It's not a technical flaw, it's an inherent limit of x-rays.

The cap can be in a different place than the explosives.

A TSA agent is going to have a hard time setting off a block of C4 deliberately, let alone by accident. While they can't tell a book from C4 a block of C4 with a detonator in it is another matter.

A Masters/PhD in an area that is not relevant does not make someone more employable. And btw if were more employable, they'd be employed elsewhere. And a PhD in underwater basketweaving they got online from the University of Phoenix is NOT relevant to the job duties of a TSA "clerk".

Furthermore I never said they should hire people like myself with no background in security. Besides, I'd never work for them anyway. Stop twisting my words around. I said they need to hire people who are able to think independently, not people with irrelevant backgrounds. And how many TSA "clerks" have any experience related to their job duties in the first place? I'll bet not many to zero, closer to zero.

The recession wasn't THAT bad, and the people who were employable still got jobs. I know a friend of a friend who got a $80k+bonus job offer at Deloitte and a $85k job offer at McKinsey in the middle of the "worst job market" in decades. Straight out of college. She took the offer at Deloitte (personally I'd take McK but it's her career not mine).

And I believe it does:

If that is true then you are the only one around here that thinks that way. My honesty is called into question nearly every time I post, and I have never been anything but honest.

Agreed.

No, actually I agreed with your point. Not in so many words maybe, but I clarified it and added facts. 9/11 DID change some things, but your right in that not everything can be blamed on those acts.

The vast majority of the public does not want to hear that, they want to hear that government is going to protect them. Period. Hence the Patriot Act, the laws that authorized the DHS and the TSA, and their continued willingness to accept checkpoint procedures. Yet again we are back to “personal responsibility”, taking responsibility for ourselves.

Not sure I would agree with that. I spent more than 4 years over there, and there are some really screwy things over there.

I can sure try. Next time you go to the airport look at peoples luggage. From the outside you should be able to see the 80% of them that are over-packed. There are times when it takes 3 people to close a bag, and we have several hundred bags behind that one that need checking. We really cant afford to spend the same amount of time repacking your bags that you spend packing in the first place. We are also working with very limited space. Only what the airports are willing to provide, and often it is not enough but we make do. We work from tables, set to below waist height, about 2 and a half feet by 3 feet. We have to put the bag, and at times all of its contents, on that single table. All the while testing shoes, boxes, and a whole list of things for residue. Individually. So, repacking the bag just as it was originally packed is an unrealistic expectation. And it would not matter if we had all the space and time in the world, it is still an unrealistic expectation.

OK. So? Truth can be stranger than fiction, and what he is telling you is not fiction.

But the folks here do not wish to believe that, so therefore it must not be true.

That's not the point. The point is that all that the Bad Guys have to do to is to plant a bomb in a checked bag, set it up so it goes off when the bag is opened (a simple pull-wire attached to the front of the bag would do it), and form the blocks of explosive into the shape of any object that causes an anomaly on the x-ray scan. Like a book. Or even a bomb.

Thus, the bomb could actually look like a bomb, and TSA would open the suitcase, setting it off, shutting down an entire airport, and causing a cascade effect that would paralyze air travel in this country for days.

It wouldn't take a bumbling TSO to set it off, it wouldn't take some fiendishly clever device, all it would take is a grenade pin wired to the flap of a rolling suitcase and a block or two of some explosive.

And the detonator doesn't have to be taped to the C4 like in the movies. It can look like a any innocuous electronic device and not appear to be attached to the explosive.

But my main point is, when a TSO sees something that looks like a bomb, it is monumentally stupid to not treat it like a potential bomb, because it might be a bomb!

Oh, I'm so sorry. The recession wasn't THAT bad, huh? Not that many people out of work, huh? And you know ONE person who got a new job during the recession, so it couldn't have been as bad as everybody says, right?

In my industry (AEC), thousands are still out of work just in the mid-Atlantic region, and we're actually doing better here in Maryland than most of the country. The recession WAS that bad, and still IS that bad, and the fact that nobody you know voted for Nixon doesn't mean he didn't win the election.

And by the way - if a person has a job with TSA, then they are, by your definition, "employable", because they found and kept a job.

I can't believe I'm defending the Thousands Standing Around, but we have GOT to stop this ridiculous hyperbole and focus on the true facts of the situation, in a calm, rational manner, if we are to make any headway at getting scope-and-grope repealed and keeping VIPR teams out of our bus stations and subways and keeping the cancer vans away from baseball and football games. Going off the deep end and spouting a bunch of inflamatory propaganda makes us no better than those we oppose, who are using propaganda and fear-mongering to inflame the public into accepting their violations of the Constitution.

Contrary to the popular saying, you cannot fight fire with fire. If you add fire to fire, you get nothing but a bigger fire.

Let's stop fanning the flames and start pouring the cold water of rational thinking and pragmatic idealism on them instead.

Which means the TSA isn't really looking for bombs. More likely they're opening it to examine because they think those are bricks of cocaine, not C4. Or bricks of marijuana, not C4. If they really thought it was a bomb, they wouldn't really be so stupid as to just open it and rummage through it, would they?

So why does the TSA simply open and rummage through bags?Which would be why I've been saying "unemployable elsewhere."

Based on what we've seen in the newspapers and other media, the TSA considers "retraining opportunities" what any other employer would consider "terminable offenses" and some jurisdictions in the private sector "felonies."

But the TSA, well, they really do seem to attract and keep the lowest of the low, don't they?

"But the TSA, well, they really do seem to attract and keep the lowest of the low, don't they? "

With the number of people they hire your going to get some good, some bad, and some ugly (bullies, predators etc.). What I don't understand is why it takes getting arrested for a felony for someone to get fired. TSO's screw up, pax sues,suite is settled ( with taxpayer money) no job action is taken. There have been so many examples here of TSO"s being rude and beligerant, no one gets fired. TSO's let guns and box cutters get through, the very nature of their job, they need to be retrained? They weren't paying attention and should have been fired.

I understand that any company is eventually going to hire some good, some bad, and some ugly.

The question is why the TSA forces the good ones to quit and deliberately retains the bad and the ugly...

Are you sure? This is the TSA we're talking about, remember?

I do wonder if the TSA did find drugs (or some other item that is illegal but not WEI) at a checkpoint, would the case hold up in court or would it be thrown out for 4th Amendment violations?

Hrm.

I've always wondered - if the TSA found two bricks of cocaine in someone's suitcase, would they turn over the one brick of cocaine they found to law enforcement?

We know that the TSA's percentages of thieves in their own ranks is almost infinitely higher than the number of people trying to fly with bombs.

What the public says that want, and what they actually want, may in fact be different things.

And, as you've pointed out, what the public wants isn't always what's best for it.

I still contend that the US public will respond to true leadership, if it ever sees it.

Why does TSA hate books? - because thie lips get tired when they read.

The TSA wants to find drugs and cash. They're hoping to find bricks of cocaine, money or marijuana.

If they thought they books were explosive, they wouldn't be casually rooting around in bags after them.

What the TSA's spokesholes are spewing reveals nothing relevant to their actual intentions or anything else demonstrably true.

It's what the TSA does that reveals their true intentions. They're looking for drugs and cash.

Furthermore, the probability that TSA employees will steal said drugs and cash is very high. As compared to the general flying public, the criminal activities of TSA employees are much more serious and frequent than that of their victims.