I'll take it that your answers are that you only speak for your airport and that no records are kept and you are only offering a personal opinion.

The Game that's played here is that a passenger posts what he or she experienced, adds what he or she believes happened, uses derogatory terms and makes broad conclusions that all of this violates ethical principles, the constitution, Will of God, whatever.

A TSA employee posts similar experiences and you come along demanding documented proof, official affidavits, public law references, etc.

This is nothing but an internet board, so get off your high horse.

The AIT is a pretty reliable machine. If operators follow proper procedure, they will have a pretty high detection rate. However, I am one of the those who hopes that ATR technology will replace the current procedure because it reduces things down to a very simple process: pat down the areas highlighted by a computer.

You may have a different opinion, and I truly respect that. However, you do not have the right to call me a liar, say that I don't know what I'm talking about or demand that I provide some sort of proof to back up whatever I've posted. Say you have a different opinion and let's leave it at that. That's fair enough.

Is that so unreasonable?

:rolleyes: Because you are not on one?


detection rate of what?


I never called you a liar, but I do have the right to challenge what you say and ask you to back it up with verifiable facts. You have no obligation to do so.

However, you shouldn't expect anyone to believe what you say or respect your opinion, just because you say it.

True. But the same goes for you and everyone else. However, it seems that you let some wild statements by fellow forum members go unchallenged yet expect me and other TSA employees to back it up with verifiable facts.

Interesting that I've made it a point to tell you that I truly do respect your opinion. I don't always agree with what you say, but I respect your right to post it and respect the experiences you've had that form the basis for it. I truly do. But you make it a point to say that you don't respect mine.

Fair enough.

We know where we stand.

There's a big difference in "duty cycles" between 750 to 1,000 people boarding a train over a period of ten minutes and then another similar number 1/2 hour later vs the continuous flow of people through a checkpoint at an airport. A method that works well for one may quite easily not work as well at the other.

I do expect you and other TSA employee's to use verifiable facts. You are free to expect others to do the same.

If you think a statement needs challenging, then challenge it. Don't expect others to do the work for you.

My questions, and how they are answered, are how I determine if a posters statements should be respected.

I believe there were a million people lining up the streets to see the Royal Wedding and I'm pretty sure that they didn't use body scanners or pat downs on the crowds. The terror risk was very high that day and they were able to avoid any terrorist attacks. I think I heard some news person say that they used explosive dogs?

that wasn't the US of A - they didn't have 9/11™ :rolleyes:

True. They just had 7/7 and a few hundred other assorted terrorist attacks over the years.... And look at the changes to security on the Tube after 7/7!

TSA
 

If God wanted you to fly, he would never have invented the TSA.

What you didnt see on the news was all the SAS and SBS sniper teams on every roof within 3 miles. :D

so what? Effective, unobtrusive, security.

Watch and learn :rolleyes:

Yes, they were one layer of the security involved. You cant even imagine how many others were involved. I was in England for the last royal wedding and had access to quite a bit of the intel involved. The Brits love to go WAY overboard sometimes. :D

you have no idea what I do or do not know. I can imagine you had little to no intelligence of what went on for the last Royal wedding (that would be the Mr Peter Phelps to Miss Autumn Patricia Kelly BTW).

So what if the British go 'overboard', it is unobtrusive.

It is a shame the Americans seem to be completely unable to grasp such a simple concept, no more evidenced than in the airports of the USA.

When I initially read your response I thought “Wow, he/she really took that personally”, but then I noted where your home airport is.

I spent 4 years in the UK some time back, and it was that which taught me that words have different meanings in different cultures. Like the term “I’m stuffed”. In the USA it usually means one has eaten too much, but in the UK it means that one is pregnant. Just an example mind you, but I’m fairly sure that I could not imagine what the term might mean down under in OZ.

So, to complete the point I am making, when I said that “You could not imagine” it was not a reference to what you do know or don’t know, it was a reference to an extremely large operation that one not in the community (meaning military or intel community) would have trouble understanding or believing.

BTW when the British go “overboard”, it is anything but unobtrusive. I was not only a military member serving in the UK, I was also an employee of a civilian company not associated with my military duties. We call it “Working on the economy”, or holding down a part-time job off base. I got to see just how “overboard” the Brits can get on a weekly basis, and there is nothing unobtrusive about it. Sure, there are things that they do that ARE unobtrusive, just as there are in the USA, and I’m sure in Australia.

So, sit back, take a deep breath, and as we say here, “chill”. I was not intending to insult you in any way shape or form, just trying to express the vastness of the operation that was laid on for the wedding I was there for.

Or I could be mistaken and you wanted to be offended, in which case you can’t blame me for it. ;)