DHS Report: X-rays don't detect explosives
 

WASHINGTON - X-ray machines that screen airline passengers' shoes cannot detect explosives, according to a Homeland Security Department report on aviation screening.

Findings from the report, obtained by The Associated Press, did not stop the Transportation Security Administration from announcing Sunday that all airline passengers must remove their shoes and run them through X-ray machines before boarding commercial aircraft.

<snip>

TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said putting shoes on the X-ray machines makes the screening process more efficient and eliminates confusion. "We do not have a specific threat regarding shoes," Clark said. "In an abundance of caution we require all shoes to be removed and X-rayed to mitigate a variety of threats."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/..._plot_security


Wow... they don't practice what they preach... another item to include in my letter to my congress people.... :td:

EDITED TO ADD CACHED GOOGLE LINK...

Well it seems DHS doesnt want anyone to know about their "in-security" and have had the link changed... thanks to the others for posting on this... cowtowing to DHS ... this is ridiculous...

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m...ient=firefox-a

And TSA's defense of this absurd policy, "In an abundance of caution we require all shoes to be removed and X-rayed to mitigate a variety of threats". What threat, pray tell, do they hope to mitigate that a stroll through the WTMD with shoes on wouldn't catch?

And now that all shoes are being x-rayed, my bet is the % that will get the ETD swab will go down; thus TSA's new policy will actually increase the risk that a shoe bomb could get through.

NO <bad word> SHERLOCK!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Yeah, about a truckload of fertiler's worth.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Yeah, no kidding. At least pax will feel better that shoes are being x-rayed, thus 'preventing' a Richard Reid copycat attack. :rolleyes:

Proof positive this is all nothing but theater for the masses.

Well, well.

DHS has finally admitted what I've been saying for years.

That's mighty big of you, Comrade Chertoff. Got anything else you'd like to share with the group?

I just read that story before coming to FT and wanted to throw my laptop across the room. Just infuriating!

If I hear one more politician or bureaucrat utter the phrase "abundance of caution," I am absolutely going to flip out.

This has suddenly become the justification for everything. It means "we have absolutely no logical justification for this rule, but it makes us feel good." I wish some reporter would punch the next idiot who uses that phrase.

In line for the WTMD at ORD Mon. morning I was really disgusted at seeing how many people were walking through barefoot. As discussed elsewhere, plantars warts, athletes foot, other fungi and infections- it was really gross, and I'm not easily grossed out.

Is this making us safer?

BTW, how did the DHS figure out that x-rays don't detect explosives? Did they have to hire consultants?

Fly Naked and Sedated
 

"TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said putting shoes on the X-ray machines makes the screening process more efficient and eliminates confusion. “We do not have a specific threat regarding shoes,” Clark said. “In an abundance of caution we require all shoes to be removed and X-rayed to mitigate a variety of threats,” such as potential weapons."

Under the "no specific threat/abundance of caution" doctrine, everything else is a danger equal to shoes. All clothes and underwear need to be run through the x-ray, too. I know, logic and TSA are rarely in the same sentence.

"I just read that story before coming to FT and wanted to throw my laptop across the room."

Careful its not a Dell with one of those exploding batteries. :D Will this fire hazard be enough excuse to ban laptops and all items with rechargeable lithium batteries? :(

Report: X-ray machines don't detect explosives in shoes
 

Heavy sigh......as if we didn't already suspect this. Window dressing at the shoe carnival, anyone? From CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's new order that all airline passengers put their shoes through X-ray machines won't help screeners find a liquid or gel that can be used as a bomb.

The machines are unable to detect explosives, according to a Homeland Security report on aviation screening recently obtained by The Associated Press.

The Transportation Security Administration ordered the shoe-scanning requirement as it fine-tunes new security procedures.

Those procedures were put in place after British police last week broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs aboard as many as 10 airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.

Among the new procedures are a ban on liquids and gels in airline passenger cabins, more hand searches of carry-on luggage, and random double screening of passengers at boarding gates...

Its not as devastating as the report says. It depends on a variety of factors.

Yes, it is as devastating.

Millions are forced to de-shoe under the false premise that the x-ray will determine if these shoes are laden with explosives.

As I've saying all along explosives do not appear differently under x-ray inspection.

The would-be shoe bomber would have to do a really sloppy, careless job and the drone at the x-ray would actually need to have a few neurons fire and see the bomb maker's poor workmanship.

Meanwhile, there are two devices, ETD and the "puffer" that actually do detect explosives accurately. These two devices are eschewed in favor of passenger harassment that is ineffective.

That's nothing less than devastating, if not damning.

Comrades Hawley and Chertoff should both be fired and required to explain to Congress why they have been engaging in known passenger harassment instead of actually looking for explosives with tools that have been proven to work.

It's wiring in the shoes more than explosives that are being looked for via the X-ray check still, right? There is a problem with that too in that the wires and detonator can be placed later (i.e., airside, in-flight). ETD and puffers (and things of the sort) are a better solution than an x-ray shoe carnival.

Or is it sloppy shoe cavities? Even then, ETD and puffers (and things of the sort) are a better solution than an x-ray shoe carnival.

Report: X-ray machines don't detect explosives in shoes
 

We (the non-lemmings of the world) already knew this, but:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/15/Ter...cnn_topstories

Of course, you will all be happy to hear:


In short, the shoe fetish as we know it is completely useless.

You already probably knew this, but the TSA will counter by saying "we're not looking for explosives when we x-ray your shoes. We're looking for knives and other weapons hidden inside them."

To be really safe, shoes should be x-rayed, swabbed with the ETD, placed in the "puffer" machine and maybe then sent thru the CTX. Only then should those scary menaces we call "shoes" be allowed on board. :D

To be fair, the x-ray machines aren't detecting explosives so much as looking for cavities in shoes where explosives might have been placed.

However, I agree completely that the shoe carnival is a farce.

If they wanted to effectively look for explosives, then they'd have something that works similarly to the puffers they're experimenting with. Then, the WTMD would catch embedded contraband other than explosives (which presumably will need to be metallic to make much of a threat on a plane), and the ETD machine of whatever sort would catch the explosives.

Everything is now being done "out of an abundance of caution." That means "you're right, we have no reason for what we're doing, can we move on to the next question please?"

I saw this article this morning and couldn't help but have the reaction, "Duh! We have been discussing this on FT for over a year."

At least there is finally some media coverage of the ineffectiveness of the shoe carnival. If TSA wanted to swab my shoes every time I would be the most cooperative passenger they have ever had.

Life involves much give and take, and I'm willing to give some time and convenience in exchange for real security (ETD), but not for the dog-and-pony show presently on offer.

You have said exactly nothing in this post.

Can to expand your thoughts and rebut our arguments? Or would that be SSI?

Oh, you guys will LOVE this.

From the same page as the OP... ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/..._plot_security )

How I love the media!

:mad: Imbeciles.

Edit: Google cache of the original article http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m...ient=firefox-a

Already posted here.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=590864

The fact that the article in the OP was sanitized is not exactly the same thing as DHS and TSA warring. Such sanitization is just despicable. :td: :mad:

Yes, it is. I didn't know there was sanitization going on. :td:

CNN did an interesting piece on this topic tonight. Apparently TSA has back-pedaled and is now saying that they were never looking for explosives in your shoes (!!!) but rather for "anomalies" that could be indicative of explosives. Trust me, I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that, but it got even better from there.

So the CNN folks got a smaller-sized but functionally equivalent version of one of the the X-ray machines the TSA uses (made by the same manufacturer) and showed right on camera how if there's no metal and you do a good job of putting it in, you can easily put explosives into the shoes with no "anomaly" visible on the screen. (and yes, they had the appropriate expert verify this, etc. etc.)

I'm not sure where eyecue is coming up with his "not devastating" comment, but what I saw on CNN tonight, combined with the original AP report, sure seemed pretty darn devastating to me.

What can we do when we have a government bureaucracy that has no compunction whatsoever about lying to our faces?!?

Saw a pretty frightening news story on CBS in San Fran tonight:

The TSA came on, and showed x-rays of shoes with explosives and shoes without explosives. The photos reminded me of a Wily E Coyote and Road Runner cartoon, were ol, Wily E Coyote has the big ol rocket from ACME jammed up his arse. Same thing with the photos of the shoes, the photos were so pain fully obvious. . . I don't believe for a minute these TSA screeners even know what they are looking for, even if it did look like a bomb from ACME. :td:

Secondly, they announced that Air Cargo is not screened for explosives. Is this possibly true? :confused: if so. Why aren't the terrorists using the good ol mail bomb? Something does not seem right with that.

Finally, they did a piece on "Facial Profiling". I quit, if the TSA expects me to believe that they will be able to interpret and detect facial cues indicative of someone under stress. Besides how are the going to tell the difference between,
1. Stressed because you hate to fly
2. Stressed because you have to get on a plane do a pitch in the same day
3. Stressed because it is your 10 segment that week, and you have pretty much had it.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

No way, they simply are not trained well enough. DHS/TSA are getting a little scary at this point. I can't wait to see this develop. In the mean time, try not to look suspicious. :D

Deleted

Your Losings, Pax
 

We're all shocked, shocked to learn of this mega security flaw. :eek: Someone needs to tell TSA immediately. With last weeks practice, they should be able to ban air cargo by 4 AM tomorrow in the name of Our Safety.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have heard more people on the radio -- talk shows of all political leanings, disc jockeys, sports talk shows, etc -- all talk about this. The common theme was "If they can't find explosives in shoes in the x-ray, why do I have to take them off???"

By contradicting each other and generally coming across as blithering idiots, Hawley and Chertoff themselves may ulimately succeed in doing what the public has been unable to do for at least a couple of years -- end the shoe carnival.

So can I and those I work with.

Isn't it more accurate to say something like "I can identify some/most explosives on which I was tested using the x-ray machine. So can all the screeners on my team. I can identify some of/most of the test items in shoes, laptops and a host of other configurations. Same applies to knives and guns."?

Aren't screeners counting on mistakes by bomb makers and smugglers in doing a poor "finishing job", indicators of detonators, wiring, "out of place" items, organic-looking things, etc.?

That is, there are explosives that cannot be detected by most of the x-ray screeners in the US using the current x-ray equipment.

A couple of points about air cargo.

The cargo that moves via UPS, FedEx, DHL, and a few other all cargo carriers is not screened by the TSA; rather the regulations are set by the TSA and the carriers screen. Majority of the US mail is moving via all cargo sources, I believe FedEx and DHL have the contracts at this time.

Domestic US cargo is not completely screened-rather it is random. The TSA employs a "known" shipper process, which is outlined on their site. Simply put, if the shipper has a history, the cargo is subject to screening, but, it can move via both commercial and all cargo flights as the shipper is validated.

Prior to 9/11, anyone could drop freight at an airline, generally without much restriction.

In my opinion, the problem exists with the freight forwarders. These companies are the middle man between the shipper and the airline. Yes, freight forwarders are subject the TSA rules, but ways exist to circumvent these rules to generate revenue.

The reality of the situation is that this problem can be controlled with a ban on cargo in the bellies of domestic US flights-whether the shipper is known or not.

I suspect air cargo domestically was not banned after 9/11 is that the airlines needed any and all sources of revenue as passenger travel was down. Although, the revenue generated from this activity varies by carrier due to route structure and equipment, it is not the airlines main source. From what I understand, a large percentage of this revenue drops straight to the bottom line.

Times have changed and airlines have become profitable as air travel has increased and they have right sized their fleets. No longer are wide bodies (767, 777, 747) used when a narrow body (737, A320, A310, 757) will suffice.

In addition, alternative sources exist to move "emergency freight". Charters are available and will become more prevalent once the air taxi service comes to fruition. Another source is direct to consignee truck service-a team of drivers can go from LAX to JFK in about 36 hours or less.

My biggest concern at this point is that these individuals are working on an alternative method to create an unspeakable event. I do not recall the source, but, determination was a big factor in the catastrophic events of 9/11. The planners were not inept and exploited our weakness.

Banning domestic air cargo from passenger service makes basic economic sense, the alternative use of a limited resource (Money/TSA spending) is of greater use in the development and purchase of more sophisticated methods to offset the cabin/in flight risks.

I know the airlines would never give in to banning air cargo from international passenger service since it tends to be such a cash cow for them. Pax wouldn't like it much, either, since fares would have to skyrocket to make up the difference.

Is domestic cargo that much less lucrative of a market that it makes sense for the airlines to drop it? I'm asking an honest question, not criticising the point, and read over the alternatives you proposed for moving domestic freight. What about USPS mail and cargo, for instance? I can see the big carriers operating their own fleets, but I'm not as sure USPS could ramp up to that level of operations or find someone else willing to take their packages for a rate consumers would accept.

And I know that explosives can be concealed that neither you nor your fellow employees will find.

It's one thing to be able to identify those little test images that are built into the x-ray's software.

It's quite another to identify explosives when someone has gone through the trouble to replace materials with similar density materials, reassembled the shoe so that it appears to be unaltered and does not thoughtfully include the detonator and timer (if desired) in the shoe. The same is true with laptops and other containers.

I maintain: Comrade Hawley is a liar. X-ray inspection is no more effective at identifying bombs than is looking for people who are self-proclaimed terrorists.

I am not sure that this is always the case. For example, CO flies both the 767-200 and the 757-300. Both carry approximately the same number of passengers, but the cost to operate is higher for the 762. The reason for flying it: much larger cargo capacity (and longer range). So if CO is not able to fill that underbelly, times could become difficult. Also noted that the CO specials for this weekend are the most that I ever recall out of Houston. Appears that loads are down. Think it has anything to do with the new regime?

I am curious as to if any of the screeners on board have found while operating the x-ray machine shoes with explosives in them that led to the arrest of their owner?

No, but I'm sure they have "heard" of someone who has ;)

Deleted

Any reason to be confident that "competent" terrorists can't circumvent current screening processes to smuggle explosives past the TSA? Other competent individuals have little trouble wittingly or unwittingly smuggling items past the TSA ... even repeatedly. So I don't see why explosives would be any different. Do you?

Can you identify all that are presented to you? How do you square your claim with the DHS report?