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

Lindberg said:
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
Click to expand...


Yes, it is clear that explosives are the biggest threat now, in the air. Armored cockpit doors have pretty much eliminated the threat of hijacking.

I'd bet that compared to a knife, a small brick of plastic explosive is harder to spot in an X-ray. Regardless of who employs the X-ray worker, it's going to be hard for them to do that job well enough.
 
NoHeat said:
Yes, it is clear that explosives are the biggest threat now, in the air. Armored cockpit doors have pretty much eliminated the threat of hijacking.

I'd bet that compared to a knife, a small brick of plastic explosive is harder to spot in an X-ray. Regardless of who employs the X-ray worker, it's going to be hard for them to do that job well enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct.

I bet the majority of the 96% missed were things that were not easy to spot.
 
Lindberg said:
How many of the above were thwarted by screening? Zero. Those events don't prove we need screening; they prove its lack of value.
Click to expand...

And again... We will never know how many did not happen because of security...

I feel fine to drive after four beers with dinner. The law thinks otherwise. Will I drink four beers and drive? No. Why not? I *might* get caught. Even though I feel fine I know there is a chance I would be caught, and therefor don't even contemplate doing so.
 
Have the police accomplished their job in the above scenario?

Or should the police stop checking for DUI's because they haven't caught a huge number lately?
 
Kritchlow said:
And again... We will never know how many did not happen because of security...
Click to expand...
Why does it matter how many didn't happen? What we do know is that if someone really wants to get a bomb on a plane, he can, 95% of the time.

I feel fine to drive after four beers with dinner. The law thinks otherwise. Will I drink four beers and drive? No. Why not? I *might* get caught. Even though I feel fine I know there is a chance I would be caught, and therefor don't even contemplate doing so.
Click to expand...
Do you think that a person who is willing to carry a bomb into a public place and blow himself up with 100 others is deterred by a fear of maybe being caught?
 
Lindberg said:
Why does it matter how many didn't happen? What we do know is that if someone really wants to get a bomb on a plane, he can, 95% of the time.
Click to expand...
Not neccessarily. We do not know the details of that.
That said, it doesn't look good.
Do you think that a person who is willing to carry a bomb into a public place and blow himself up with 100 others is deterred by a fear of maybe being caught?
Click to expand...
No, which is why I'm surprised it hasn't happened in many venues, not just airports.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, there has been repeat attempts.

-shoe
-underwear
-liquid plot

We had a reactive response to all. Obviously we don't have enough tech know how to stop it without invasive measures.

They do still have interest in airplanes. If they did away with all security screening you would see for yourself.
Click to expand...

And if only we had hardened the cockpit doors earlier, nobody intent on bad acts could ever enter the cockpit.

Oh wait... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

As for the last viable hijacking attempt? Delta circa 2002- pax tackled by multiple passengers and the copilot best him with the crash axe. Yeah, I feel threatened.
 
There haven't been any bear attacks on my property since the TSA has been established either.

TSA - preventing bear attacks since 2000-something.
 
EdFred said:
There haven't been any bear attacks on my property since the TSA has been established either.

TSA - preventing bear attacks since 2000-something.
Click to expand...
And there have been no bear attacks on my property since the state instituted an armed robbery law.

Your point is???
 
warthog1984 said:
And if only we had hardened the cockpit doors earlier, nobody intent on bad acts could ever enter the cockpit.

Oh wait... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

As for the last viable hijacking attempt? Delta circa 2002- pax tackled by multiple passengers and the copilot best him with the crash axe. Yeah, I feel threatened.
Click to expand...

Not the German thing again... This gets old.
We also implemented a second person in the cockpit rule, which apparantly the Germans did not.

Got anything else?
 
Kritchlow said:
And there have been no bear attacks on my property since the state instituted an armed robbery law.

Your point is???
Click to expand...

Then it's obvious the armed robbery law prevented bear attacks. Is the only explanation.

And since you missed my point, then it's obvious why you've been rah-rahing the TSA and why it's so blatantly obvious, that they,and only they can prevent forest fires, er terrorist attacks.
 
EdFred said:
Then it's obvious the armed robbery law prevented bear attacks. Is the only explanation.

And since you missed my point, then it's obvious why you've been rah-rahing the TSA and why it's so blatantly obvious, that they,and only they can prevent forest fires, er terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
If you think I've been rah-rahing the TSA, than you truly haven't been reading my posts. I've said repeatedly that the current TSA format is not the answer.
 
And no, I didn't miss your point. It just didn't have any relevance.
 
Kritchlow said:
And no, I didn't miss your point. It just didn't have any relevance.
Click to expand...

You obviously did because you stated that since the TSA has been founded there's been no attacks, implying that they are solely responsible for that. Well, if they are responsible for that, it's obvious that they prevent bear attacks also.
 
EdFred said:
You obviously did because you stated that since the TSA has been founded there's been no attacks, implying that they are solely responsible for that. Well, if they are responsible for that, it's obvious that they prevent bear attacks also.
Click to expand...
Really??
I have read your posts in the past and have enjoyed them. I do know you're a smart, good guy. I'll let this go...
 
Well why bring up the 14 years since the TSA (though they've been around for less) then?
 
EdFred said:
Well why bring up the 14 years since the TSA (though they've been around for less) then?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's just coincidence. That said, a group that is intent on killing us, airplanes being a big target, have not done so in 14 years. Some say coincidence, I say we had some control over stopping it. TSA, Intel from sources domestic or foreign, whatever, something worked.
 
What's worked is people will stand up for themselves now. Well most people. You still seem to want the government ass-wiping to continue. I can wipe my own, thanks.
 
EdFred said:
What's worked is people will stand up for themselves now. Well most people. You still seem to want the government ass-wiping to continue. I can wipe my own, thanks.
Click to expand...
Im happy to hear that. I was wondering for a moment there...
 
Kritchlow said:
Very nice... I totally understand they were within their rights and all that, But I still don't understand why people intentionally look for trouble. Obviously they did this just to make a show.
Click to expand...

Look. A man with a rifle. Lets call a cop.


puh-leezzzzzzeeeeee.

As I understand your issue, rights should only be exercised if they don't cause an issue for someone else? Do I have that right? That being someone who follows the supreme law of the land is the problem here?

pfft
 
docmirror said:
Look. A man with a rifle. Lets call a cop.


puh-leezzzzzzeeeeee.

As I understand your issue, rights should only be exercised if they don't cause an issue for someone else? Do I have that right? That being someone who follows the supreme law of the land is the problem here?

pfft
Click to expand...
Nope. You don't have that right, and I don't think you'll find that if you look again.
 
Kritchlow said:
Nope. You don't have that right, and I don't think you'll find that if you look again.
Click to expand...

Your philosophical point of WHY he was doing it needs some clarification. He wasn't looking for trouble, the people who called the cops are the ones looking for trouble.

I'm not surprised that you don't get that. I will try again.

"Look a man with a rifle. Let's call a cop."

Which person is looking for trouble here? The guy with the rifle, or the people calling the cops on the guy with the rifle?

This is not a rhetorical question.
 
I am a second amendment advocate. That said, I don't see the need to stir the pot. Bringing a loaded AR -15 with 100 rounds into an airport is stirring the pot.
It does not help the 2nd amendment / gun advocate cause. It just gives the libs something to point at as "Waco" right wingers.
 
Sigh. You don't owe me an answer to the question - but not answering speaks volumes.
 
docmirror said:
Your philosophical point of WHY he was doing it needs some clarification. He wasn't looking for trouble, the people who called the cops are the ones looking for trouble.

I'm not surprised that you don't get that. I will try again.

"Look a man with a rifle. Let's call a cop."

Which person is looking for trouble here? The guy with the rifle, or the people calling the cops on the guy with the rifle?

This is not a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
Reread...
As I said, I feel he was just trying to stir the pot. As for the others, they saw a guy carrying what looked like a machine gun. You and I understand it is not a machine gun, but to many it looks scary. To do that in an airport is an irresponsible gun owner IMO. Ymmv.
 
I think I got it. The guy exercising his constitutional rights is the guy with the problem.

Alrighty, this fits right in with the theme of your other posts in this thread. TSA/LEO - good. Responsible citizen - bad.

Just - say - it, and quit with the prevarication.
 
docmirror said:
I think I got it. The guy exercising his constitutional rights is the guy with the problem.

Alrighty, this fits right in with the theme of your other posts in this thread. TSA/LEO - good. Responsible citizen - bad.

Just - say - it, and quit with the prevarication.
Click to expand...

But that just isn't the case. I'm all for every person packing a pistol. The world would be a safer place IMO. Nobody would rob a liquor store since they know everyone has a gun!! I'm all for it!!

That said, seeing as though that's not the case, to carry an AR-15 with 100 rounds was done just to make a spectacle of himself. Constitutional right? Yes. Does it help the cause by winning hearts and minds about gun ownership??
I don't think so, and that's my point.
 
Hearts and minds. Cuz that worked so well in Vietnam. Sorry, but I don't give a wet, dribbly shyte if others don't like me exercising my rights. Just like they shouldn't give a shyte if they exercise their rights, and offend me.

That's why they are called 'rights'. If only non-controversial rights were expressed, we wouldn't need to codify them now would we?

Leave people alone. For LEO this goes double. Leave law-abiding people alone. Go stand around the sheeple that called you, and leave us alone. Very simple. You want to be afraid, then be afraid, but if I have a rifle, it's because I want a rifle! End of story, there's no 'why' about it. If you think I owe you some kind of justification to exercise my right to open carry, then the rights themselves are worthless.
 
docmirror said:
Hearts and minds. Cuz that worked so well in Vietnam. Sorry, but I don't give a wet, dribbly shyte if others don't like me exercising my rights. Just like they shouldn't give a shyte if they exercise their rights, and offend me.

That's why they are called 'rights'. If only non-controversial rights were expressed, we wouldn't need to codify them now would we?

Leave people alone. For LEO this goes double. Leave law-abiding people alone. Go stand around the sheeple that called you, and leave us alone. Very simple. You want to be afraid, then be afraid, but if I have a rifle, it's because I want a rifle! End of story, there's no 'why' about it. If you think I owe you some kind of justification to exercise my right to open carry, then the rights themselves are worthless.
Click to expand...
i also don't like it when people flaunt other rights, such as walking on the flag, praising Isis, or even watching Rachael Maddow.
 
Kritchlow said:
i also don't like it when people flaunt other rights, such as walking on the flag, praising Isis, or even watching Rachael Maddow.
Click to expand...

It's a free country.

Go right ahead and don't like it. Fine with me. Stand right there and - don't like it.

Call a cop on a law-abiding citizen and that's being an azzhole of the first order.

Cop confronting a law-abiding citizen who is no threat to anyone is another azzhole of the first order.

I'll let you know when I start caring what you don't like. Might want to get comfy.
 
docmirror said:
It's a free country.

Go right ahead and don't like it. Fine with me. Stand right there and - don't like it.

Call a cop on a law-abiding citizen and that's being an azzhole of the first order.

Cop confronting a law-abiding citizen who is no threat to anyone is another azzhole of the first order.

I'll let you know when I start caring what you don't like. Might want to get comfy.
Click to expand...
Okay.. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, do you think this law abiding guy will help or hurt the gun lobby?
You're right... What I think doesn't matter, but what the masses think DOES matter.
 
N801BH said:
Just another successful government program........



NOT.......:no:
Click to expand...


They think so. Anything that gives an excuse to spend like a drunken sailor and pretend it's for the good of any group of voters, in this case the easily frightened ones, is a bonus to them.

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...


The door is now a reverse problem.

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...


Honestly, they'd probably not target either one. That's been done before. Way easier to just ship the stuff on a cargo carrier if they want to target aircraft again.

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...


Then pay for it. It should be the airline's problem how they secure their product, and by how much.

Kritchlow said:
Just to be clear- The German Wings crash may not have happened here, as another rule implemented was two people in the cockpit.
Click to expand...


Completely incorrect. The change was made for many carriers after Germany. If the cockpit had a door video camera system, PF climbed into whichever seat had a view of the video camera and the PNF left to take a leak. Not all fleets had the technology so not all fleets could do it.

Kritchlow said:
Okay.. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, do you think this law abiding guy will help or hurt the gun lobby?

You're right... What I think doesn't matter, but what the masses think DOES matter.
Click to expand...


Not if judges aren't politicized and do their jobs correctly. So far, even some politicized ones have. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty pointed language.

The majority of significant cases that have been brought by politicized District Attorneys have been tossed eventually as unconstitutional. The pattern certainly isn't the other direction.

Frankly, even the anti-gun politicians know the end game of a constitutional amendment is not going to happen.

They just want as many of Bloomberg's bucks as they can scrounge by claiming that millions of Americans are suddenly a threat to everyone that never were before.

We tossed three here who took his bribes. And we are more than willing to toss more.
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay.. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, do you think this law abiding guy will help or hurt the gun lobby?
You're right... What I think doesn't matter, but what the masses think DOES matter.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with you. What the masses think is irrelevant. The documents that secure our rights are what's relevant. If there are 9999 people out of 10,000 that don't like something, it's no reason to infringe on that one other guy's rights.

Like it, don't like it, we are not a democracy. 9999 people out of 10,000 not liking something does not mean the not like it contingent get to stomp on the other guy. When that happens, we get things like Prohibition.

The US is a republic. We are a nation of laws, which have been codified generations before I was born. If the gun law offends(prohibition again) then get busy and change it from 'shall not be infringed' to 'shall be infringed when people don't like it'.

Here's some more rhetoric: 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.... So, the truths that they put down, and the laws that were made recognized that men have inalienable rights. Govt, or a mob, or even an out of control president can't take them away(but it doesn't stop them from trying). Our pres tried to use his pen to prohibit this azz-clown from walking around in the airport with his rifle. Suppose he succeeded? So, you get one less azz-clown walking in an airport without a rifle? No - you get govt telling you when, where, how, and WHY you are ALLOWED to walk around with a rifle.

Words on a paper are just notional scribbles form the mind of man. Actions mean things. This guy acted. You don't like it, I really don't care one way or another, maybe some other folks liked it, whatev. The key is the law doesn't say 'shall be infringed when people don't like it.

Yep, change the BOR to that and see how it works.
 
Lindberg said:
Right. Because the politicians know they'll catch hell if the last one is successful next time. But if it's something different, who could have known? The entire TSA exists for no reason other than to make the scared among us feel safe enough to fly.
Click to expand...

I suspect there's way more truth in this statement than I'd like to believe. And, I suppose, it's a valid reason to have security theater. If enough people were scared to fly the impact on our economy would be pretty big. I live in an area with a largely tourist and convention driven economy. If folks refused to fly we'd be hurting pretty bad.

How much of this do the TSA folks at various levels know? I believe that many front line employees think they are doing an important job. My experiences with TSA have been mostly very polite. I've never had to have the enhanced screening by touch, but I have submitted to the body scanner a handful of times. I'm now TSA-Pre registered (my company paid) and avoid most of that stuff.

John
 
denverpilot said:
They think so. Anything that gives an excuse to spend like a drunken sailor and pretend it's for the good of any group of voters, in this case the easily frightened ones, is a bonus to them.




The door is now a reverse problem.




Honestly, they'd probably not target either one. That's been done before. Way easier to just ship the stuff on a cargo carrier if they want to target aircraft again.




Then pay for it. It should be the airline's problem how they secure their product, and by how much.




Completely incorrect. The change was made for many carriers after Germany. If the cockpit had a door video camera system, PF climbed into whichever seat had a view of the video camera and the PNF left to take a leak. Not all fleets had the technology so not all fleets could do it.




Not if judges aren't politicized and do their jobs correctly. So far, even some politicized ones have. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty pointed language.

The majority of significant cases that have been brought by politicized District Attorneys have been tossed eventually as unconstitutional. The pattern certainly isn't the other direction.

Frankly, even the anti-gun politicians know the end game of a constitutional amendment is not going to happen.

They just want as many of Bloomberg's bucks as they can scrounge by claiming that millions of Americans are suddenly a threat to everyone that never were before.

We tossed three here who took his bribes. And we are more than willing to toss more.
Click to expand...
I wish I had time today to respond to everything, but one quick question... How am I wrong about German Wings? As I said, that may not have happened here because of our two person cockpit rule.
Not sure how you can call that completely incorrect?

Hopefully I'll find more time later to respond.
 
Kritchlow said:
I wish I had time today to respond to everything, but one quick question... How am I wrong about German Wings? As I said, that may not have happened here because of our two person cockpit rule.
Not sure how you can call that completely incorrect?

Hopefully I'll find more time later to respond.
Click to expand...

It could absolutely happen here.

A quick chop to the throat crushes the pilot's (or co-pilot's) windpipe, followed by a blow to the carotid puts them out for good. Or a shot to the jaw/temple knocks them out. It's now a single pilot cockpit.

Also, tonight if I wanted I could walk through TSA checkpoint carrying nothing except a boarding pass, and be able to walk onto the plane with a duffel bag full of explosives or weapons. Security is a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top