TSA, the Fun Never Ends..

[John4455]

You should try to carry on a parachute rig...

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Before the days of TSA ...

Early in 1997 at an airport in New Jersey I was told to check my keychain (a kubotan/persuader) because it "could be a weapon". The knife I was carrying seemed OK though .... maybe because they never noticed the knife?

Later that year at LAX I was asked "Did any unknown stranger ask you to carry anything onto the plane?" I replied "Aren't all strangers unknown?" He looked at me not very happy and repeated the question to which I replied "Only the guy with the towel on his head screaming about the great Satan America. He gave this to me ..."

In 1998 the screeners delayed me for 15-20minutes while they wanded me etc.
They could not determine what kept setting off the metal detector. Finally they asked me to cover the buckles on my bracers (suspenders) and then I was clear. Funny thing is they also missed the knife.

G_M

 

[ReefHound]

I seriously doubt that a saboteur could have gotten to that many planes just hoping one of them blew up.

None of those planes blew up. Who says the plane that blew up was due to this kind of damage? That's an assumption.

 

[ReefHound]

What are you saying? How unpatriotic of you! Suggesting that an American company may have produced a product that suffered from age and wear that wasn't expected? No, not in this country! Anything that fails, blows up or leads to death of an innocent must be assumed to be terrorism until you can prove otherwise. This is a new world now, the same rules don't apply.

You're right, when a plane just blows up mid-air without warning we should assume terrorism couldn't possibly be involved until we find absolute proof supported by testimony of the captured terrorists.

 

[Missdirected]

I have extra if anyone want's to share :winky:

 

[Bill51]

You should try to carry on a parachute rig...

D. B. Cooper, is that you? :no

 

[TxHockeyGuy]

You're right, when a plane just blows up mid-air without warning we should assume terrorism couldn't possibly be involved until we find absolute proof supported by testimony of the captured terrorists.

Actually the investigation should be conducted with an open mind and should follow the evidence. If you go in suspecting X you might just find that because that is what you're looking for, even if that isn't what really happened.

The only way I see another 9/11 attack even being possible is on a privately chartered aircraft. There are simply too many passengers on an aircraft now that will stand up and fight. That being said I think our biggest airline security threat today is a bomb making it onboard. The problem is we really don't have the necessary technology to thoroughly screen everything and ensure that an explosive device doesn't make it onboard. I'm certainly no explosives expert but I wouldn't imagine it would take a large explosive to bring down an aircraft. Given that the search of a person typically only includes going through a metal detector I don't think it would be difficult at all to smuggle an explosive on your person through security. Until we solve this problem airport security will continue to be a problem and not much more than feel good security.

 

[Bill51]

None of those planes blew up. Who says the plane that blew up was due to this kind of damage? That's an assumption.

I see plenty of divers show up with old checked and cracking LP hoses, but they don’t burst on every dive. The wreckage of TWA800 clearly shows that the first breach of structural integrity occurred at the center fuel tank, with no signs of single point explosion, but an over pressurization of the entire tank indicative of an air/fuel explosion and the associated flame/explosion front propagation. This is consistent with tests conducted – and what happened in 1989 to the Avianca 727, and the Philippine Airlines 737 in 1990 when they suffered center fuel tank explosions. While the 737 explosion was another electrical problem with an internal ignition source, the Avianca was caused by a bomb and it was very obvious in the wreckage showing all the signs of a point explosion prior to the ignition of the fuel/air in the tank. In other words, the Medellin Drug Cartel was very lucky in the way they placed the bomb for it to ignite the tank vapors.

Now let’s assume that TWA800 was sabotaged by a very crafty group who figured out how to put a non-explosive igniter inside the center fuel tank that would be able to detect when the aircraft was in flight, the fuel vapors were sufficiently warm (>96F), and physically disturbed enough to be fully vaporized, would any group like that not want to brag about their accomplishment – even the Medellin crowd bragged about what they did. They also managed to design the device in such a way that it completely disappeared leaving no trace of itself in the tank remnants, which were bound be discovered as they didn’t set the device to go off over much deeper water.

 

[ReefHound]

Given that the search of a person typically only includes going through a metal detector I don't think it would be difficult at all to smuggle an explosive on your person through security. Until we solve this problem airport security will continue to be a problem and not much more than feel good security.

The problem is solved - about 30 high risk airports have explosives detectors where you stand under something that looks like an Xray gate, it blows a puff of air, and samples for trace residue. It's simply a matter of funding to buy and distribute them to all the airports. They are very expensive machines.

 

[lamont]

I have extra if anyone want's to share :winky:

I'm done with this thread. Could you pass me some?