airport security? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dammitall · 12-29-2007, 08:34 PM

Shuffling through the line ahead of the security checkpoint at Dulles International, how much confidence should I have in some random contract employee with a private company badge on his maroon blazer needing to stamp my boarding pass before I'm allowed to reach the TSA screeners at the checkpoint?

Airport security... isn't.

http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2...urity-follies/

Quote:

The Airport Security Follies
By PATRICK SMITH

Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.

The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next.

To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings.

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.

The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”

Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters.

“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”

The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur.

“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”

Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.

But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work.

These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.

I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security:

The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur.

Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.

In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say.

The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability.

As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.

How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.

thingstodo · 12-30-2007, 07:38 AM

I travel a great deal and think it's all a bunch of crap to make people feel safe. I can see trying to make things safe but the security isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've left things in my luggage by accident and heard of others doing the same and they never find the stuff (liquids, I mean, not anything evil).

Better yet, it's probably our politician's attempt to create a common enemy and scare us into giving up our civil liberties. There - that should add a spark to this thread!!

jewels · 12-30-2007, 09:42 AM

It's a sad joke. Side note -- they ask you lighters so they can be confiscated. But if you inadvertently leave one in your back pocket, no one's the wiser.

Quote:

Better yet, it's probably our politician's attempt to create a common enemy and scare us into giving up our civil liberties. There - that should add a spark to this thread!!

Looks like propoganda to me. Don't we feel as warm and safe now?
__________________

Ustwo · 12-30-2007, 09:52 AM

Sorry but I see it as people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Does the TSA suck? Yes.

Are things more secure than prior to 9/11? I'd say yes. Its improved, if not that effective.

If you really wanted to fly safe the 'humiliations' from the article would be seen for what they really are, which is a minor inconvenience.

The problem with any security measures is you can't tell just how effective they are until something bad happens. So far we haven't had any terrorists acts involving aircraft since then, that succeeded. Maybe they just aren't trying, maybe they think the risk of getting caught is to high.

Time will tell but the incessant whining about taking off your shoes is getting old.

ratbastid · 12-30-2007, 09:52 AM

I thought the shoe thing was ridiculous. I think the War on Liquids is patently absurd--as Smith points out, it's ineffective and the design of it all but admits that.

In the days after 9/11 when there were National Guard guys at the security stations holding fucking machine guns... That was totally over the top.

It's almost like somebody's testing us to see how much we'll put up with, just how far they can push us in the name of "security". I can picture a cabal of people sitting around a table in a dim, smoky room, muttering about what they can make us do next. Maybe there are bombers out there who are using socks dipped in explosives. We should make people turn in their socks! Ooh, or maybe people with hair longer than five inches won't be allowed to board--all that hair could hide a weapon, after all. We can have official military barbers stationed at every security checkpoint for last-minute trims. Maybe we could make people walk on their hands through the metal detector!

EDIT: Ustwo, you're a scientist. You know better than to turn correlation into causation. Your gut hunch that the TSA's practices have made us safer go directly against the expert quoted in the OP. It's like if I said I just have this feeling that flossing doesn't make my gums any healthier. I haven't lost any teeth, after all. As a dental expert, you'd know better and your opinion would, in most objective eyes, win over mine. Same deal here.

maleficent · 12-30-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

I travel a great deal and think it's all a bunch of crap to make people feel safe. I can see trying to make things safe but the security isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've left things in my luggage by accident and heard of others doing the same and they never find the stuff (liquids, I mean, not anything evil).

I dont travel any more but in the few years after 9/11 it was quite obvious is was PR to make the average person feel safer... I will never for the trip that I had an 8" chefs knife in my bag that was not seen but yet the 2 inch plastic knife that wouldn't cut the bagel I had in my breakfast bag was confiscated...

Ustwo · 12-30-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

over the top.

It's almost like somebody's testing us to see how much we'll put up with, just how far they can push us in the name of "security". I can picture a cabal of people sitting around a table in a dim, smoky room, muttering about what they can make us do next. Maybe there are bombers out there who are using socks dipped in explosives. We should make people turn in their socks! Ooh, or maybe people with hair longer than five inches won't be allowed to board--all that hair could hide a weapon, after all. We can have official military barbers stationed at every security checkpoint for last-minute trims. Maybe we could make people walk on their hands through the metal detector!

Close but we don't smoke.

Quote:

EDIT: Ustwo, you're a scientist. You know better than to turn correlation into causation. Your gut hunch that the TSA's practices have made us safer go directly against the expert quoted in the OP. It's like if I said I just have this feeling that flossing doesn't make my gums any healthier. I haven't lost any teeth, after all. As a dental expert, you'd know better and your opinion would, in most objective eyes, win over mine. Same deal here.

If you would re-read what I posted, you will see I covered the whole 'correlation/causation thing. The expert in question is a commercial pilot, that does not make one an expert on security it makes you an expert on flying a plane. I remember the security check in prior to 9/11 I know it now, now it is a bit more thorough. Yes much of it is B.S. but there is a special sort of whining that only having your screwdriver confiscated can bring on. Since no one is willing to really be 'safe' which would include a complete search of all bags, a background check, and serious restriction of materials into and out of the airport, this isn't so bad, but it gives people something to whine about and pretend its somehow a great big plot of some kind to 'keep us scared.'.

ratbastid · 12-30-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you would re-read what I posted, you will see I covered the whole 'correlation/causation thing.

You know what, you're right. I think I attributed arguments I've seen elsewhere to what you said there. I retract my earlier comment.

People sometimes try to argue that the absence of terrorist attacks since 9/11 validates and vindicates all the evils that have been done in the name of security. It's logically flawed, but you hear it from Bush fans all the way from the street corner to the talk show. I read your post quickly, Ustwo, and thought I understood you to be making that argument, but I see now that you're not actually saying that. You're perhaps flirting with it a bit, but you're actually not saying that this apple equals that orange the way I thought you were. My apologies.

passthru · 01-01-2008, 08:29 PM

The problem with airport security and the TSA is that they only prevent idiots and lazy people from bringing hazardous things onto a flight. If terrorists were idiots or lazy, they wouldn't have successful plans that so precisely exploit the vulnerabilities they do.
Anybody who's serious about causing harm and is capable of doing a little research can cause some level of harm. Everybody who's not serious (i.e. their possessions fit the "dangerous" criteria by coincidence) is required to jump through hoops.

host · 01-01-2008, 09:22 PM

I "live" for the opportunity to read posts like this one:

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundo...ticleID=344868
Posted by rorbua57 at 12/25/07 9:03 p.m.

It certainly is amusing to read the vitriolic comments from the left wing extremists who decry the efforts of our government to protect us from the Islamic terrorists who want to eliminate western civilization.

We are in a world war type situation and everything that was done during WWII should be done again including but not limited to pulling together as a country, victory gardens and curtailing the manufacture of domestic automobiles. We need to hunt down the enemies of western civilization and terminate them with extreme prejudice.

We must do everything to protect and enhance America's rightful position as leader of the free world and continue to export freedom by providing a shining beacon to the poor and oppressed peoples of the world.

The unconscionable ACLU type left wing neo-nitwits who have infested Seattle and western Washington in general may complain about the things that must be done during wartime but they will thank those in command in the future for fighting to preserve their rights and liberties and for doing what must be done during this time of crisis.

So blindly committed to believing and accepting selective propaganda distributed by authority. How can anyone be less skeptical than members and the chairman of the 9/11 Commission were?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...00.html?sub=AR
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," <h3>said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."</h3>

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."....

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 09:29 PM

host I think you made a wrong turn and ended up in a different topic.

host · 01-01-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sorry but I see it as people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Does the TSA suck? Yes.

Are things more secure than prior to 9/11? I'd say yes. Its improved, if not that effective.

If you really wanted to fly safe the 'humiliations' from the article would be seen for what they really are, which is a minor inconvenience.

The problem with any security measures is you can't tell just how effective they are until something bad happens. So far we haven't had any terrorists acts involving aircraft since then, that succeeded. Maybe they just aren't trying, maybe they think the risk of getting caught is to high.

Time will tell but the incessant whining about taking off your shoes is getting old.

Ustwo, my intent is to challenge your underlying belief, evident in your post (above). My position is that the entire official rationale for increased airport security after 9/11, as was the "official story" of the events of 9/11 is total bullshit. Don't you see the "pattern"...the incoherence coming from "official sources", yet?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/wa...n/05norad.html

August 5, 2006
Agency Says Military Did Not Lie to 9/11 Panel
By PHILIP SHENON and JIM DWYER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — The Defense Department’s watchdog agency said Friday that it had no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to the Sept. 11 commission about the military’s actions on the morning of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

<h3>The agency, the Pentagon’s office of inspector general, said the Defense Department’s initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.</h3>

The Pentagon initially suggested that the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the military’s domestic air-defense operation, had reacted quickly to reports of the hijackings and had been prepared to intercept and possibly shoot down one of the hijacked planes.

The Sept. 11 commission, which uncovered the inconsistencies in the Pentagon’s account, made a formal request in July 2004 for the inspector general to investigate why senior military officials who testified to the commission had made so many inaccurate statements.

In testimony in 2003 and in other statements to the commission, Pentagon officials made several statements that were proved false, including ones that Norad had closely tracked United Flight 93 and was prepared to shoot down the plane if it had approached Washington. Later investigations determined that the Defense Department was not aware of Flight 93 until after the plane had crashed into a Pennsylvania field.

<h3>In a report dated May 27, 2005, but not released until Friday, the inspector general’s office found that “the inaccuracies, in part, resulted because of inadequate forensic capabilities,” including poor log-keeping at the military air traffic control centers.</h3>

A spokesman for the inspector general’s office, William P. Goehring, said that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission <h3>would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.

But Mr. Goehring suggested that the second report would exonerate the commanders.</h3> “We haven’t found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false,” he said.

The report, initially classified secret, was released Friday under a freedom-of-information request by The New York Times. Before it was made public, the equivalent of several pages of the report were blacked out on national security grounds.

The report said commanders had found it difficult to create an accurate timeline of the events of Sept. 11 because of the lack of a well-coordinated system in logging information about air-defense operations.

On Sept. 11, the report said, air-defense watch centers used handwritten logs that were not always reliable. After Sept. 11, it said, commanders failed to press hard enough to be certain that an accurate timeline was produced for the Sept. 11 commission and other investigations.

Newly disclosed audiotapes provided to the commission by Norad demonstrated widespread confusion within the military on the morning of the attacks, with many air-defense commanders uncertain whether the reports of the hijackings were part of an unannounced military exercise......

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/02faa.html
September 2, 2006
Report Urges F.A.A. to Act Regarding False 9/11 Testimony
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — The Transportation Department’s inspector general urged the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday to consider disciplinary action against two executives who failed to correct false information provided to the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, whose office acts as the department’s internal watchdog, found in a new report that the F.A.A. executives, as well as a third official who is now retired, learned after the fact that false information was given to the commission in May 2003 about the F.A.A.’s contacts with the Air Force on the morning of Sept. 11.

The false information suggested that the aviation agency had established contact with its Air Force liaison immediately after the first of the four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the commission’s investigators found, the Air Force’s liaison did not join a conference call with the F.A.A. until after the third plane crashed, at 9:37 a.m. The 51-minute gap is significant because it helps undermine an initial claim by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for domestic air defense, that it scrambled quickly on Sept. 11 and had a chance to shoot down the last of the hijacked planes still in the air, United Airlines Flight 93.

The inspector general’s report, prepared in response to complaints from the independent Sept. 11 commission, found that the three F.A.A. executives failed to act on an “obligation” to correct the false information provided to the commission, which found widespread confusion within the aviation agency and the military on the morning of the attacks.

The F.A.A., part of the Transportation Department, declined to identify the three executives, whose names and titles were not revealed in the inspector general’s report. Nor did the agency say whether it would consider disciplinary action.

The inspector general’s office found that while false information was given to the Sept. 11 commission, there was no evidence that F.A.A. executives had done it knowingly or had intentionally withheld accurate information about the agency’s actions on the morning of the attacks.

That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the “inspector general’s investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.” <h3>The Pentagon’s inspector general issued a similar finding last month about military officers who provided inaccurate testimony to the commission, saying their inaccurate statements could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.</h3>

Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said in an interview on Friday that he was troubled that it had taken the inspector general two years to complete his investigation — “more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work’’ — and that he released the report “on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend.”

Mr. Ben Veniste said he was convinced that the failure of the aviation agency and the North American Aerospace Defense Command to provide early, accurate information about their performance had “contributed to a growing industry of conspiratorialists who question the fundamental facts relating to 9/11.’’

<h3>In the preceding quote box is news reporting that:

a.) The 9/11 Commission chairman and many of the members believed that testimony from military commanders and from FAA officials to the Commission regarding the timeline of events related to the four hijacked airliners was untrue and/or intentionally misleading.

b.) As a compromise, the Commission members agreed to allow the FAA and Defense Dept., to investigate themsleves, regarding the alleged false testimony, instead of filing their suspicions of false testimony with the Justice Dept. as criminal complaints.

c.)The Inspectors General of both the Defense Dept. and the FAA took more than two years to publicly release any results of their respective investigations about false testimony. THe Defense Dept. Inspector General actually completed his report 14 months before releasing it's contents in response to a long pending FOIA request filed by the press.

d.)The Defense Dept. report contradicted the 9/11 Commission report by claiming that:
"..initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping..." and "...On Sept. 11, the report said, air-defense watch centers used handwritten logs that were not always reliable...." The excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report (Below) clearly contradicts the Inspector General's report, the logs and the tape recordings were already compared by the 9/11 Commission to coordinate the timeline of the sequence of events for accuracy.

e.)The Defense Dept. Inspector General told the NY Times in early August, 2006, two years after the 9/11 Commission requested an investigation into false testimony:

"A spokesman for the inspector general’s office, William P. Goehring, said that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.

But Mr. Goehring suggested that the second report would exonerate the commanders....."

I can find no record of the promised "second report", ever being released !!!!!!!!!
</h3>

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm or:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Juf...xFbxs#PPA34,M1

....In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, <h3>as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records.</h3> Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.

Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93, as would be implied by the account that it received notice of the flight's hijacking at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed.

We now turn to the role of national leadership in the events that morning.

1.3 NATIONAL CRISIS MANAGEMENT ....

The NORAD tapes directly contradict claims by Cheney and Bush that they discussed, and then Cheney issued, a "shootdown" order:

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200608130...l/060801fege01
VF.com exclusive: Hear excerpts from the September 11 NORAD tapes. Click PLAY after each transcript to listen
By MICHAEL BRONNER

...In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02—only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. "Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision," Bush's then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, "The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it's an order that had never been given before." And it wasn't on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that NEADS believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point—one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93—the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor.

<h3>10:10:31</h3> NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…<br><p>FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.<br><p>NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.<br><p>PLAY | STOP

Just as on the TFP politics thread, everyone already "knows what they know", and I'm confident nothing that I've posted here was not already known in this detail by all of you who post in this thread. I have this bad habit, and I'm trying my best to kick it!

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 11:10 PM

host if you wanted to address what I said in your first post, it would have helped if you would have done so instead of responding to what someone else wrote elsewhere.

As for the rest of your post I would like to direct you to this thread

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67071

While, I am pleased the thread has sunk below the 'one month' mark, I think its where it would be best served.

host · 01-02-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host if you wanted to address what I said in your first post, it would have helped if you would have done so instead of responding to what someone else wrote elsewhere.

As for the rest of your post I would like to direct you to this thread

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67071

While, I am pleased the thread has sunk below the 'one month' mark, I think its where it would be best served.

Did you read the news reports and quotes from the 9/11 Commission chariman and members that I have posted?

You've responded to the contents of my last two posts by directing me to a thread in the TFP "paranoia" forum. Yours is not a reasonable reaction to the information contained in my last two posts. I've posted a record of false testimony, avoidance of investigation of that false official testimony, inexcusable delays in reporting the "results" of the "compromise" "self investigations" of the false testimony, and the fact that the "report", exonerating the DOD officials who were accused of falsely testifying to the 9/11 Commission, which was "promised" to be release "shortly" by the DOD Inspector General, has not, evidently, been released, 3-1/2 years after the investigation was requested, and 17 months after "shortly".

I documented that the DOD Inspector General's "findings" of "poor recordkeeping" by NORAD on 9/11, in the initial report released 08/05/06, were contradicted in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It is more "reasonable", not to believe the Official version of the 9/11 attacks, than it is to accept it. That is not a conclusion that is appropriate for a "paranoia thread" discussion, it is a conclusion driven by the intentional official record of deception, in testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and in details communicated to the American people and to the rest of the world.

A "reasonable" discussion on this thread cannot happen if the Official "story" of why post 9/11 increased airport and flight security was justified, is no more credible than this 2006"liquid explosives on airliners "plot":

Quote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...leged_uk_.html

....I'd be interested in the number of plotters who had passports. How could they even stage a dummy-run with no passports? And what bomb-making materials did they actually have? These seem like legitimate questions to me; the British authorities have produced no evidence so far. If the only evidence they have was from torturing someone in Pakistan, then they have nothing that can stand up in anything like a court. I wonder if this story is going to get more interesting. I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. <h2>I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.</h2>

Quote:

.....“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”....

More than a year ago, post #38:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...72#post2104572

This thread belongs in Paranoia.

MODsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

We were told by our officials, in AUG., 2006:

President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin
President Bush on Thursday said, "This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11. ... in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060810-3.html

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060831-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 31, 2006

President Bush Addresses American Legion National Convention

...The truth is there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose. ...or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic,....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/wo...pe/11plot.html

...Mr. Chertoff said the attackers planned to carry explosive material and detonation components “disguised as beverages, electronic devices and other common objects” onto the planes.....

Quote:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...icleid=2800843
* Published Date: 13 August 2006

Terror alert: Blair to force through 90-day detention

The uncompromising response to the growing threat came as it emerged that the ban on hand luggage on British aircraft is set to continue indefinitely, and could be bolstered by stringent new security screening at all the nation's airports.

By BRIAN BRADY AND EDDIE BARNES
TONY Blair is planning to push through 90-day detention without charge for terror suspects following the alleged plot to murder thousands of airline passengers by blowing their jets out of the sky.

Senior ministers believe <h3>public concern about terrorism is now at such a level that they will be able to reintroduce the controversial detention powers, which were rejected in favour of a 28-day limit following the 7/7 attacks..</h3>

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7093795.stm
14 November 2007, 14:16 GMT

One-bag air travel rule relaxed
Crowds at Heathrow Airport
Critics say the checks have damaged Britain's reputation
Plans to ease baggage restrictions for air travellers have been outlined by Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly.

.....The UK remains the only country to operate a one-bag rule for air passengers.

Curbs were imposed in August 2006 after police said they had foiled a plot to bring down as many as 10 planes.

All hand luggage had to be checked into the hold of aircraft, with only passports and travel documents allowed on board.

The delays resulted in hundreds of cancelled flights, costing the industry millions of pounds.

Weeks later the restrictions were eased and passengers were allowed to take one small item of hand luggage on board.

In October, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said Heathrow was "rapidly becoming a national embarrassment" because of the rules.

And Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, has said the restrictions were "damaging the UK's reputation around the world from a business perspective".

The "point", Ustwo, is that the US/UK "collaboration", 17 months ago....has resulted in restrictions on liquids and other "carry on" items screened in pre-boarding lines at US airports that are justified ONLY by a 1994 explosives "test" by terrorists on an airliner in the Phillipines, since none of "the evidence" of the sensational summer 2006 liquid explosives "plot", was persuasive of any actual credible "terrorist plot".

Before the ridiculous UK non-plot was "foiled", the 1994 incident influenced no such airport security extremes for the next dozen years.

The "19 jackers" of 9/11, we're told, are dead. Cockpit doors on airliners are now hardened. Flight crews are instructed to keep themselves sealed in the cockpit to avoid the chance of hijackers gaining control of an airplane.

Neither our government officials or the Blair admin. in the UK, were sincere and forthright enough in communicating to us to earn and keep OUR trust.
If we face a "serious" terrorist threat, they should speak to us honestly about the actual risks and about the evidence that they actually have.

We cannot take any of this seriously, they have not been serious with us, as leaders in both countries have spent seven years consolidating power and restricting our rights. Anyone can still attempt to ship bomb containing cargo by air, if they are serious about exploding a bomb in flight on a large jet plane.

Air cargo carried in passenger aircraft cargo holds is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=asap.u05WtsE">not methodically screened</a> the way passenger luggage and carry on items are.
There are sky marshals on random flights, and some flight crew members are now armed.

Unless our leaders can come clean about what happened on 9/11, honestly communicate actual threat levels, stop hyping wars of choice that are not justified by actual imminent threats to our national security, ALL pre-flight post 9/11 screening "enhancements" should be curtailed at airports.

A fraction of the savings achieved by reducing TSA and private contractor security staffing could pay for four air marshals on EVERY flight with savings left to spare....

2008 would be a great time to do it, and to vote in leaders who take earning and keeping our trust, a top priority in upholding the US constituion and maintaining our best national security interests.

This is all bullshit....enough already!

Ustwo · 01-02-2008, 06:20 AM

host I read very few of the links you post, we are currently going over this sort of thing on the politics board, so I find it somewhat disheartening you are now bringing that style to the life board.

Though now I see I was wrong to direct you to the paranoia thread. Really I think you would be best served with this thread.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=128738

Cynthetiq · 01-02-2008, 06:39 AM

having come from a trip to europe... it's not just limited to the US any longer.

a photo I took at an airport in Spain

genuinegirly · 01-02-2008, 07:38 AM

Ok... yeah... odd experiences dealing with airport security...

Traveling from LA to Tahiti with a microscope in my carry-on luggage. Didn't want it to be destroyed by the bag-handlers. As I put the bag into the scanner, I told the guys, "Hey, there's a big steel microscope in this one." When it made it through the scanner, they quickly confiscated it, dug through the clothes in my bag that were padding the thing, and wiped it down with one of their test-o-matic wipey cloths. With all the chemicals wandering the air in the lab it came from, I'm shocked that they didn't come up with anything from that wipe. Must be looking for something dang specific. Of course, the woman was very nice about everything and packed my clothes back in really well. It was all very efficient. I can't blame them for doing it... but still, it was odd. Why didn't that cloth pick up anything? What is it looking for, anyway? Surely that microscope has been splashed with acetone or ethanol or any number of random scary chemicals...

Other instance:
While coming from San Francisco to Burbank, brought with me 2 laptops, a GPS unit, a mini-computer, a graphing calculator... had to take all of them out of my bag and put them in individual boxes. Took forever. I kept waving on the people who were waiting behind me. Kinda frustrating, but oh well. They scanned the laptops twice. Wonder what they saw the first time.

Barstool · 01-02-2008, 09:36 AM

Is it over the top? Yes. Is it a PITA? Yes. Is it effective? YES. Rules are in place to make things safer and to make us *FEEL* safer. Just like speed limits out on the roads, or laws for our protection. Just suck it up and move on like 99% of everyone else that has to tolerate the same hindrance!

host · 01-02-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host I read very few of the links you post, we are currently going over this sort of thing on the politics board, so I find it somewhat disheartening you are now bringing that style to the life board.

Though now I see I was wrong to direct you to the paranoia thread. Really I think you would be best served with this thread.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=128738

Okay....now you're "directing me" to the humor thread.....

I posted what purpose the summer, 2006 "liquid explosives smuggled onto airliners plot" was actually hyped to the press for:

Quote:

...Senior ministers believe public concern about terrorism is now at such a level that they will be able to reintroduce the controversial detention powers, which were rejected in favour of a 28-day limit following the 7/7 attacks...

Again, I've posted enough linked news reporting and details from the pages of the 9/11 Commission report, to persuade a reasonable person that there has been no responsible, consistant disclosure by the US and UK governments to justify ANY post 9/11 airport security "enhancements"....and you've reacted by bothering to post that
"[you've] read very few of the links", and by suggesting that I move my posts to the "paranoia" and "humor" forums.

Unlike the inconsistant and unbelievable claims I've posted from the Bush and Blair administrations related to the 9/11 attacks and the "liquid explosives plot", I've provided consistant, verifiable information that contradicts their bullshit.

You've posted that you won't read what I've provided....you're correct, it is a similar dynamic to what happens on the politics forum. Time and again, fact supported arguments are countered with innuendo and weak smear attempts....

Ustwo · 01-02-2008, 10:40 AM

Actually that humor thread is based on a conspriacy debunking website, the fact that its funny is a added bonus...

Anyways, ranting aside....

My one fun TSA story was 2002. I'm traveling with two friends of mine, an Indian and a Jordanian born Palestinian. This was when they were still doing gate side checks and searches on top of all the rest. So we are waiting in line to board the plane (and this is the step they do the last searches) and both of these guys are betting they will be searched. In front of us is a very petite cute blond girl, college age. I tell them I think they will search her and let us all go threw.

Sure enough they pull her out of line and we walk right on the plane. The Jordanian is practically laughing at this point.

My reasoning was simple though. The TSA agent was a very short, unattractive, middle aged male. Who would this guy want to get closer to?

Bill O'Rights · 01-02-2008, 02:23 PM

Real security means inconvenience and lots of it. We'll never stand for that. We know that we're not the ones that the screeners are looking for. They should clearly pay less attention to us, and focus more on the guy behind us. No, not the guy in front of us, because that'll cause us to be delayed as well.

Are we really any safer, with all of the smokescreen security. I'd say marginally, at best. We, as the general public, will never stand for real security. So, we content ourselves with the knowledge that security has been enhanced, when in reality...it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

World's King · 01-02-2008, 02:32 PM

I dropped my girlfriend off at the Denver International just before Christmas. I pulled up to the passenger drop off section. Pulled up to the curb. Unloaded her bags. Walked her inside. Right past a security guard. He said nothing. Stood in line with her for about ten minutes. Came back out. He smiled and said, "Have a good day."

Apparently the "No Parking Zone" really isn't a "No Parking Zone."

Plan9 · 01-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Real security means inconvenience and lots of it. We'll never stand for that. We know that we're not the ones that the screeners are looking for. They should clearly pay less attention to us, and focus more on the guy behind us. No, not the guy in front of us, because that'll cause us to be delayed as well.

Are we really any safer, with all of the smokescreen security. I'd say marginally, at best. We, as the general public, will never stand for real security. So, we content ourselves with the knowledge that security has been enhanced, when in reality...it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

12-30-2007, 07:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
thingstodo A Storm Is Coming Location: The Great White North	I travel a great deal and think it's all a bunch of crap to make people feel safe. I can see trying to make things safe but the security isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've left things in my luggage by accident and heard of others doing the same and they never find the stuff (liquids, I mean, not anything evil). Better yet, it's probably our politician's attempt to create a common enemy and scare us into giving up our civil liberties. There - that should add a spark to this thread!! __________________ If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves. Stangers have the best candy.

12-30-2007, 09:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Sorry but I see it as people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Does the TSA suck? Yes. Are things more secure than prior to 9/11? I'd say yes. Its improved, if not that effective. If you really wanted to fly safe the 'humiliations' from the article would be seen for what they really are, which is a minor inconvenience. The problem with any security measures is you can't tell just how effective they are until something bad happens. So far we haven't had any terrorists acts involving aircraft since then, that succeeded. Maybe they just aren't trying, maybe they think the risk of getting caught is to high. Time will tell but the incessant whining about taking off your shoes is getting old. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-30-2007, 09:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I thought the shoe thing was ridiculous. I think the War on Liquids is patently absurd--as Smith points out, it's ineffective and the design of it all but admits that. In the days after 9/11 when there were National Guard guys at the security stations holding fucking machine guns... That was totally over the top. It's almost like somebody's testing us to see how much we'll put up with, just how far they can push us in the name of "security". I can picture a cabal of people sitting around a table in a dim, smoky room, muttering about what they can make us do next. Maybe there are bombers out there who are using socks dipped in explosives. We should make people turn in their socks! Ooh, or maybe people with hair longer than five inches won't be allowed to board--all that hair could hide a weapon, after all. We can have official military barbers stationed at every security checkpoint for last-minute trims. Maybe we could make people walk on their hands through the metal detector! EDIT: Ustwo, you're a scientist. You know better than to turn correlation into causation. Your gut hunch that the TSA's practices have made us safer go directly against the expert quoted in the OP. It's like if I said I just have this feeling that flossing doesn't make my gums any healthier. I haven't lost any teeth, after all. As a dental expert, you'd know better and your opinion would, in most objective eyes, win over mine. Same deal here. Last edited by ratbastid; 12-30-2007 at 09:57 AM..

01-01-2008, 09:29 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host I think you made a wrong turn and ended up in a different topic. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-01-2008, 11:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host if you wanted to address what I said in your first post, it would have helped if you would have done so instead of responding to what someone else wrote elsewhere. As for the rest of your post I would like to direct you to this thread http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67071 While, I am pleased the thread has sunk below the 'one month' mark, I think its where it would be best served. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-01-2008, 08:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
passthru Addict Location: Portland, OR	The problem with airport security and the TSA is that they only prevent idiots and lazy people from bringing hazardous things onto a flight. If terrorists were idiots or lazy, they wouldn't have successful plans that so precisely exploit the vulnerabilities they do. Anybody who's serious about causing harm and is capable of doing a little research can cause some level of harm. Everybody who's not serious (i.e. their possessions fit the "dangerous" criteria by coincidence) is required to jump through hoops.

01-02-2008, 06:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host I read very few of the links you post, we are currently going over this sort of thing on the politics board, so I find it somewhat disheartening you are now bringing that style to the life board. Though now I see I was wrong to direct you to the paranoia thread. Really I think you would be best served with this thread. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=128738 __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-02-2008, 06:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	having come from a trip to europe... it's not just limited to the US any longer. a photo I took at an airport in Spain __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-02-2008, 07:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Ok... yeah... odd experiences dealing with airport security... Traveling from LA to Tahiti with a microscope in my carry-on luggage. Didn't want it to be destroyed by the bag-handlers. As I put the bag into the scanner, I told the guys, "Hey, there's a big steel microscope in this one." When it made it through the scanner, they quickly confiscated it, dug through the clothes in my bag that were padding the thing, and wiped it down with one of their test-o-matic wipey cloths. With all the chemicals wandering the air in the lab it came from, I'm shocked that they didn't come up with anything from that wipe. Must be looking for something dang specific. Of course, the woman was very nice about everything and packed my clothes back in really well. It was all very efficient. I can't blame them for doing it... but still, it was odd. Why didn't that cloth pick up anything? What is it looking for, anyway? Surely that microscope has been splashed with acetone or ethanol or any number of random scary chemicals... Other instance: While coming from San Francisco to Burbank, brought with me 2 laptops, a GPS unit, a mini-computer, a graphing calculator... had to take all of them out of my bag and put them in individual boxes. Took forever. I kept waving on the people who were waiting behind me. Kinda frustrating, but oh well. They scanned the laptops twice. Wonder what they saw the first time. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

01-02-2008, 09:36 AM	#18 (permalink)
Barstool Upright	Is it over the top? Yes. Is it a PITA? Yes. Is it effective? YES. Rules are in place to make things safer and to make us FEEL safer. Just like speed limits out on the roads, or laws for our protection. Just suck it up and move on like 99% of everyone else that has to tolerate the same hindrance!

01-02-2008, 10:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Actually that humor thread is based on a conspriacy debunking website, the fact that its funny is a added bonus... Anyways, ranting aside.... My one fun TSA story was 2002. I'm traveling with two friends of mine, an Indian and a Jordanian born Palestinian. This was when they were still doing gate side checks and searches on top of all the rest. So we are waiting in line to board the plane (and this is the step they do the last searches) and both of these guys are betting they will be searched. In front of us is a very petite cute blond girl, college age. I tell them I think they will search her and let us all go threw. Sure enough they pull her out of line and we walk right on the plane. The Jordanian is practically laughing at this point. My reasoning was simple though. The TSA agent was a very short, unattractive, middle aged male. Who would this guy want to get closer to? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 01-02-2008 at 12:55 PM.. Reason: Typo

01-02-2008, 02:23 PM	#21 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Real security means inconvenience and lots of it. We'll never stand for that. We know that we're not the ones that the screeners are looking for. They should clearly pay less attention to us, and focus more on the guy behind us. No, not the guy in front of us, because that'll cause us to be delayed as well. Are we really any safer, with all of the smokescreen security. I'd say marginally, at best. We, as the general public, will never stand for real security. So, we content ourselves with the knowledge that security has been enhanced, when in reality...it's mostly smoke and mirrors. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

01-02-2008, 02:32 PM	#22 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	I dropped my girlfriend off at the Denver International just before Christmas. I pulled up to the passenger drop off section. Pulled up to the curb. Unloaded her bags. Walked her inside. Right past a security guard. He said nothing. Stood in line with her for about ten minutes. Came back out. He smiled and said, "Have a good day." Apparently the "No Parking Zone" really isn't a "No Parking Zone." __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown