My carryons consist of a regulation-sized carryon + a laptop. I don't think I should have to check either one of them because of paranoid lunacy involving liquids/gels/electronics.

How does this TATP get airside?

"TATP is one of the most sensitive explosives known, being extremely sensitive to impact, temperature change and friction."

Global Security Article <--- far from comprehensive

There's no need to check every bottle. There never was and there isn't now.

Ask any airport vendor.

Or better yet, watch as unscreened trucks of stuff arrive daily at airports and shipments of goods are delivered without being inspected very much, if at all.

Anytime.

They *make* it airside, probably (due to need for cooling baths) in a kitchen or catering facility. Then hand it to ticketed terrorist pax in bottles. Needs minimal or no ignition source, as you say - as I understand, chucking the bottle on the floor (say, at an overwing row - i.e. directly above the center wing fuel tank) should do it. As I understand TATP, looking at it wrong can cause it to explode.

If the concept is to put it in Gatorade bottles or the like, how are you going to stop those from coming aboard except to forbid all liquid containers in carry on bags?

I'd highly doubt that they were doing any serious vetting of these folks. I know for a clearance like I have (a TS//SCI) costs upwards of $20-30k, depending how often you've moved, where you lived, who you knew (foreign nationals and the like) and so forth. The threshholds for lower clearances are less and can take as little as a couple weeks to a month (secret and below). Maybe costs a grand or two, if that. These just aren't cost effective for jobs that don't pay all that much and have a high turnover.

The type of clearance that service employees get at airports, and probably TSA folks get as well, isn't much more than a rap sheet review done by the FBI and a fingerprint test. I had one of these done when I adopted my son and it was $50. Maybe a credit pull on top of that. Probably still less than $100. If it's clean, they're hired.

DHS simply doesn't have the money or time to do a thorough check, so I don't think it's getting done.

Super

If you're going to assume that the caterers can synthesize it airside and then hand it off, then you might as well shut down the airport. Other, less-volatile explosives could also be synthesized airside and will not be in liquid form. Moreover, they could be handed off to a terrorist pax who smuggles them onto the aircraft in his/her pants or butt.

Making explosives is really not all that difficult if one has the resources. If you're going to assume that the resources for TATP are airside and justify a liquids/gel ban, then you might as well insist that passengers fly naked, carry nothing, and have a colonoscopy before boarding. There are plenty of stable, solid explosives that can just as easily be synthesized airside, then smuggled on board or even walked on board in plain sight that will not be detected.

You may find this article interesting. Here's the original source ... it's been reprinted in other papers and journals.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/1...t_terror_labs/

I know they interviewed an explosives expert, Jimmie Oxley, from U. of Rhode Island. Here's her bio:

http://www.chm.uri.edu/urichm/brochure/people/jo.html

Here's an article about a TATP bomber from Manchester. Has some good links off of it. Apparently the stuff is so volatile that it doesn't take much to set it off. You'd have to walk VERY carefully in an airport and pray you don't get bumped to even try to get it on a plane.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/2...r_tatp_bomber/

I think getting TATP on a plane is pretty unlikely.

Super

TSA was started because of 9/11, but IIRC none of the 9/11 hijackers used any prohibited items, correct? How did the private screeners fail on 9/11?

As for your rants on TATP...simply nonsense. Sorry, no other way to put it. And your fantasies about terrorists cooking up TATP in airside kitchens? Are you kidding?

You're right, they didn't. But come on, do you remember going through what they called airport security in the 90's? There were people working there that couldn't get hired at Burger King!

Of course the TSA is far from perfect. It's a government agency, so a certain level of incompetence and dumb decisions are required . With that said, I don't think anyone can dispute that the security checkpoints are more secure now than they were pre-9/11. And not just because box cutters are not allowed on planes. TSA staff are much more vigilant and professional than the old screeners ever were.

I'm not saying the checkpoints *are* secure. A very determined terrorist with sufficient resources and intelligence can eventually get through.

As things are today, TSA ends up keeping out the really unsophisticated terrorists and hijackers. Far from perfect but better than nothing (and better than pre-9/11). If we REALLY want to do airport security right, we need to keep out bad people and not just bad objects. That means more intensive passenger interviews and screening like they do in TLV. Israel is a prime example of how to keep terrorists off airplanes. The question is: will the public put up with a 2 - 3 hr checkin process to fly from LA to Vegas?

I really doubt it.

On the original subject this thread:

Based on my experience last week at EWR, we're already there. 1 hr 14 mins to check a bag when I already had a boarding pass! If I was CO elite, it probably only would have taken 45 mins

Those people were just working under the guidlelines the Government gave them.

Still using the same x-ray equipment as pre-9/11.


The other alphabet soup agencies do that....before the bad guys get to the airport.

The general public might put up with Israeli-type security, but business travelers wouldn't. And that would be big trouble for the airlines.

Everyone holds up El Al to be the holy grail of security, but there are several reasons why it will work for them and not us.

1. Most of El Al works out of TLV and only flies to a handful of destinations worldwide (compared to the hundreds alone in the US).

2. AFAIK, Israeli "interviews" are only conducted on El Al pax, and not others like DL or LH. So fly another carrier to avoid the harassment. (If I'm wrong here, please correct me).

3. The people doing the interviews are trained military folks or intelligence operatives. Our TSA flunkies (compared to those guys anyway) wouldn't be able to even come close to comparing. Plus, if you only have to have them at a handful of airports, they're easier to train. Can you imagine trying to train 10,000+ screeners in profiling, and then have them at places like Huntington, WV?

4. Israeli security goes under much more extensive training than the 4 day TSA crash course on behavioral profiling. I'd even venture that it's more of an art than a science.

And lastly, pertaining to the interview, it's none of TSA's G@! D*^@ business where I'm traveling or why. If there is probable cause like they've seen me on the most wanted poster or something, go ahead and call an LEO. If not, don't give me a secondary just because I don't want to tell you why I'm traveling. Examine me closely at the border, fine. The TSA can't even get objective screening criteria right. How on earth are they going to get subjective criteria right?

Super

(emphasis added)




Don't give them any ideas!

The shift has occured, and the gates are relieved to shift the late outs to the cargo line. Better than late outs due to too much carry on. The only ones that are suffering are the pax, due to late outs. Be careful what you wish for.

This NONSENSE is derived from reading news accounts and law enforcement reports from the UK about the liquid bombs at LHR plot, not fantasies, thank you for the flames.

I suppose you think Richard Reid didn't really have an IED in his shoes, either?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...ense/ZM039.pdf

And that 9/11 was a scam cooked up by the bad ole' US Gubmint using remote piloted drones, etc.?

Maybe not TATP but there are other liquid explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka

The "Mark II" "microbombs" had Casio digital watches as the timers, stabilizers that looked like cotton wool balls, and an undetectable nitroglycerin as the explosive. Other ingredients included glycerin, nitrate, sulfuric acid, and minute concentrations of nitrobenzene, silver azide (silver trinitride), and liquid acetone. Two 9-volt batteries in each bomb were used as a power source. The batteries would be connected to light bulb filaments that would detonate the bomb. Murad and Yousef wired an SCR as the switch to trigger the filaments to detonate the bomb. There was an external socket hidden when the wires were pushed under the watch base as the bomber would wear it. The alteration was so small that the watch could still be worn in a normal manner. [1] [5] [7]

Yousef got batteries past airport security during his December 11 test bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 by hiding them in hollowed-out heels of his shoes. Yousef smuggled the nitroglycerin on board by putting it inside a contact lens solution bottle.

The density of the explosive cocktail would be about 1.3.