willing to stand up and prove once and for all that that phrase is true! (You did it with your original post)

That's all I have to say about it without going into details.

In 1994 a Japanese man was killed on a Japan bound plane by liquid explosives. It was reportedly a test to see if it would work.

So I don't have the confidence some of you do that liquids are not a threat.

He was killed by someone who carried pre-mixed nitroglycerine onto the plane. That threat is still possible because the WTMD does not detect liquids and that volume is concealable.

The problem with pre-mixed nitroglycerine is that it is so volatile that just walking around with it, or worse yet, having it near a 98.6 degree F human is enough to cause it to detonate. The terrorist got extremely lucky.

Anyone can kill 1 or 2 other people on the plane without nitroglycerine or other explosives at all. It's not a threat that is worth worrying about. Such a killing can occur at the mall, on the street, or just about anywhere else in the world.

We really need to get out of this safety at all costs nonsense because it's not obtainable or credible and focus on legitimate threats to aircraft, not individual people. If someone wants to kill another person and does not care about the consequences, they will succeed.

The incident in the mid 1990s to which you refer -- actually two incidents of this type happened --have already been factored in by many here who are critical of the "war on liquids/gels" nonsense we currently have in place. The current batch of knee-jerk overreaction "security" measures do basically nothing in regards to even that method to which you are referring. And there was no airside "mixing" or substantive assembly invovled in either of those mid-1990s incidents either. The wool won't be pulled over our eyes, for what we currently have in place vis-a-vis that old news threat is a bigger, more wasteful dog and pony show, a show that is no more effective vis-a-vis the types of methods to which you alluded than was the case in the summer of 2005 or 2004 or 2003 or 2002 or 2001.

So, generally speaking, it's safe to assume that a Criminal Justice degree is not usually a gateway to wealth, fame and sexual attraction?

(The old Thai PM is an exception to this, I suppose).

To a dog, the world looks like a fire hydrant. To a TSA agent.....

I'm not sure it's terribly wise to let on that your diploma has auditory capabilities. ;)

So if six pax each bring a baggie with six three ounce bottles containing liquid explosives they can board the aircraft? 6 x 3 = 18oz x 6 pax = 108 oz. That's almost a gallon of liquid! Ridiculous? of course. But, so is the baggie rule.

Bad, bad, bad approach. I happen to be an adjunct university professor. Wikipedia is not recognized as a legitimate source to reference for formal papers. Why, you may ask? Because Wikipedia does not use referenced, published material; anyone may contribute anything to Wikipedia without attribution.

Possible to create liquid explosives? Yes. Likely to bring down a plane? No;why bother with something that is so unstable and unpredictable when there are much easier ways to accomplish the same goal?

Just because you have a crappy job is no reason to take out your frustrations on citizens who DO pay your salary. As for you keeping me safe when I travel, I beg to differ.

A degree, any degree, only certifies that the holder successfully completed a certain number of courses in a given curriculum. CJ is a soft social science in a liberal arts program. The earning of such a degree does not embody the holder with any special insight, in fact, any 1st year police officer with a bachelor's degree in CJ must still attend a police academy to learn the technical aspects of the job.

By the way - I left the spelling errors in your quotes without correcting them. I would take points off if you submitted this to me for grading.

Really? Can you see my chest heaving when I approach the checkpoint? How about beads of perspiration forming on my forehead? Or failing to make eye contact? Or a bounding pulse? Or heavy breathing? Or trembling hands as I show my BP?

If you see a terrorist in every pax who approaches your checkpoint, you need to give some serious thoughts to another line of work.

Well, sir, much like you, some of us depend on commercial flight for our livelihoods. It is easy to tell us not to fly, but if more people take that to heart, you may have to go back to your six figure salary when TSA starts their layoffs.

What did you learn in your CJ program? TSA may have this approach right now, but sooner or later there will be a challenge that will go to SCOTUS. My background tells me the wholesale confiscation and destruction of personal property that is not in and of itself contraband, will be found to be unconstitutional.

We do get it. I am sorry if you have been treated badly. I personally have always been polite and civil to TSO's, but I do not excuse bad behavior.

Your agency head, Kip Hawley, was a railroad vice president who has absolutely no background in security or terrorism. He is now promulgating rules for the entire transportation industry, with a special emphasis on the airline industry. What has been fostered on the travelling public is an absolute travesty of justice cloaked in the guise of "making the skies safer." And you wonder why people treat you badly?

Wow.

One more to send to my senator.

[QUOTE=TSABOS;6794299]But I guess I can understand why

IBtw, as of unintelligent, I can't speak for other airports, but you would be surprised how well-rounded some of us are (atleast at Logan), and how many gave up 6 figure jobs after 9/11 to work for TSA.

Tell me how uneducated I am to the CJ degree on my wall.

you really hate us that bad, just stop flying. It's simple. You do not have the right to fly, you have the privilege. It is not an invasion of privacy, when you voluntarily purchase a ticket.


Believe me, I had the no flying thing down long before you exposed yourself.