Embar Angylwrath wrote:If TSA is so careful with medical devices, why do they constantly end up in the news about interfering with them? I'm not talking about electromagnetic interference, I'm talking about human hands fiddling with things they shouldn't be fiddling with. What was the last incident... a feeding tube, right? The moron that put his nasty hands on that, (while wearing the same gloves he's used to touch the last 100 people) could have esily given that lady sepsis in her abdominal cavity. Somehtng that could have gone from zero to critical in the space of a couple hours. He could have killed her.
They should not be touching anything they do not understand. The screener should have asked a supervisor. I have no argument here, some screeners are idiots, they are a reflection of the society we live in.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:And you know as well as I that TSA has created target opportunities for terrorists. The 200 people in a looped queue is a tremendous target opportunity for a suicide bomber, with grouping of civilians almost tailor made for maximum casualty enhancement. That is thanks to the TSA screening. Its only a matter of time before that happens, and when it does, TSA will be complicit in the deaths of those people.
TSA has only moved the location of this potential attack from the gate / aircraft to the lobby. A terrorist blowing up a gate area or jet bridge with a similar number of passengers and a jet carrying a few thousand pounds of JP-8 which will likely spread damage to other aircraft only yards away, also carrying thousands of pounds of JP-8 and passengers, is a bit higher on the "oh fuck" scale than the screening queue. It has been 10+ years. Attempts have been made, none have succeeded. What makes you think they aren't still trying and failing?
Suicide bombers don't fail if they get access to the airport. That access isn't denied by TSA gate screeners.
Also, your analysis of target vulnerability is either deliberately misleading, or you are obtuse. A snaking queue is much different than a lined queue. The density of vulnerable targets is much higher in a circle than in a line. Simple geometry and blast energy dynamics should tell you that. Finally, a detonation of a suicide bomber at the boarding gate does not mean the fuel tanks (located well below the superstructure of the jet-bridge) would detonate. Not only would the blast have to be so massive as to take out the better part of several boarding gates (which would absorb much of the pressure wave), the blast would have to rip open the aircrafts tanks and also disperse the fuel.
Without fuel that is aerosolized, all you have is a fire, not an explosion. You'd have to cart that amount of explosives in on a tractor, not a human. (This is, of course, a non-directed blast, in a non-confined space. You let me know if terrorists have devised both 1) an explosive belt that directs a pressure wave and 2) an ability to make a loading gate a confined/reinforced space)
As much as you say you're working for the TSA, and you're in the shit every day, what is coming across here on this board is someone that spouts TSA propoganda but can't back it up with logic or common sense.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
A terrorist blowing up a gate area or jet bridge with a similar number of passengers and a jet carrying a few thousand pounds of JP-8 which will likely spread damage to other aircraft only yards away, also carrying thousands of pounds of JP-8 and passengers, is a bit higher on the "oh fuck" scale than the screening queue.
I think that's a little bit of a stretch. JP-8 doesn't blow up like that - you can't get the oxygen to it fast enough (like most fuels). LPG on the other hand...
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Also, your analysis of target vulnerability is either deliberately misleading, or you are obtuse. A snaking queue is much different than a lined queue. The density of vulnerable targets is much higher in a circle than in a line. Simple geometry and blast energy dynamics should tell you that. Finally, a detonation of a suicide bomber at the boarding gate does not mean the fuel tanks (located well below the superstructure of the jet-bridge) would detonate. Not only would the blast have to be so massive as to take out the better part of several boarding gates (which would absorb much of the pressure wave), the blast would have to rip open the aircrafts tanks and also disperse the fuel.
Without fuel that is aerosolized, all you have is a fire, not an explosion. You'd have to cart that amount of explosives in on a tractor, not a human. (This is, of course, a non-directed blast, in a non-confined space. You let me know if terrorists have devised both 1) an explosive belt that directs a pressure wave and 2) an ability to make a loading gate a confined/reinforced space)
Jet fuel is liquid, it flows. All the initial blast has to do is rupture the tanks (located feet from the jet bridge controls in the wings of the aircraft) and the fuel and fire will spread and people will die. But that is ignoring the fact that this is jet fuel and not gasoline. The area around a jet being fueled has a very dangerous vapor-air mixture where very strict rules are in place to ensure there is no possibility of ignition. The jet bridge isn't the contained space, the fuel tank is and that is where any explosion would occur even if it is partially vented by the ingressing ignition material. If you don't think that meets your standard of common sense or logic (or reality), please feel free to ask a passenger from TWA 800 if the fuel in the tank can become explosive when not aerosolized in a tank. The fact that jet bridge, especially the expansion points are not confined is what makes it a likely place for an attack if the intent is to breach the fuel tanks with debris. The pressure and heat required to burn jet fuel isn't that great and not beyond even a simple terrorists ability.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Suicide bombers don't fail if they get access to the airport. That access isn't denied by TSA gate screeners.
Let me know when the deterrent effect stops working...never mind I will probably hear about it in the news.
I don't claim to "be in the shit". I manage a non security related program at 100 federalized airports so I am in the screening areas a lot and know the screening procedures. I work closely with the security and technology divisions to improve certain procedures and aside from the insults and emotional crap, some of what has been said here has actually been useful. So in short, while you may believe I am spouting TSA propaganda, I contend I am simply stating facts (mostly, the terrorist attack vector at gate vs. checkpoint is really only supposition from either side until it is actually attempted), and letting you form an opinion based on them. Your response has consistently been to post emotional news reports or out dated materials that have already been disproved or changed.
Jet fuel is liquid, it flows. All the initial blast has to do is rupture the tanks (located feet from the jet bridge controls in the wings of the aircraft) and the fuel and fire will spread and people will die. But that is ignoring the fact that this is jet fuel and not gasoline. The area around a jet being fueled has a very dangerous vapor-air mixture where very strict rules are in place to ensure there is no possibility of ignition. The jet bridge isn't the contained space, the fuel tank is and that is where any explosion would occur even if it is partially vented by the ingressing ignition material. If you don't think that meets your standard of common sense or logic (or reality), please feel free to ask a passenger from TWA 800 if the fuel in the tank can become explosive when not aerosolized in a tank. The fact that jet bridge, especially the expansion points are not confined is what makes it a likely place for an attack if the intent is to breach the fuel tanks with debris. The pressure and heat required to burn jet fuel isn't that great and not beyond even a simple terrorists ability.
I don't think your explosion dynamics are correct.
TWA-800 was about the worst case scenario - pre-heated aerosolized fuel ignited in a closed space, which caused a relatively small amount of damage that resulted in enough loss in structural integrity for the front of the plane to shear off from flight stress. If that happened on land, there would be a pool of burning fuel on the ground that the nose section might fall into, but probably wouldn't. It wouldn't ignite other aircraft, wouldn't really explode and would mostly look like a big burning mess of kerosene, probably with some people in it from the nose section.
Now, an explosion most likely isn't going to ignite the Jet-1A (it's not JP-8 fyi, but close enough) in the same way a spark inside the tank ignited the vapor in TWA-800 so realistically, an explosion in the boarding lounge is going to take out some of the waiting passengers and put the aircraft out of commission but not have a high enough pressure to cause enough external structural damage to the tanks to actually cause issues. Shrapnel may be a small issue, but QF-32 demonstrated clearly that shrapnel penetration isn't enough to ignite the fuel.
The main safety problem with aircraft isn't the large amount of Jet-1A but the fact that if anything goes wrong then you're 33,000 feet up with not many options.
His understanding of explosion dynamics is pretty far off.
A thermal explosion is esentially just super-fast combustion. Since it is combustion, it needs oxygen. Explosives solve this by adding an oxidizer to the fuel. Terrorists can make an explosive by adding an oxidizer to common combustibles (Ammonium nitrate and feul oil, expolosive of choice of Tim McVeigh) But, fuel in a jet tank won't burn unless its mixed with oxygen, and it can't mix with oxygen while its in a liquid state. In an enclosed tank, you can strike a lighter and be perfectly safe, as long as there's no air. Even if there is air ,there's something called a UEL and LEL, meaning the mix of air and fuel vapor has to fall in a range to combust. If you have an open drum of gasoline, and you toss a match in it, only the vapor of the gas burns. The entire drum doesn't explode. Same with jet fuel. Only the fuel that volatilizes and mixes with air will combust. So there would be no explosion.
The worst that would happen in the scenario where someone blew themselves up in a jetway would be a damaged plane, and maybe a fuel fire, but not an exploding plane.
There is another type of explosion, one that produces a pressure wave, but little heat. A good example of this is airbags. The "explosion" is a rapid decomposition of a chemical that produces nitrogen gas. The current terrorist explosives of choice are triacetone triperoxide variations, which do not favor thermal decomosition, but rather are entropy blasts, and work the same way as the airbags. In other words, they produce a big pressure wave resulting from gas evolution, but not a lot of flame and heat. The ingredients for it are easy to get from hardware stores, and its easy to make, although very unstable, which is why sometimes these guys blow themselves up before they reach their target.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I don't think my dynamics are very far off and yes I know its not JP-8 but after 22 years in the military habits die hard.
I am definitely no expert on how to make a fuel tank explode but I do remember a little from my aviation fire fighting school.
I didn't intend for this to become a cookbook for how to or not to start a fire, but not only does an explosive atmosphere exist in the vicinity of a fueling aircraft, a breach in one of the fuel tanks will very likely cause a fuel fire that will burn at or near 300C, more than enough to heat the fuel and more importantly the headspace vapors sufficiently to cause an explosion. Regardless the tank need not explode, the fire kills as well.
I will concede that with the popularity of the mother of Satan, the scenario I describe is not likely, but remains possible (though probability is pretty low) since the blast wave damage has the potential to create ignition sources from damage to the wing or jet bridge electrical components.
Back to the feeding tube incident. The passenger did not volunteer that there was a feeding tube, which would have helped a lot and been the smart thing to do if they gave a shit about their own health. The agent did not touch the feeding tube or the area around it, but patted down the clothing outside. And even then they did not even indirectly touch the tube through the clothing, they actually only patted the area around the anomaly. And they are not wearing the same gloves they used to touch the last 100 people. When they pat someone down, they remove and discard those and use a new set. This avoids cross contamination since it is the gloves and not the person that they then swab and test at the ETD. There is not secret to this, you can watch them do it while you stand in line next time.
Just a little more on the other medical devices (CPAPs, Insulin Pumps, etc). After a little research I realized the biggest issue was not the x-ray at all, but the millimeter wave scanners. The concern is an RFI issue. Fortunately TSA's design requirements for these took the RFI issue into account and while I cannot give you the specs I can assure you that the risk to these devices is negligible. And you can still opt out and get a pat down.
BOS - BDOs profiling. It is actually funny reading the anti-TSA blogs after this one broke. The same people who have been screaming that we don't need AIT and that we should take a cue from Israel and profile passengers are now screaming "look those fuckers are profiling.....and profiling is WRONG!" Sure I get it, somehow when American profile it is racial discrimination, when Israelis do it, it is good security. Either way, the investigation has started and a bunch of people are likely to lose their jobs over it from the Federal Security Director at BOS to his assistant for screening, the BDO manager and a bunch of BDOs.
The issue with profiling is it creates a "safer" route for the bad guys to exploit. If it's known that resources are invested in people with turbans and beards then the terrorists make sure to be clean shaven suits. It's the same complaint against the express lanes through the checkpoints. Creation of an easy path makes you less safe.
In the case of Israel, I think their profiling goes well over the top and probably serves a political purpose alongside the security purpose.
Are people missing the point again? If the terrorists make it to the airport, they win. A suicide bomber in a space with lots of civilians and no way to take the bomber out = jihadist win. Doesn't matter if they make it to the jetway or not. Fuck, just blowing themselves up in baggage claim will take out more civilians than in a jetway. A terrorist can make a few kilograms of triacetone triperoxide based explosives for less than $100. Add in $30 dollars of shrapnel (steel screws also bought at the hardware store) and one person can take out 100s of others, if those civilians are cluster grouped. Like in baggage claim.
TSA does very little to prevent this. The focus of TSA should be to prevent and deny access of terrorists to transportation hubs, not to inspect everyone inside the hub. It's assinine to look for the fox inside the chicken coop instead of denying access to the fox in the first place.
The agencies that DO prevent this are CIA and NSA. Maybe FBI to some extent. But to expect a failed Walmart greeter to act as "the last line of defense" is insane. I can't beleive so many Americans are willing to trade liberty for illusion.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:TSA does very little to prevent this. The focus of TSA should be to prevent and deny access of terrorists to transportation hubs, not to inspect everyone inside the hub. It's assinine to look for the fox inside the chicken coop instead of denying access to the fox in the first place.
The agencies that DO prevent this are CIA and NSA. Maybe FBI to some extent. But to expect a failed Walmart greeter to act as "the last line of defense" is insane. I can't beleive so many Americans are willing to trade liberty for illusion.
Lines and clusters existed pre-TSA and would exist if TSA disappeared. So what is your point? Are you really suggesting that nothing would happen if TSA simply disappeared? If you think that terrorists aren't still plotting and aren't still being denied access to flights by TSA using information from CIA, DoD, NSA, FBI, ICE, etc. then you are smoking crack. Terrorists are probing the security of U.S. airports and foreign airports with U.S. bound flights every week.
Embar Angylwrath wrote: A terrorist can make a few kilograms of triacetone triperoxide based explosives for less than $100. Add in $30 dollars of shrapnel (steel screws also bought at the hardware store) and one person can take out 100s of others, if those civilians are cluster grouped. Like in baggage claim.
You are making a very good argument for keeping TSA in business because a WTMD and boarding pass scanner are not going to stop this threat.
I think the point being missed here is that the target at airports hasn't been a hundred people at the security checkpoint or at baggage claim or even at the jetway, it has always been to bring down the aircraft or to take control of the aircraft and use it as a weapon. If terrorists in America wanted to inflict mass casualties on the public they would do what they do in Europe and bomb a shopping mall, or as we recently witnessed attack a movie theater. Why? Because they are soft targets. TSA makes the airport a hard target. Yes even the queue is a harder target because the BDOs have eyes on you long before you think.
And seriously, how much and what liberty are you giving up by submitting to TSA security procedures?
Ahhhh... there we have it. I knew it would come out eventually, proof of the kool-aid.
How much liberty are we giving up... like giving up liberty in the amounts TSA takes is no big deal. Like TSA should be able to tell you how much liberty taken away is enough. No matter the intrustions to privacy, the gropings, the full body scans... that's not enough erosion of liberty to have a qualm about, right?
Good god...
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Ahhhh... there we have it. I knew it would come out eventually, proof of the kool-aid.
How much liberty are we giving up... like giving up liberty in the amounts TSA takes is no big deal. Like TSA should be able to tell you how much liberty taken away is enough. No matter the intrustions to privacy, the gropings, the full body scans... that's not enough erosion of liberty to have a qualm about, right?
Good god...
Firmly in Embar's court on this one. Seriously....wtf
Also, to be part of the "survey" you had to pick up the phone coming from an unknown caller. Ask yourself what kind of sheeple do that? It's not a representative sample. That survey is baited to get only compliant, non-thinking and genrally trusting individuals.
I wouldn't be surprised if TSA commissioned it, and set the guidelines.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Aukai wrote:...airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.
Also, to be part of the "survey" you had to pick up the phone coming from an unknown caller. Ask yourself what kind of sheeple do that? It's not a representative sample. That survey is baited to get only compliant, non-thinking and genrally trusting individuals.
I wouldn't be surprised if TSA commissioned it, and set the guidelines.
Also, to be part of the "survey" you had to pick up the phone coming from an unknown caller. Ask yourself what kind of sheeple do that? It's not a representative sample. That survey is baited to get only compliant, non-thinking and genrally trusting individuals.
I wouldn't be surprised if TSA commissioned it, and set the guidelines.
Didn't you say decisions in TSA took a back seat to effectiveness and bowed towards political expediency?
Also... what the court didn't address is the effectiveness of TSA in stopping items that can bring down a plane. If a couple of people can slip claymores through TSA... why in the hell should breast milk, catheters, purses with the image of a gun, and t-shirts critizing the TSA be the focus?
You'd look great in a brown shirt, methinks.
I know, I know.. you're doing this in the best interest of the people, right Adolf?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Also, to be part of the "survey" you had to pick up the phone coming from an unknown caller. Ask yourself what kind of sheeple do that? It's not a representative sample. That survey is baited to get only compliant, non-thinking and genrally trusting individuals.
I wouldn't be surprised if TSA commissioned it, and set the guidelines.
It was part of a larger survey towards government attitudes and suggesting that Gallup is biased is a pretty high hurdle.
