TSA Delays Hoards After They Foul Up

[vacationclub]

Heck, I've never seen a purple potato - but that doesn't mean I don't believe they exist.

No bag checks in malls? I don't know. Maybe it's been studied and determined malls are low risk. Maybe they have highly effective security systems that differ from what's done at airlies because despite similar appearances, airports aren't malls. Besides, while almost nothing's impossible, it's unlikely a terrorist/group is going to crash a mall into a tower; and ideally government agencies are working to prevent those groups from crashing planes into malls - a situation that couldn't be averted by shoppers' bag checks.

Trains? Interesting point. While we've been fortunate not to have terrorists attack our trains, Mumbai, Madrid, and London weren't so lucky. While they may just be rumors, I did find - but didn't read - some reports that Al Qaeda may have been planning to, yes, attack U.S. trains 9/11/11. But really, there IS security there. No, it's not airport level; you'll need to take that up with Homeland Security.

Regarding the purple potato, I get the point which is that anything can exist even if we've never seen it, but the further question is which one of those things do we make massive changes for that create massive expenses, inconveniences, potential health dangers and possible civil rights violations? For some reason, they've stuck only with airports...perhaps because the images of 9/11 are so strong...even though 9/11 was truly a one-hit wonder, and simply could not be carried out today like it was then because of two basics changes.

Regarding crashing a mall into a tower....you sort of made my point there in a round about fashion. You're saying that the true danger of airports compared to malls is that airports allow people to get on airplanes, then they could possibly gain control of the airplane and smash it into something. Problem is, that's much, much more difficult now since they've A- locked the cockpit where before 9/11 there was easy entry, and B- smashing a plame you've hijacked into a building requires the passengers to sit idle and let you do it. That trick worked only 3 times, minutes apart on 9/11, but people figured out what was happening....that it was not simply a hijacking....and on the 4th plane they attacked the attackers knowing it was their only hope at preventing the attack, and at life.

So, that brings us to searches....for presumably, explosives. Because taking the plane and crashing into something is much more difficult now. So, if exploding a plane is really the only real potential threat, then that same threat exists anywhere. In fact, it's much greater where A- there are more people, and B- there is little or even no security. Yet, we don't see it happening. But for some reason, even though planes are harder, less likely, and less rich in damages for a potential terrorist, we assume all who ride them are about to blow them up, and so we give them more protection than even our historic landmarks that people visit every day with only a metal detector, if anything.

Regarding the security that IS in the train station but not at the airport (in other words, there's virtually NO security at the train station except people watching you), my question is why such contrast when both are forms of transportation? In fact the trains carry more people closer to the ground where other people are. So, this is simply the summary of my concern, the illogical application of security, and the truly theater-like presentation, or show we receive when we go to the airport.

Just a footnote, TSA today announced it's working toward pre-screening people so they don't have to prove each and every time they enter an airport that they don't have explosives in their underwear. Brilliant.

 

[sam_gordon]

Of course, how much damage can you do with a train that you can't do with a truck? I mean, a train can only run on the tracks, and it would be hard to get enough explosives onto a train to do major damage (I'm guessing, never looked at it).

As far as explosives on planes... http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/grenade-found-in-passengers-luggage-northern-ky-airport-terminal-temporarily-cleared/2012/02/08/gIQAXRKNzQ_story.html.

vacationclub... while you haven't specifically said it, you are implying (or I'm reading it wrong) that since A) Cockpit doors have been hardened and B) the public wouldn't "allow" a hijacking, security isn't necessary.

Now, I do agree the TSA is "reactive" in their procedures (things changed after the shoe bomber and after the underwear bomber), but I'm not sure what's better... reacting to prevent similar attempts to what has been tried or ignoring those attempts.

 

[vacationclub]

Of course, how much damage can you do with a train that you can't do with a truck? I mean, a train can only run on the tracks, and it would be hard to get enough explosives onto a train to do major damage (I'm guessing, never looked at it).

You make a good point about a truck. Anybody can drive a truck anywhere....no searches...no pat downs...not even x-rays; just drive. Based on the supposed state of emergency that some other people imply we are in, you'd think trucks would be blowing up every other week. But they're not, because those rare plots get foiled by hard working intelligence, and people paying attention, not by people patting down grannies, pouring out babies milk, lifting prosthetic breasts, and breaking colostomy bags.

vacationclub... while you haven't specifically said it, you are implying (or I'm reading it wrong) that since A) Cockpit doors have been hardened and B) the public wouldn't "allow" a hijacking, security isn't necessary.

No, you're reading it wrong.....again. I've said multiple times that it's the procedures in late 2010....the invasive pat downs and potentially dangerous scans, that dropped out of nowhere from the TSA, when before that, the metal detector worked just fine, that are my concerns. I've referred to this over and over, and never, ever said we should have "no security". In fact I responded directly to you the first time you put those words in my mouth. I responded by saying security is fine and necessary. It's the methods and logic I'm discussing that you're ignoring.

Now, I do agree the TSA is "reactive" in their procedures (things changed after the shoe bomber and after the underwear bomber), but I'm not sure what's better... reacting to prevent similar attempts to what has been tried or ignoring those attempts.

The problem is the underwear guy event did not happen with TSA or even in the US. It happened in another country. The underwear guy had so many red flags he shouldn't have even gotten near an airport let alone on a plane. That massive blunder that occurred somewhere else is the single and only reason that two companies have now sold millions of dollars of equipment to the US government to put into airports so we can look for something that never happened here before anyway. As soon as that happened they had their moment. The TSA was all too eager to act like it's doing more by spending our money. What if the next lone wolf in Africa decides to eat a bomb, or stick it up his butt? At some point they can't keep chasing after far-out scenarios, and simply have to rely on our intelligence, and other forms of security (like they do at all the other places we've been talking about) instead of leaving it all to the very... last... resort....the low paid people at the airport, with minimal training.

 

[pr surfer]

That massive blunder that occurred somewhere else is the single and only reason that two companies have now sold millions of dollars of equipment to the US government

Or the that Michael Chertoff, the former DHS Secretary under George W. Bush, is an active lobbyist and consultant for Rapiscan.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Does the DIS have a yawn smilie? Michael Chertoff lobbying for Rapiscan is the single most boring piece of information posted over, and over, and over, and over, and ov...zzzzzz ..... What? Me? No, I'm awake, I swear!

Anyway, Moderators, feel free to edit this post - but I found some interesting information on lobbying: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ shows Chertoff is typical among his peers, both current and former; and the Princeton Review has a decent career description http://www.princetonreview.com/careers.aspx?cid=88.

Now can we PLEASE stop bringing up Chertoff? Yes, he he headed DHS. Yes, he now works as a lobbyist for Rapiscan. No, they're not the only company that makes the machines. No, the government isn't going to trash such expensive machinery.

 

[pr surfer]

So you're saying this his influence has had nothing, either directly or indirectly, to do with the decision to purchase these machines?

Can you safely say that without as much of a doubt?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Sam

July 19, 2001
Civil defense sirens wailed and major highways into Baltimore were closed after a freight train hauling hazardous chemicals caught fire yesterday afternoon in a century-old railroad tunnel under Howard Street, shutting down much of the city's downtown.

Choking black smoke spewed from both ends of the 1.7-mile Howard Street Tunnel, and fear of an explosion or toxic fumes from a cargo that included dangerous acids prompted authorities to ban pedestrians and vehicles within five blocks of its openings at Camden Yards and Mount Royal Station.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.train19jul19,0,5542714.story

It could have been a lot worse if the freight had been more toxic (chlorine or radioactive waste).

When you get bored again, you might want to read these articles about trains.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...rd-street-tunnel-freight-train-17-mile-tunnel
http://firelink.monster.com/news/ar...ent-causes-toxic-clouds-dangerous-tunnel-fire
http://www.suntimes.com/news/transp...sion-in-bureau-county-prompts-evacuation.html
http://www.brittgilbert.com/roseville_train_explosion.php

Wonder what might be the result of an intentional fire/explosion in an urban tunnel or in one of the freight lines that goes through DC near the Capitol?

 

[sam_gordon]

No, you're reading it wrong.....again. I've said multiple times that it's the procedures in late 2010....the invasive pat downs and potentially dangerous scans, that dropped out of nowhere from the TSA, when before that, the metal detector worked just fine, that are my concerns. I've referred to this over and over, and never, ever said we should have "no security". In fact I responded directly to you the first time you put those words in my mouth. I responded by saying security is fine and necessary. It's the methods and logic I'm discussing that you're ignoring.

The metal detectors worked SO well, they allowed 19 hijackers to get box cutters onto planes.

The problem is the underwear guy event did not happen with TSA or even in the US. It happened in another country. The underwear guy had so many red flags he shouldn't have even gotten near an airport let alone on a plane. That massive blunder that occurred somewhere else is the single and only reason that two companies have now sold millions of dollars of equipment to the US government to put into airports so we can look for something that never happened here before anyway. As soon as that happened they had their moment. The TSA was all too eager to act like it's doing more by spending our money. What if the next lone wolf in Africa decides to eat a bomb, or stick it up his butt? At some point they can't keep chasing after far-out scenarios, and simply have to rely on our intelligence, and other forms of security (like they do at all the other places we've been talking about) instead of leaving it all to the very... last... resort....the low paid people at the airport, with minimal training.

So we should "rely on our intelligence"? Would that be the same intelligence that allowed 19 hijackers onto planes in September 2011? IIRC, didn't YOU indicate there were enough intelligence "red flags" that should have stopped the hijackers? Is that the same intelligence you want us to rely on?

 

[sam_gordon]

Sam

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.train19jul19,0,5542714.story

It could have been a lot worse if the freight had been more toxic (chlorine or radioactive waste).

When you get bored again, you might want to read these articles about trains.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...rd-street-tunnel-freight-train-17-mile-tunnel
http://firelink.monster.com/news/ar...ent-causes-toxic-clouds-dangerous-tunnel-fire
http://www.suntimes.com/news/transp...sion-in-bureau-county-prompts-evacuation.html
http://www.brittgilbert.com/roseville_train_explosion.php

Wonder what might be the result of an intentional fire/explosion in an urban tunnel or in one of the freight lines that goes through DC near the Capitol?

You are correct CPT. I'm sorry, I was simply thinking of passenger trains, not freight trains (much less trains carrying hazardous material).

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

FYI.

All train cars and containers (and ocean containers as well) are inspected and sealed with numbered seals. The cars/containers are xrayed and cargo paper work comfirmed. They even use dogs and radio activity devises at ocean, rail and bus terminals, not to mention various venues and Airports.

All track is monitored with personal and cameras and other devises. Trains entering and leaving yards are rechecked.

That just the public information released. There is lots of behind the scenes secuirty that goes on.

Will there be accidents and errors....yes.......improvements are always being made, but there will be accidents wherever Humans and equipment is involved.

This goes for the Airports as well. Except for a few people with there heads in the sand and some politcions looking for headlines...........The rest of us understand how serious the threat is. The TSA will continue to make the Airports as safe as possible, making improvements as techno permits. Hopefully the new scanners will someday let us just walk though, bags in hand.


AKK

 

[LWQuestie]

The metal detectors worked SO well, they allowed 19 hijackers to get box cutters onto planes.
So we should "rely on our intelligence"? Would that be the same intelligence that allowed 19 hijackers onto planes in September 2011? IIRC, didn't YOU indicate there were enough intelligence "red flags" that should have stopped the hijackers? Is that the same intelligence you want us to rely on?

But at the time, box cutters were allowed to be carried on to aircraft. It's disingenuous to say that the metal detectors failed for that reason. They didn't fail. The regulations allowed knives under 4 inches to be transported.

I think we are all fairly intelligent people. We know the rules and the regs and could all probably think up some plot to cause major trouble at locations with large groups of people. However, just because we can think up the hijinks doesn't mean we will actually act on them. That's the difference really.

ETA: You mean September 2001, right? I couldn't find anything about this occurring again in September 2011.

 

[goofy4tink]

He said, she said....we're merely going round and round here. I think is't pretty safe to say that the TSA is not a perfect agency. That there are 'bad apples' within that agency. But all TSA employees are not 'bad apples'.
I think we can agree that the one situation that started this 'discussion' was perhaps not handled in the best possible way. But, people are human, they make mistakes.
This thread is pretty much done. NO need to continue beating that dead horse.