Some underwire bras do set the WTMD off, but MOST will not.

It depends upon the density of the metal. And it depends upon how much metal SURROUNDS the WTMD. There are many factors that play a part. The examples I gave will not always work, but they work often enough.

Up to the screener; and yes, if the screener believes a passenger is attempting to do something to defeat the WTMD, they can ask the passenger to re-submit themselves for WTMD screening and if that person refuses send them for secondary screening. It is not retaliation; it is a legitimate security concern.

Many factors play a part in whether or not the WTMD alarms, even the speed at which you walk through it may prevent an alarm.

What groups don't like TSA?

Actually, given the other frequent spelling and grammatical mistakes from the poster you've quoted it begs the question: How can I expect someone who cannot even write at a 9th (I'm being kind, more like 5th) grade level to actually outsmart dedicated terrorists? Either they aren't capable of spelling/writing at that level or are so careless that they don't even notice that many mistakes (either one of which makes me question their ability to secure our skies).

And, if this was printed in TSA-distributed literature (as a simple typo), then how can I expect someone who doesn't have enough capacity for rational, independent thought to realize that when discussing the subject matter, the typo should be corrected (or they didn't even know it was a typo) to carry out those important tasks either? It suggests a culture of "just regurgitate what we're told/shown since the terrorists have proven themselves equally repetitive" that does the traveling public far more harm than good.

It all goes to credibility, both in terms of the quality of information posted here and the quality of the job done in the field. SATTSO: Would you care to share your formal education level with the group?

Boggie Dog, there are conspiracy theorists that do believe that the government has paid plants/shills that go on CT related websites to "spread disinfo" There even was a report on Above Top Secret and Vigilant Citizen about a program based on botnet/AI technology (think Cleverbot but much more "smarter" and "powerful") that was designed to mimic actual online conversations, complete with names and personalities. I can't think of what it's called but this is the latest thing with CTers and it sows distrust of anyone who posts on CT sites with an opposing view.

I don't know if you are a conspiracy theorist or believe in that type of stuff but your comments about SATTSO being "sent by the TSA" to give the news about this program falls squarely in line with conspiracy theory thinking. That is the "X is a 'disinfo' or 'shill' for the government/elites" accusation. That is why SATTSO said "those with a conspiracy theory mindset" would say something like you did.

Now I'm not saying that the government doesn't engage in such behavior as they DO use the media to their advantage, but I hardly doubt that SATTSO is under orders to make statements about the new program.

I, too, was suspected of being some kind of TSA plant back when I first started commenting on the TSA Blog in 2008 and, later, on FlyerTalk.

I'm not, but some people absolutely refuse to believe otherwise. One person, I believe, even stated something to the nature of: "Well, obviously you would be instructed to deny it." - or something to that effect.

Good times.

I appreciate your answer. Thanks for taking the time. And to answer your question, it is sad that the guy used his child like that. In that case where the police were involved, did they cart him off or do you know what eventually happened to him?

I go on a lot of conspiracy theory websites. I don't believe in that stuff and I would go into detail why but the basics are that these sites and associated Youtube videos are:

1. Repetition.. all of them have the same concepts

2. Hyperbolic, fear mongering language.

3. No substantial proof or research (again repetition)

Anyways, conspiracy theory language is the same at most of these sites I go to and are pretty much an echo chamber of people agreeing with the same topics being discussed. Any that come in and say "I don't agree with this concept." or try to rationalize the concept are met with hostility, attacks, and often get dismissed as a "disinfo agent" or any of it's derivatives. Skeptic Project has a glossary of the terms that conspiracy theorists use as well as tactics:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.c...racy-theories/

Conspiracy theorists are always, "moving the goalposts." Or when confronted with an alternative answer will often come up with another explanation for their thinking. Skeptic Project lists some of the tactics used by conspiracy theorists in that glossary.

Your comment is an example of this kind of thinking, you say you aren't a plant and being responded with "Well, obviously you would be instructed to deny it." is a classic example of someone needing to justify their thinking that you are a government plant despite the fact that you have stated that you are not.

It's basically like this: A makes viewpoints differing from consensus. B accuses A of being C. A states he is not C, perhaps providing proof. B refuses to believe the proof provided by A so states A is C instructed by D to claim that A isn't C.

So John states in ATS that he is an hobbyist astronomer and that he doesn't think the moon landing is a hoax. Mary who believes it is, accuses John of being a government shill because he is an astronomer (ignoring the fact that he does it as a hobby, conspiracy theorists will leave out certain details) John says he is not a shill and provides a website page of an astronomy club that he participates in, stating it is his hobby. Mary shoves aside the evidence and makes the claim to John that he is being instructed by his "higher ups" to deny "his involvement in the conspiracy."

Conspiracy theorists also will take someone's quote out of context, cherry-pick what someone says and twist it to fit their views and then attack the person by claiming "You were the one that said this!"

Now I know this isn't a conspiracy theory site, but I have seen the same kind of language and tactics used on these boards and others.

Good example of conspiracy theory websites and echo chamber? Vigilant Citizen and Infowars.

So my takeaway is that the conspiracy theorists are of the same exact mindset as the TSA, but without 1) a massive budget, 2) power to keep you from flying/legally touch your junk and 3) sweet blue uniforms.

Well that's not what I meant, but if you interpret it as that, then I don't care.

But yeah I see what you saying and honestly it made me laugh.

Actually, made me chuckle a bit when I first thought of it, but really it's not that great a stretch. Substitute things like:

"Anything for security (no matter how remote the threat)"
"If you have nothing to hide then why would you object?"
"Well a terrorist will say they're not a terrorist"
"If you're against this you're against America; next attack's on you"

with

"Anything to prove the gov't is evil (no matter the probability it's true)"
"If they didn't have something to hide, why would they do X"
"Well a gov't plant would deny being one"
"If you even suggest we're wrong, you must be in on the conspiracy"

You really aren't that far off in terms of mentality, now are you? And you know what? Both are equally dangerous in terms of what they lead to, one just happens to be a greater threat today because of its reach and the damage already caused by it.

That is a great thought and very valid for both sides of the party. DHS/TSA's policies are very much in line with conspiracy theory thinking. The people making these policies are using the same mindset as well, not to mention most of the public. I do feel sorry for those TSOs at the bottom level that have to act on these conspiracy theory policies of the TSA though, I'd bet that if the economy wasn't as bad as it is now, they would be dropping out like flies.

Conspiracy theory thinking of individuals is everywhere, on this forum, on Vigilant Citizen, on Youtube and even a Freemason that I met on campus at my college believed in the Illuminati. Yes it can be quite dangerous, I read that the Norway shooter was also a conspiracy theorist.

Ummm, no.

The answer says that "TSA will permit" not that a "parent will permit" multiple attempts. No where does the FAQ address a parent's right (even though parent's rights is usually supreme to the State under common law doctrine).

Hand held metal detector / Explosive Trace Detection.