Originally Posted by InkUnderNails

Two quickly answered questions:

Are the machines calibrated or checked with a "known contaminant" test strip?

If yes, is it possible that this was what the OP saw tested as their sample?

Now one that is not so easy:

Why would they do this?

Originally Posted by jubal harshaw

@TSO1973:
OK, I looked over the part of my OP that you bolded, and my other posts, and, frankly, I am stumped as to how feel justified in claiming that my story had changed. In fact, I don't believe you actually pointed out anything at all which made even the slightest hint that my story had changed, so I am left to wonder why you made that accusation without even such a slight hint.

For what it's worth, the TSA employee who called his supervisor when he recognized me at the end of the TSA line was not the screener nor the supervisor of the screener to which I referred in my OP, but was another TSA employee. The screener and his supervisor came later, and at about the same time.

Originally Posted by jubal harshaw

This week, I was the victim of an attempted frame-up by the TSA. Here's my story; I present it as a warning. I suppose the only take-home message is that one should insist on an independent witness, such as a police officer in my case, during TSA “searches.” Thing is, I don't know how independent most police officers are likely to be.

This week, I went through LAX, and refused to go through the radiation scanner. I went through a manual search instead. During this process, I was “patted down.” During the “pat down” process, the screener announced what he was doing: “I'm putting my hand in your collar … I'm going to move my hand side to side ...” etc. After the “pat down” process, the screener who patted me down grabbed a test strip that had nothing to do with me, and was sitting on top of the test strip reader, apparently before I'd gotten to the “pat down” area. I will designate that as “test strip A.” He continued with his description of what he was doing, though by this time he was talking to his supervisor. “I handled the test strip that was on the machine before I put his [referring to me] strip in the machine.” The supervisor, who had apparently not expected this apparent rookie to continue his self-descriptive monologue during an obviously inappropriate part of the testing procedure told the screener to get on with the test. The screener then swabbed the same gloves with which he had:

(1) “patted me down” and
(2) handled test strip A

with an apparently fresh test strip, which I will designate “test strip B.” The screener then put test strip B in the reader. The reader then reported “explosives.”

I pointed out to both the supervisor and the screener than this was invalid test, since the screener (knowingly, since he'd described to his supervisor what he'd done) had contaminated his gloves with test strip A before handling test strip B. Upon hearing me point this out, the screener then picked up test strip A, which he had previously placed on top of the reader after handling it (apparently to be ready for the next person) and threw it out.

By this time, the police had been called. I explained what had happened to the officer, and asked officer him to investigate. I pointed out that there were cameras everywhere in this area, including two camera emplacements almost immediately above the reader. The police officer apparently called whoever was monitoring those cameras, and told me that those cameras were not working, and had not captured any of these events. I asked for an investigation, and the Officer told me that I could take it up with the TSA.

I was then told by the TSA personnel that I would have to undergo further screening away from the public. I did not refuse, but pointed out that I did not want to go to some back room for some unknown purpose, especially based on a knowingly adulterated chemical test. The police officer offered to accompany me as a witness, and I eventually went to a closed room, where I was again “patted down.” This time, in the presence of the police officer, I was again patted down, with largely the same procedure. This time, however, with the police officer watching, the new test read negative for explosives. I shudder to think what the second screening, in an isolated area, would have “found” if the police officer had not been present.

I pointed out again that I wanted an investigation, and stated that the test strip A was sitting on top of the garbage container where the first screener had thrown it. Having apparently heard that the video cameras covering the first test area were nonfunctional, the first screener (the one who had rubbed his gloves with a test strip from the top of the test machine) piped up at this point, and stated that he had thrown away nothing except his gloves.

There was a TSA supervisor there at this point, and I advised that supervisor that the screener had lied about this process, and asked the supervisor point blank how to formally request an investigation into this event. The supervisor told me that I could call the TSA 800 number.

I then went on to my flight.

There's a warning here to everyone who flies. The TSA is apparently in the process of mastering “throw down” evidence, though they don't seem to be particularly good at it yet. Beware, and ask for a police officer or independent witness when you are searched by the TSA.

Originally Posted by TSO1973

See bolded area....From your description, the supervisor was not there until after the patdown had been completed.

Originally Posted by jubal harshaw

@TSO1973:
Yes, I read the bolded area. Where in that bolded area, or in any other part of the OP, did I say that the supervisor was called in after the "pat down?"

Originally Posted by TSO1973

Considering that the very first mention of a supervisor even being present was after the patdown was completed, your description can lead to that conclusion. Thank you sir for the clarification.

Originally Posted by jubal harshaw

@Bart:
re: "TSOs don't stand to gain anything by "framing" a passenger."
And you know this how? The fact is, an obviously adulterated / incorrect test was done upon me, and the results of that nonsense test were used to move me to an isolated screening area, away from the general public. The person who did the adulterated test lied about it, and I was advised that all the cameras over the screening area were non-operational, and did not "see" the events that had happened at the screening area.

re: "the alarm was cleared and the passenger allowed to board the plane:" the alarm was "cleared" only when a second test was done in the presence of a police officer who had fortuitously volunteered to watch the second test, and who the TSA had no idea would be present for the second test. If the police officer had not volunteered to be present, I believe the second test would have been positive, then a search (sans police officer or any other non-TSA witnesses) would have been done.

Who knows what this search would have "found?" All I know is that the TSA was willing to perform a fraudulent test, and lie about it, and deny the existence of video evidence of their fraud. The immediate intent appears to have been to get me hidden away by myself in a closed room with them. What about this whole process seems benign to you?

Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott

All the more reason to keep your cell phone on record when going through the checkpoint.

And from what I have read, those states with 2 party agreement to record a conversation only applies if the conversation is private, a checkpoint is a public area and any conversation can be overheard so the conversation is not private. And the TSA allows recordings at the checkpoint except recording images on any monitors at the checkpoint.

Remember John Tyner, the �don�t touch my junk� guy and the campaigner for Ron Paul who had $4700. in cash with him, both had their cell phone recording their encounters with the TSA.

Mr. Elliott

Originally Posted by Bart

No attempted frame up here. TSOs don't stand to gain anything by "framing" a passenger.