Sadly, what you said is so very true.^^

"TSA search for contraband was invalid as not a search for items prohibited from airplanes. The search continued after it was apparent that there were no prohibited items. United States v. Fofana, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45852 (S.D. Ohio June 2, 2009)"

Is that specific enough for you, Ron?

You clearly implied it, Ron. While I don't know if TSA's procedures would have prevented 9/11, I do know what made the attacks successful - the lack of hardened cockpit doors, and the policy in place at the time which prevented airline crews from resisting a hijacking. That is why the hijacking were successful, Ron. Not lax gate security. No matter how many times you imply otherwise.

Sorry, Ron, I'm not making this stuff up. Now just who is digging a hole for themselves?

Counselor, trying to have a conversation with people like Ron is just about like pushing rope. Takes a lot of effort and nothing gets done.

Now it is clear that I am not a fan of TSA but somehow that fact suddenly makes me a holocaust denier in Ron's eyes or that I don't think airplanes were hijacked on 9/11.

For the life of me I don't think I have ever made such a claim. I can only assume that Ron must stoop to such antics to draw attention to himself.

Ron talks about how he has people kill filed, yet he seems to keep seeing comments from these same people.

He can continue making an A$$ of himself, he is really good at it, but to give him any credit for having a reasonable position is just a waste of time.

LOL, I like the "pushing rope" analogy.

I'm not expecting to have a substantive or productive discussion with Ron. When anyone posts clear refutation of his laughably inaccurate posts, he always runs and hides. Fofana is a perfect example. This case has been discussed extensively on FT, yet Ron acts as if it never happened. And in another thread on the FFDO program, virtually everything he said was just plain wrong.

I post in response to him only because it is amusingly easy to refute his nonsense, and to expose his misstatements and inaccuracies.

I see the TSScreenerRon elected to ignore my advise to him that he do the "r" in read first before the "w" in write. But none the less he is very entertaining. I love to watch TSA screeners make fools of themselves both at and away from the checkpoint.

There have been several mentions of several cases. Fofana being one, cant remember the others. But I dont believe that Fofana was a federal court case, then again I could be wrong.

Fofana was about someone not following procedure, thats all. Much of what was done at that checkpoint has been attributed here to the TSO's, and that of course is wrong. LEO's are the ones that took the hardline with Fofana, and as I have said before after listening to the recording that Mr Fofana sure seems to be looking to make a problem, and that there are several areas of the recording where there is time missing. No telling what happened during those missing minutes.

Now, is there another case out there that I am missing? You tell me.

It was federal.

I think you're confusing Bierfeldt an the $4700 with Fofana. Fofana involved a screener opening envelopes she knew contained no weapons and found passports instead. The judge suppressed the evidence stating TSA.exceeded the scope of its search.

TK posted the link to judgment on his website.

Like others have said, try the R in read before the W.

Hmmm, yes, but I was hoping that you would have something else to provide. Fofana is not a very good one to quote. Far to limited a ruling.

No halls, you assume its implied. Sorry to bust your bubble there old boy, but I don�t know if the TSA could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. And neither do you.

Those are some of the things that made the attack successful. Many other things went into that attack being successful, and not all of it known to the agencies that have investigated it. They happily admit that there is much they don�t know. So, given that, I suspect that you only feel that you know, but are unable to substantiate your feelings.

You, but I know that you will never be able to bring yourself to admit it. Not here, not to me, and certainly not in public.

Hey, that's my line.

But on a serious note for TSScreenerRon, that was your best example yet of how much entertainment value you provide here and for prima facia of how your brethren should be treated when they make up their own rules. There is no way I could top what you write.

9-11 was an intelligence and mindset failure, not a security failure. There's very little "unknown" about the incident, and nothing of any gret significance unknown about how it was accomplished.

Even if security procedures then had been identical to what they are today, absent hardened cockpit doors and with the "humor them" mindset, the hijackings could still have taken place and, in all probability, would have taken place.

This isn't top secret stuff, Ron. Anyone who understands probability well enough not to draw to an inside straight understands the principles involved here.

The government could solve the deficit problem by charging an entertainment tax for each reading of RonRon's posts.

And by quoting my last statement you proved that I disagree with that tactic.

I am sorry that is the impression you have of the program. If I could change the redress program to be more interactive with passengers, I would. Even if you were unhappy with the end result of a complaint procedure, at least you should be given the consistent communication and followup. That is the hard part, the communication and followup seem to be where I hear the most complaints about our redress process.

Hold your fire -- I wasn't trying to disprove you; I agreed with you. My comment was more OMNI-esque.

The U.S. Government, more-so in the previous administration, use 9/11 as that sword you describe.

In some ways agreed (I was not really coming after ya!). I think that as a nation we have degenerated to using catch phrases and emotional links to further something else. Even the evening news is not fact based presentation anymore, it is either biased, slanted, or downright incorrect (in several different directions, not just liberal or conservative). I think that presenting facts, well reasoned policies (even when there is conflict about it) and sticking to the basics would help any agency nowadays. There is currently too much focus on focus groups and polls and such, when finding credible threats (whatever threats they may be) and taking steps to prevent them (whatever steps are deemed most effective at preventing said threats) should be the building blocks for all policy. That being said, I have a given framework I work within (SOP) regardless of what I agree with or don't agree with.