TSA Failed In Stopping Weapons & Bomb Materials 95% Of The Time

Yeah, no big surprise here. Uncle Sammy had 3 goals in establishing "Homeland Security", keep the blame for "intelligence failures" away from the executive branch, influence public opinion in support of the "war on terror", and get the public flying again.

TSA has done its part. But, I really believe that security experts knew going in that short of repealing posse comitatus, we were never going to have Israeli style airport security.
 
Just another successful government program........



NOT.......:no:
 
no way. TSA employees are the best of the best of the best. Even when they're standing around checking their texts, deep down, I felt my safety was their highest priority.
 
The goal of the TSA was just another way to increase the number of unionized public sector employees making them an even bigger politcal lobby. It was NOT about safety and security. Considering their goal, it has been a huge success as has DHS.
 
In any lexicon - except maybe a progressive government manual - a 95% FAILURE rate would result in instantaneous cleaning fo the house, not a random firing to placate the news media. Accepting 95% failure is the real crime, not the idiotic groper patrol, and the nude - o - meter scam.
 
They got yet another pocket knife off me this morning. A micro Leatherman with a little over 1" blade. I have been trying to find it for three weeks now. Apparently it was buried in my laptop bag.
 
I'm pretty sure the problem is just worker moral. If we just raise the minimum wage, I'm sure that get them in tip top shape! :D

Honestly, it's time to replace the humans at TSA with robots and machines.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm pretty sure the problem is just worker moral. If we just raise the minimum wage, I'm sure that get them in tip top shape! :D

Honestly, it's time to replace the humans at TSA with robots and machines.
Click to expand...

It's time to just get rid of the TSA. If you must replace them with something, replace them with whoever was in charge before 9/11. They did just what they were supposed to. TSA is moving towards the old ways anyway, work covering just about everyone pre check.
 
John221us said:
They got yet another pocket knife off me this morning. A micro Leatherman with a little over 1" blade. I have been trying to find it for three weeks now. Apparently it was buried in my laptop bag.
Click to expand...

I have lost three of these to these airport GOONS. Therefore, I no longer carry one, and yes, I always am looking for one of the little tools when I am out and about. :mad:

Yet, the airlines, TSA, and other employers at the airport can hire known criminals, or hire contractors employing people of questionable background. Yeah, that low paid janitorial or food service person can't be bought by terrorists to do their bidding, huh?
 
Lindberg said:
It's time to just get rid of the TSA.
Click to expand...


It's past time to dump the TSA.

If we decide we need security, then let's do it right.... not this crap from TSA.
 
Bob Noel said:
It's past time to dump the TSA.

If we decide we need security, then let's do it right.... not this crap from TSA.
Click to expand...

Agreed....

A strong dose of profiling will catch 99% of the bad guys.....

To hell if we hurt someones feeling...
 
Not surprised in the least. Stupidest agency ever. And we'll be stuck with them forever
 
But more humorous yet (as I've likely stated before), is the fact that even if they were 100% effective, they'd still make us exactly 0% safer.

There will never be another 9/11. This was proven on 9/11 by the people on United Flight 93 when they overpowered the hijackers and brought it down in PA. This happened because the news of the planes hitting the WTC were already out and they proved Americans will indeed stand up.

Terrorists are also far less likely to gain control of an airliner these days because of the hardened cockpit and other measures.

So, worst case, a terrorist brings down one airliner with an explosive device and a few hundred people die. But...

Consider that, even with 100% effective TSA, on any day, at any large hub airport...during the busy time...a device could be exploded at the TSA security line and take out just as many (or more) people.

And if they coordinate attacks at numerous security lines at numerous airports and we could easily be looking at casualties in the thousands.

How exactly are we safer?

We're not. It's theatre.

And when asked to give examples of plots they've thwarted, the DHS typically either has no good answer or dodges the question by using the magic "classified information" statement.
 
timwinters said:
There will never be another 9/11. This was proven on 9/11 by the people on United Flight 93 when they overpowered the hijackers and brought it down in PA. This happened because the news of the planes hitting the WTC were already out and they proved Americans will indeed stand up.

Terrorists are also far less likely to gain control of an airliner these days because of the hardened cockpit and other measures.

So, worst case, a terrorist brings down one airliner with an explosive device and a few hundred people die.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been saying for years. Because of the cockpit door and collective defense by passengers it's extremely unlikely a hijacking will succeed.
 
3393RP said:
This is exactly what I have been saying for years. Because of the cockpit door and collective defense by passengers it's extremely unlikely a hijacking will succeed.
Click to expand...

Especially since the govt wouldn't be helping like they did last time.:rofl:
 
N801BH said:
Agreed....

A strong dose of profiling will catch 99% of the bad guys.....

To hell if we hurt someones feeling...
Click to expand...

I do think security is needed at our airports. I'm not sure the TSA in its current form is the answer.
I have always wondered what direction the people here would like to see security take.

Your answer is a good one in my opinion. That said, to have an Israeli style interview may be prohibitive with the amount of passengers in the U.S.
 
timwinters said:
It seems our right-wingers need to compare notes before posting. :rolleyes2:


:thumbsup:

.
Click to expand...


So how are those statements inconsistant? If the TSA profiled, and the airline service companies better screened applicants it would certainly help. Profiling is just another tool in the screening process.

So before you take a shot at us "right wingers" make some sense first. :rolleyes:
 
Yet another argument for GA in some ways being safer than commercial.
 
Just think of this. The TSA tries to stop anyone from getting on a plane with anything dangerous, but no one is trying to stop someone from walking in the ticketing area with one or more suitcases packed with explosives and setting them off.

I am a bit surprised this hasn't been done yet. Maybe it's hard to hire suicide bombers here? :dunno:
 
The process is flawed,having a bunch of irate paxs because of long lines,and wait times,doesn't help. The screening is just for show. I think profiling,can be useful ,if done correctly.
 
EppyGA said:
Just think of this. The TSA tries to stop anyone from getting on a plane with anything dangerous, but no one is trying to stop someone from walking in the ticketing area with one or more suitcases packed with explosives and setting them off.

I am a bit surprised this hasn't been done yet. Maybe it's hard to hire suicide bombers here? :dunno:
Click to expand...
You could say that about anyplace..
I am surprised it doesn't happen on a daily basis in malls, or any crowded space in the U.S.
 
frfly172 said:
The process is flawed,having a bunch of irate paxs because of long lines,and wait times,doesn't help. The screening is just for show. I think profiling,can be useful ,if done correctly.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say the screening is just for show. We haven't lost an airplane due to terrorism since 2001. Something must be working. I do believe the current system has some level of deterrence.
 
Kritchlow said:
It's hard to say the screening is just for show. We haven't lost an airplane due to terrorism since 2001. Something must be working. I do believe the current system has some level of deterrence.
Click to expand...

We didn't "lose" an airplane domestically before 9-11, either. There was one near miss, but it was 14 years earlier.

And there were many more unsuccessful domestic attempts after 9-11 than before.

So, how is this a deterrent?
 
MAKG1 said:
So, how is this a deterrent?
Click to expand...

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the TSA as it stands right now..

That said, no lost airplanes in the past 14 years does say something. If there was no TSA, and no security whatsoever, do you honestly believe we could still say that??
 
Kritchlow said:
It's hard to say the screening is just for show. We haven't lost an airplane due to terrorism since 2001.
Click to expand...
What exactly does your second statement have to do with your first? If you read the article, red teams are able to get explosives past screening 95% of the time. And at least two real terrorists have smuggled bombs past TSA screening and onto planes. That's not even counting the dozens or hundreds of people who've accidentally gotten past screening with prohibited weapons or explosives. So to whatever extent "something is working," we can say for sure that it isn't the screening.

Underwear Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
Shoe Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

The screening even missed the C4 in this guy's bag after an x-ray and hand search: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-01-03/soldier-airport-explosives/52360742/1
 
Kritchlow said:
That said, no lost airplanes in the past 14 years does say something. If there was no TSA, and no security whatsoever, do you honestly believe we could still say that??
Click to expand...
No lost airplanes in the 14 years before 9/11 either. I think the last time it happened was the '50s. There were a bunch of hijackings in the '60s and '70s, all ended peacefully. That's what led to the single vulnerability that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur: the policy of cooperating with hijackers.
 
Lindberg said:
No lost airplanes in the 14 years before 9/11 either. I think the last time it happened was the '50s. There were a bunch of hijackings in the '60s and '70s, all ended peacefully. That's what led to the single vulnerability that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur: the policy of cooperating with hijackers.
Click to expand...

Be honest- two identical airplanes going to the same destination. One has pax screened as they are today. The other has absolutely no screening whatsoever. What airplane would you repeatedly ride over many trips? Which would the general public want to ride? Which would the terrorists target more frequently?

My point is that it's not a perfect situation the way things are, but they are better than nothing at all. If you have a better way to handle security I for one am ready to listen.
 
Look, there is a certain demographic, rather larger now after 9/11, that the TSA fear and intimidation program works on. They sell fear, and dread of death and they are great, effective salesmen. Just go to the tsa website. They are protecting us from lasers? Really? Sure.. And they are so busy protecting us from baggage handlers selling drugs? Really? Scope? Mission? Bueller?

Oooooooooowwwwwwww, they found an inert grenade this week. Inert grenade? You mean, something that is a toy that looks like a grenade? pfft

But - as we see it's effective. Every one of us has seen someone in line at the airport just drooling over the safety of the TSA. Without them - every plane would be gone, we would stop transportation as a country without the TSA. Yah - sure...
 
docmirror said:
Look, there is a certain demographic, rather larger now after 9/11, that the TSA fear and intimidation program works on. They sell fear, and dread of death and they are great, effective salesmen. Just go to the tsa website. They are protecting us from lasers? Really? Sure.. And they are so busy protecting us from baggage handlers selling drugs? Really? Scope? Mission? Bueller?

Oooooooooowwwwwwww, they found an inert grenade this week. Inert grenade? You mean, something that is a toy that looks like a grenade? pfft

But - as we see it's effective. Every one of us has seen someone in line at the airport just drooling over the safety of the TSA. Without them - every plane would be gone, we would stop transportation as a country without the TSA. Yah - sure...
Click to expand...

I don't think I disagree with anything in your post.

That said, I still ask the same question-
Would you be okay with repeatedly getting on commercial airliners with absolutely no security of any kind?

For me, the answer is no.
 
Kritchlow said:
Be honest- two identical airplanes going to the same destination. One has pax screened as they are today. The other has absolutely no screening whatsoever. What airplane would you repeatedly ride over many trips? Which would the general public want to ride? Which would the terrorists target more frequently?

My point is that it's not a perfect situation the way things are, but they are better than nothing at all. If you have a better way to handle security I for one am ready to listen.
Click to expand...

You asked me a bit ago what I would do, and serendipity, you stumbled on to it. Let the consumer decide. Offer TSA screened aircraft and a secure boarding separated by those glass panels for everyone who wants it - FOR A FEE. So, you want to fly from DFW to ORD, then you have two options, one is no screening, take your chances, roll the dice, and the other is full and complete security from anus to eyebrows. Same route, same plane, same crew, same everything. The secure option costs $59 which is a tiny percent of the actual cost of the whole program. Or $39, $25, I don't care but nothing in life is free. You want security, go buy it. For me, leave us an opt out if we so choose.
 
docmirror said:
You asked me a bit ago what I would do, and serendipity, you stumbled on to it. Let the consumer decide. Offer TSA screened aircraft and a secure boarding separated by those glass panels for everyone who wants it - FOR A FEE. So, you want to fly from DFW to ORD, then you have two options, one is no screening, take your chances, roll the dice, and the other is full and complete security from anus to eyebrows. Same route, same plane, same crew, same everything. The secure option costs $59 which is a tiny percent of the actual cost of the whole program. Or $39, $25, I don't care but nothing in life is free. You want security, go buy it. For me, leave us an opt out if we so choose.
Click to expand...
I am fine with that in theory, and would be fine with that in reality, IF-
The crew was okay with it, AND every person within fuel range of the unsecured aircraft was okay with it.
Seeing as though that's not practical, we have no choice. Personally I would be everything that sooner rather than later the bad guys will take one of the unsecured.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't think I disagree with anything in your post.

That said, I still ask the same question-
Would you be okay with repeatedly getting on commercial airliners with absolutely no security of any kind?

For me, the answer is no.
Click to expand...

As someone who doesn't expect the government to wipe my ass, I would ride on one without thinking twice about it. Of course I would also be the first guy out of my seat to deter anyone. I haven't been turned into some pussified-I-have-to-have-the-government-take-care-of-me-coward like every single person who stands up for the TSA is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top