FlyerTalk Forums - TSA terrorizes the homeless!

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)

- - TSA terrorizes the homeless! (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/692669-tsa-terrorizes-homeless.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdstrike (Post 7741146)

Where is that text located?

Just click on the arrow next to Eyecue's name of what I quoted and it should automatically take you there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 7736902)

No offense, but this is one of the most contradictory policies I've ever heard. In a nutshell, you're saying that liquids are not hazmat/explosive/dangerous at the checkpoint, but they *could* be if they got onboard an aircraft....and the determining factor is the cost of disposal?

Either they are, or they're not - they can't be treated two different ways based on where they're located in the terminal. If your agency is confiscating them as potentially dangerous and hazardous material, they should be treated as such and disposed of appropriately.

The whole "binary liquids" theory is bogus anyway outside controlled lab conditions, as many scientists and industry professionals have already demonstrated.

I never said the determining factor was cost of disposal. IF it was, it would make it too expensive to fly. You are wrong about the binary thing too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 7741963)

...You are wrong about the binary thing too.

Please elaborate why...and just saying "that's secret", doesn't change my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilDog438 (Post 7737196)

You contradict yourself in your own words. In one sentence, you state that it is people here screaming that the TSA treat liquids as hazmat. In the other, you plainly state that the TSA's reason for the liquid carnival is since anything over 3.4 liquid oz could be used as a component in a binary EXPLOSIVE - in discussions with several highly-qualified Hazmat Technicians, I have learned there are not very many chemical compounds that are part of a binary explosives recipe that are not themselves HAZMAT components regardless of size of item..

The key to what you say is that you learned that there arent many of these, but there are some. It is the people on this board that keep saying that TSA should treat them as a haz mat if they are going to not allow them on the airplane. To this I say that it is not practical and not required by law.

.

Quote:

Your hazmat training must have been significantly different than the National Fire Academy approved Operator level (first responder...the actual Hazmat techs are trained at least to Technician level) course that I went through as part of my required training at my volunteer department. That course, which is supposed to train first responders to recognize potential hazards and their initial mitigations, maintains that if I have the remotest thought in my head that the material(s) in question may be Hazmat, I am to initiate a Hazmat response. Call the cavalry, request all the manpower and specially-trained personnel and allow them to PROPERLY and SAFELY identify the component and the APPROPRIATELY dispose of it..

Congratulations on all your training. I have had the same as you have for the same reasons that you have. You arent likely to have that response to a class 3 and a class 8 when the amounts that dont have to be marked are less than 30L and 60L respective to the substance that I am talking about.

.

Quote:

The liquid carnival is not a deterrent. As others have mentioned, there is nothing in this asinine policy to prevent several people from carrying upwards of 20 oz of fluid, EACH, into the sterile area and recombining them prior to boarding an aircraft...absolutely NOTHING, zip, zero, NADA. Don't give me the standard BS of the Explosives Detectors catching it...the only time the TSA uses the damn thing is when the X-Ray tech detects an "anomaly" in their routine scans. Given the number of times they haven't said a damn thing when I have forgotten to remove my INHALER from my bag...needless to say, I still profess this is an asinine, WORTHLESS carnival that is a total mockery of even the SHADOW of security.

I understand that you feel that this is worthless, I stated that I doubt the process myself, in fact I said that someone in high places must be watching too much Jame Bond. The fact is that if TSA is checking liquids like they are supposed to be then the substances would not get through. Could you think for a minute that an inhaler has a pretty common x-ray signature and the operator knows what it is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 7742087)

Please elaborate why...and just saying "that's secret", doesn't change my mind.

ALL right all the experts on this issue weighed in on TATP and HMTD Those are the two that are mentioned the most by the drive by media! I concur that these two explosives cannot be assembled by the person that wants to take them on the plane at the time that the person is the in airport. Plus they are not a true liquid binary, they are a chrystaline precipitate. So as far as those two are concerned, it cannot happen. The one that we went out into the tooley bushes and blew a plane fuselage, overheads and seats to pieces with was not either of these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 7743055)

Hang on a sec here. Maybe we're dipping into semantics, but why does SAT TSA go through all the HAZMAT trouble, whereas DEN treats it like a waffle cone?

Seriously, and I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone other TSAer, but it either goes "kaboom" or it doesn't. You know as well as anyone that manpower and resources are dwindling everywhere with the TSA. So why does other TSA outlets go through the time and resources to train folks to handle this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 7743153)

The one that we went out into the tooley bushes and blew a plane fuselage, overheads and seats to pieces with was not either of these.

So you are asking us to take on faith that you have a credible binary explosive? I don't believe you.

And, no offense, it's "Tule" not tooley, and crystaline, not chrystaline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessO2 (Post 7743175)

He is talking about lighters and lighter fluid and self defense sprays, bleach, starch, etc. Not the general liquids that are not allowed. WE do the same at DEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 7743426)

He is talking about lighters and lighter fluid and self defense sprays, bleach, starch, etc. Not the general liquids that are not allowed. WE do the same at DEN.

And how can you be assured that the 20 oz. bottle that is labeled "water" is, in fact, not bleach and therefore should be treated as hazmat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 7743751)

And how can you be assured that the 20 oz. bottle that is labeled "water" is, in fact, not bleach and therefore should be treated as hazmat?

They treat it at face value.

But wait, that means they only do that selectively. It's Aquafina when they say it is, and it's not when they say it isn't even though the label says it is. :rolleyes:

Surely the Fire Marshal should be summoned!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 7743426)

WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR Part 1520.

...and isn't that a rather damaging signature for a poster on an Internet BBS that is available to millions of people around the world? Seems like it would be grounds for dismissal for any actual Federal employee. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 7743751)

And how can you be assured that the 20 oz. bottle that is labeled "water" is, in fact, not bleach and therefore should be treated as hazmat?

The is the point that I have been trying to make. 20 OZ is not a quantity that needs to be dealt with as a haz mat regardless of what it is. (class 1 excluded)

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdstrike (Post 7743214)

So you are asking us to take on faith that you have a credible binary explosive? I don't believe you.

And, no offense, it's "Tule" not tooley, and crystaline, not chrystaline.

That is your choice whether or not to believe me. I think that when you start to pick apart things like this, you are grasping for things. You got the point that I was making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdstrike (Post 7744646)

ARe you saying that I am not who I say that I am? IF that is the case, use PM to send me your email and I will email you out of my work account.