It is "hogwash" to believe that better gate security would have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

They were not successful because gate security was lax. They were successful because the hijackers knew that once on board, airline policies in place at the time ensured that they would face no opposition to their plan.

Let me say it one more time - better gate security would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers could have been successful with nothing more than a ball point pen.

Keep singing the TSA party line if it suits your fancy. You aren't convincing anyone except yourself.

And how do we identify them? Oh, perhaps by stringent I.D. checks, but you guys don't like that either, do you?

I believe we'll eventually have a protocols in place to exempt such people from some or perhaps all forms of screening, similar to what we're doing with pilots now.

Maybe, maybe not. It's true that anyone can claim to have a bomb. But would the terrorist group have risked sending a bunch of guys willing to die for the cause (undoubtedly a valuable commodity) off to hijack a plane unarmed?

Thanks, I'll look at that tonight.

You must be very high up in the food chain to know this for certain. I'm not privy to the sort of information necessary to make this determination.

I would argue that we would be better-prepared to prevent another 9/11 if the TSA was not currently in charge of security. The illusion of security is more dangerous than no security at all. How many successful hijackings have there been from US-originated flights since 1900 to Sept 10, 2001? None. How many have there been since Sept 12, 2001? None. No difference between TSA & without TSA.

I hope I don't offend too many people when I say this (particularly those who lost loved ones,) but the 9/11 hijackers did a pathetic job, yet at the same time won the war. The hijackers were opposed to the many freedoms available in this country. The US government has handed them a big win by drastically reducing those freedoms.

At the same time, the hijackers' plan was absolutely pathetic. If they wanted to create REAL terror and uncertainty, spacing out the attacks and using multiple modes of attacks would have created far more uncertainty and fear. Have a plane drop out of the sky about once a month or so, make it look like mechanical defects or weather. Take out a few key pieces of the U.S. power grid and watch entire areas of the country be with limited power service for months. Kill the water pumping capabilities for a large city, knock out a dam or tunnel for more fun and chaos. The possibilities and opportunities are endless.

In the aftermath of 9/11, everyone focused on planes. It was only after the completely unrelated anthrax attacks that anything other than aviation was looked at. Even today, the majority of the efforts are based on pax of commercial airlines being the enemy. Hate to break it to you, but very few criminals use the exact same plan multiple times.

What direct effect did the attacks have on our economy? The loss of commercial real estate, which was insured and reinsured by many global insurers. People dumping stocks isn't a bad thing. Take a look at the job market in 2001-2002 and 2008. I didn't see the job losses back then that I do today. When watching the stock market panic in '01, my thoughts were that Americans were doing far more damage to the economy than the terrorists ever did. I still believe that today, with today's economy and stock market as proof positive. I won't lie, 9/11 and the security hysteria that was soon to follow and still continues today has made money for me.

I'd argue that my LEO friend in the wheelchair and my own security clearances were far more extensive than the rubbish checks performed by the TSA. If the TSA conducted their background checks the way some of the federal agencies do (such as visiting old employers, contacting old high school teachers, etc.), then maybe such background checks would be more than just a PR buzzword.

I offered to help (since I had helped him put them on that morning) but multiple TSOs barked at me to leave the area. They didn't seem to be willing to help. My friend told them they could take them off, but only if they were willing to help him put them back on. We're talking simple trainers here, not any special shoes. They could have helped him if they wished.

I was within earshot of the entire conversation. It was meant as a threat. It also didn't help that the screener pointed to the plane departing from the gate and said sarcastically, "Oh look, your flight's leaving." I enter secure buildings all the time and work with many true security professionals as part of a normal day. I've never seen any of the TSA's style of bullmanure nor TSO-style arrogance at these buildings. Maybe (hopefully) things are different at your airport than they've been at the ones I've been through.

Whoa, hold up a second there. You can't spell rationale without rational. There isn't anything rational about the TSAs policies. Just because one idiot tries to light his shoes on fire, the TSA creates a knee-jerk policy of shoe removal. Similar for the Hollywood-dream plan of using a liquid bomb.

After the first incident, the aforementioned LEO and myself had lunch and discussed the ways to accomplish terrorist acts with commercial airlines and the TSA in place. Sadly, in a few short minutes we were able to come up with no fewer than 15 different ways, all very plausible. Some of them included terrorist acts on the cattle-chute lines for pax waiting to enter the screening area. We hadn't even bothered getting into MacGyver-style tricks with ballpoint pens. The ultimate conclusion that he had also mentioned in his training was that there is no way to stop someone who doesn't value their own life. Maybe the TSA's techniques would work against old-school terrorism where the terrorist wants to live. When dealing with suicidal zealots, there's very little that can actually be done.

I actually don't expect TSOs to treat LEOs nor disabled pax any differently than any other pax. I expect them to treat ALL pax with respect....something which the TSA still has yet to understand. I think it'd be quite beneficial if the TSA would focus less on the # of screeners and instead focus on the quality of the screeners. Give the TSOs more training and more money to encourage a higher-calibre of person, people who WANT to be in this job, not because ground ops jobs at the airport are full.

OMG! A person's carrying their money on them rather than let it get whisked away on the x-ray conveyor belt where the TSOs make no attempt nor take any responsibility to ensure its safety. What a shock. I'm fully able-bodied and I still keep my money clip and wallet and car key and house key in my pockets. Kind of funny... the particular locks I use on my homes have a key which actually is designed to be used as a self-weapon. Nice chisel-point on it, with some nice serrations to inflict more damage when pulling it out of the attacker's body.

Actually, add that to the list of things the TSA has missed -- my Surefire E2D Defender torch (flashlight). That's always in my laptop bag, so it's been through security and carried on every flight I've been on in the past few years.

Or a plethora of any other items commonly found inside an aircraft cabin. Like my LEO friend said, you can't stop someone who is very determined. The same's true about building security as well. I can stop the common burglar, maybe even some of the pros. Bring in the fine art pro burglars and forget it. I can delay them or make things more challenging, but I can't stop them.

No, actually very few people here care WHO it is as much as WHAT they are bringing into the "sterile" area. That's what we'd like to see screened.

The 9/11 hijackers were successful only because of the airline policy regarding hijackings that was in place at the time. That policy forbid crews from resisting a hijacking, and the planners of the event knew this and capitalized on this policy. The level of gate security in effect at the time had nothing to do with the success of that attack.

Let me explain this further. Every airplane cockpit has an axe for the use of the flight crew in exiting an airplane following a crash. Had the pilots been permitted to offer resistance to the hijackers, just how many of those cockpit been taken over? None, I would argue.

That you apparently continue to believe the garbage your management is feeding you is sad.

I attend a working level maritime security meeting chaired by NSC on a routine basis. I can't begin to count how many times over the past 6 years that DHS attendees have come to the meetings to brief us on the newest URGENT THREAT, that we MUST RESPOND TO NOW or else face the consequences of a an ATTACK THAT MIGHT PARALYZE our country!

You know how many of those dire warnings have come to fruition? None. Zero. Zilch. Your superiors, in contrast, have developed a well-deserved reputation for yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is none.

I really don’t mean to pick on you personally, so accept my apologies in advance if that is your impression.

But at a recent meeting where yet another “critical OPLAN” was to be briefed, the planners from DHS were not aware of: a complementary plan already approved by the President; the fundamentals of either the existing aviation or maritime strategies and implementing plans; or the breadth or scope of activities that might be undertaken in the maritime domain.

The result? The DHS briefers left the room having convinced no one of the need for, much less the concept behind, the proposed OPLAN. The proposed OPLAN was unencumbered by national-level strategic guidance, phases of which might be triggered by a Presidential decision, and relied on interagency participation in activities that weren’t well defined in the plan itself and with no intent to have interagency approval of the plan to ensure that interagency partners could indeed commit to support if asked.

Oh - and how could I forget the fact that they didn’t adequately demonstrate the nature and scope of the "threat?"

DHS is a train wreck waiting to happen. I see their incompetence on almost a daily basis, and it isn't pretty.

Did you read the part of my post where I mentioned that they are clueless as to the older and or handicapped who are standing there holding onto a strap? That's what I was referring to--their total indifference as to the comfort of these people.

Yes, I missed it. That is awful. Wow.

By most definitions, DB Cooper was successful. He was not apprehended, though he may not have survived, either.

And, IMHO, Dan Cooper was the ultimate cause of the ID nonsense, including RealID. After all, he embarrassed the Feds, and they've vowed not to let that (the embarrassment) happen again...

OK! Getting back to this thread ... I've been ill for the past few days with a rotten summer cold, and have been too addled by antihistamines to manage a coherent reply (but hey, I didn't miss any time off work!).

Some good reading there! I agreed with his conclusion. I Googled his name and found other stuff he's written, too. He makes the point that a scattershot, over-the-top approach to homeland security may have been understandable, and perhaps acceptable, in the immediate wake of 9-11, but after 7 years, it's time for cooler heads to prevail, and cost-benefits analysis to take place. You won't get an argument from me there!

You're going to see more of this, too, as "Checkpoint Evolution" is aimed at "empowering" individual TSOs to use their discretion. Our illustrious leader goes on and on about the highly trained and experience workforce, which I find curious in light of the fact the agency has a turnover rate around 20 percent, meaning one in five screeners has less than a years' experience under his/her belt.

My cynical side tends to believe someone in Admin realized that if screeners are required to follow a strict set of procedures, and an attack takes place, the blame that is hurled (think in terms of monkeys hurling feces) will stick to the persons who enacted the policies. However, if we leave matters at the discretion of screeners, it would possible to blame low-level, perhaps unnamed, workers for any lapse. No?

I'm not so sure about this. Mueller (author of the paper cited above) notes: "If there is a measure which makes passengers feel substantially safer, this would have to be considered as a benefit even if the measure itself does not actually enhance security at all."

Remember that a significant purpose for the TSA at its inception was to restore public confidence in air travel. However, given the lapse of time, and the current negative perception of the TSA, any initial benefit may have evaporated.

Again, citing Mueller (hey, I'm lazy! ):

That may be true, but damage is still damage! The pensioner watching his lifesavings vanish is unlikely to be consoled by the notion the loss is due to "friendly fire."

Keep in mind that we live in an age dominated by what might be labeled the Soccer Mom Mentality, a time when a significant portion of the population believes Government should protect us from all harm, going so far as to insulate us from the natural results of our own poor decision-making (i.e, the mortgage crisis).

Mueller makes the point (perhaps somewhat wistfully) that security decisions would be best made by people not overly burdened with the need to CYA. I agree, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented, short of politicians suddenly growing a pair, en masse, and frankly I don't see that happening.

Agreed, but if we're going to exempt people on the basis of security checks performed by other agencies, we need 1) reasonable evidence of such checks, and 2) a way to ensure that the person presenting the evidence is, in fact, the person upon whom the check was done. As I said earlier, I believe we'll eventually have a mechanism in place for this (it's working great with pilots!) but it's not going to happen overnight.

Also, there are those who'd say a TSA physical search actually seems less invasive psychologically than would a government background check, and I'd be inclined to agree.

Actually, according to the SOP, they were REQUIRED to help him!

Stuff like this just p*sses me off ...

See earlier reference to the pressing need to CYA ...

Does this mean I'm going to get a raise? Or fired ... hmmm ... I dunno!

Continued ...

Kidding! But yeah, I'll admit the agency does face some, ummm, challenges along these lines. Off the top of my head, a few reasons:

1) Policies enacted On High may not be carried out as envisioned on the front lines, especially when the troops are spread out among hundreds of facilities in 50 states.

2) Even without the presence of a union, TSA management appears highly reluctant to fire anyone, regardless how egregious their conduct. (Although I can just picture someone in Admin reading this and going, "Oh yeah? Won't she be surprised how quickly she's going to be fired for posting on FlyerTalk?") *chuckle*

3) The calibre of employees undoubtedly varies widely depending on the local job market. Wages across-the-board are set in Washington, D.C., and even though locality pay is offered in pricier places, it's determined by the cost of living, not by the job market. In the economically depressed area from whence I came, I worked with a number of folks who had graduate degrees. I now live in an urban area, and my co-workers are predominantly from blue-collar backgrounds.

I'm not familiar with this particular model, but generally speaking, flashlights are not a prohibited item.

Yeah. As a taxpayer, I also find particularly egregious the DHS policy of handing out homeland security grants willy-nilly to law enforcement agencies across the country. One rural northern MI community in which I previously worked actually hired a part-time staffer simply to pursue these grants! That's the tail wagging the dog, IMO.

Mueller says some things about protecting quote-unquote terrorist targets in BFE, North Dakota, which would be very funny if it wasn't our tax dollars being spent. GRRRR!

You're OK; don't worry about it.
If I didn't get some modicum of enjoyment out of posting here, I wouldn't keep coming back!

Yeah, so do I, and I alternate between rage and laughing until I nearly pee myself.

I think the most frightening thing about this agency is its tendency to expand rather like a virus replicating itself. It's the nature of government to do so, of course, but most bureaucracies have been around since time immemorial, so their growth is rather imperceptible, in contrast to the TSA's, which is like watching time-lapse photography.

I also fear the ways in which the agency might be used by subsequent administrations, especially if it keeps heading down the path of becoming a quasi police force. Actually, quite a bit of stuff done during this administration may come back to bite us in the buttocks someday, in which case, what are we going to tell our grandkids? That we were too busy watching "Dancing with the Stars" to pay attention to what the boys in Washington were up to?

It's a crazy world, folks! I'm off to chug more Dayquil, which has gotten decidedly less enjoyable since they eliminated the alcohol.

Exactly how do you determine if a person is disabled? My husband does not walk with a limp, nor does he use a cane or crutches, and when traveling by air, we leave his wheelchair home and rent another at our destination. He walks onto the transportation system You would have no way of knowing that he is in debilitating pain from a back injury.

I am always amazed at the people who can conclude a complete medical analysis by glancing up at someone, and, in the absence of any medical training determine who is disabled and who is not.

That's why there's Nyquil.