TSA keeps confiscating things like Bics, Q-tips, eyebrow pencils and Barbie accessories, but seem to miss the dangerous stuff:

Airline screeners fail government bomb tests
21 airports nationwide don’t detect bomb-making materials
By Lisa Myers, Rich Gardella & the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 1:53 p.m. ET March 17, 2006

WASHINGTON - Imagine an explosion strong enough to blow a car's trunk apart, caused by a bomb inside a passenger plane. Government sources tell NBC News that federal investigators recently were able to carry materials needed to make a similar homemade bomb through security screening at 21 airports. In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials.

NBC News briefed former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, on the results.

"I'm appalled," he said. "I'm dismayed and, yes, to a degree, it does surprise me. Because I thought the Department of Homeland Security was making some progress on this, and evidently they're not."

Investigators for the Government Accountability Office conducted the tests between October and January, at the request of Congress. The goal was to determine how vulnerable U.S. airlines are to a suicide bomber using cheap, readily available materials.

Investigators found recipes for homemade bombs from easily available public sources and bought the necessary chemicals and other materials over the counter. For security reasons, NBC News will not reveal any of the ingredients or the airports tested. The report itself is classified. But Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the fact that so many airports failed this test is a hugely important story that the American traveler is entitled to know.
NBC News asked a bomb technician to gather the same materials and assemble an explosive device to determine its power. The materials for the bomb that exploded a car's trunk fit in the palm of one hand. NBC News showed the results to Leo West, a former FBI bomb expert.

"Potentially, an explosion of that type could lead to the destruction of the aircraft," said West.

The Transportation Security Administration would not comment on the tests Thursday, but issued a statement to NBC News, saying "detecting explosive materials and IEDs at the checkpoint is TSA's top priority." The agency also said screeners are now receiving added training to help identify these materials.

That’s not soon enough for Tom Kean. "They need to do it yesterday," Kean said, "because we haven’t got time."
Given hardened cockpit doors and other improvements, experts say explosives now are the gravest threat posed by terrorists in the sky.

No, their top priority seems to be taking SAK Classics off of keyrings, not finding bomb making supplies. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Typical .gov answer to a problem...do "something" even though stupid.

I'm sure the stats for all types of foot fungus and athelete's foot have increased due to all the barefoot passengers standing in those tsa lines though [especially in summertime].
Pull the TSA out of all the airports, it is a gargantuan waste of time and money [our money!] Stop the insanity now! We are no safer than we were 5 years ago, but we are a lot poorer. [end of rant]

TSA failed to find a SAK in my jacket pocket on a recent trip. I grabbed my softshell and stuffed it into my carry-on (Camelbak BFM) before a recent trip. When I pulled out my jacket in Houston I felt something heavy in a pocket... sure enough, one of my SAKs! It flew home in my checked bagage!

Now, this isn't as big of a deal as explosives/hazardous materials; I highly doubt if a few people with box cutters will ever succeed in hijacking an airliner again. Technology is only as good as the operator utilizing it. Reliable, alert, intelegent poeple are who will prevent another attack...

I'm curious to know if any screeners lost their jobs over this debacle! <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Or will this be just a hand slap and "c'mon guys, we can do better/let's learn from our mistakes" kinda thing.

"Welcome aboard Delta Airlines. Please follow as the flight attendants explain the safety features of this aircraft. ....
In the event of an attempted hijacking, or disturbance on the aircraft, the 9mm semi-automatic handgun beneath your seat may be used as a weapon. The handguns have their safety on, and their slides locked open by a red tamper evident emergency pull tab. Use of the weapon at any other time may result in serious injury, death and 2nd felony criminal charges being filed against you.
To use the weapon, pull hard on the red tamper evident pull tab. This will cause the slide to go forward, racking a round. The weapon is now armed. To fire the weapon, point the handgun at the target, and slowly squeeze the trigger. This is a semi-automatic handgun, and will automatically feed the next round. Once all your rounds have been used, the slide will remain open. Please note the magazine is welded shut, and you are limited to 8 rounds. The handgun is not recommended for children under the age of 16. Always ensure your weapon is ready, before assisting others."

<img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If the screeners have not been trained to look for these still unidentified materials, then I hardly see how firing them is going to solve anything. I mean, what kind of materials are we talking about? Shaving cream? Pencil lead? Mr. Clean with ammonia? Are these items commonplace? Without knowing what they are it is hard to fault the individual screener for not stopping them. Maybe some higher-ups are the ones whose heads should roll.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I like this idea. Although, I might got with a 4-barreled pepperbox, it would be cheaper in terms of maintenance.

<img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Just a bit of humor. It could never happen though, too many people aren't either responsible enough, or have "chemical imbalances".

I really think there needs to be an increase in the ability for full-time high skilled individuals to volunteer for emergency services and/or homeland security positions. This doesn't mean you take just anyone off the street, there has to be screening. That could provide alot of police/fire/ems in an emergency in a coordinated manner.

I was going to post some numbers, but it's too late! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I like the idea someone had to issue every airline passenger a one-shot pistol and then collect them at the end of the flight, like they used to do with headphones.


JimJr

Have you noticed that flight attendants place stable-looking, able-bodied passengers at the emergency exits?

Why not have regular volunteer citizens who have been trained and are experienced with pistols get licensed with hard-to-dulicate photo IDs, have them identify themselves when they check in for their seat assignment, and have the airline put them in "certain" seats that carry loaded weapons? Maybe they could wear sleeve garters or something so the rest of the passengers would know who they are, and who to go to if they saw trouble.

Personally, I would feel better if I knew there were a few people on board who could actually DO something. Then the other stupid rules about carrying multitools and Bics could be cancelled.

Didn't someone once say something like "Only a fool takes a knife to a gun fight"?

Norad, if they HAVEN'T been trained to look for certain types of explosives, what is all this Homeland Security crap been about?

Sue

"if they HAVEN'T been trained to look for certain types of explosives, what is all this Homeland Security crap been about?"

In the case of the security on airplanes, it has all been about getting people to feel safe flying again. It is not about actually preventing terrorist attacks. That is accomplished by spying on potential terrorists, subjecting their entire lives to a full-blown FBI rectal examination, and then arresting them if warranted. (This seems to be working very well BTW.) The fact that the screeners have not been trained until now to find bomb-making materials should dispel any notion that they have been put there for security. They are there to make sure butts are in the seats when the plane takes off.

I hate TSA. They are bunch of dumb, uneducated, ignorant, newly acquired power happy and useless people. That's usually what happenes when gov't creates an agency for public image. Sometimes I like to think of TSA as FEMA (all smoke and no fire). I think the assumption that TSA has about typical bomber is what they read in spy novels. I can just imagine TSA training center since it must be such a joke. After spending last year at the airport as a medic I prefer dealings with private sector security because they are much better and more efficient since job security if you keep screwing up is not there. You do something retarded working for private company and you get axed. You do something retarded working for TSA and they relocate you to more sensitive area.

I think I will market "TSA kit" that you can purchase from the street vendor upon leaving the airport. It will consist of nail clipper, mini SAK and lighter. Upon departing back home you can trade your kit in and get a voucher that can be used upon arrival. By the time you are done with traveling during your life span you will eventually get your stuff back. Or if you spot somebody in your city using your lighter or SAK you can ask them to trade.

Good portion of my calls? People pissed of by TSA for no reason.

"I think I will market 'TSA kit' that you can purchase from the street vendor upon leaving the airport."

You can probably get a really good deal from the TSA! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Norad, If all this TSA crap is just to "make people feel safe flying", I am even MORE PO'd than before I read that. All it takes is someone with more grey matter than a TSA agent (not difficult) to bring something on board that is instantly going to change the whole warm-&-fuzzy plans of our idiot politicians.

"It is not about actually preventing terrorist attacks. That is accomplished by spying on potential terrorists... and then arresting them if warranted."

A.The chances that the FBI even knows who a fraction of the terrorists in the U.S. are is extremely remote, &

B. I doubt they would know where to find them if they were living next door to them.

And your assurance that everything "seems to be working very well" leaves me open-mouthed with disbelief. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Sue

"If all this TSA crap is just to "make people feel safe flying", I am even MORE PO'd than before I read that."

Immediately after 9-11-2001 the airlines were hemmoraging money. Like it or not air travel drives a huge chunk of our economy. The prohibitions on blades and tools were implemented to give the impression that the government was responding to the continued threat of takeover--a threat which no longer existed. What that did was reduce some of the fear that people had and thus get them flying again. What it did not do was prevent any attacks. That's why the ridiculous rules are being relaxed.

"A.The chances that the FBI even knows who a fraction of the terrorists in the U.S. are is extremely remote, &
B. I doubt they would know where to find them if they were living next door to them."

Then I would invite you to speculate on why we have not been attacked here in the last 4-1/2 years. I can think of three possible reasons:

1. Our enemies have forgiven us and have decided to leave us be.
2. Our enemies have decided that the TSA is so formidable that they would surely be caught trying to get anything past them.
3. Our enemies are at Guantanamo, or in other jails, and the ones who are not have the FBI crawling up their backs, tapping their phones, infiltrating their places of worship, and reading their emails.

I'll take door # 3 Monty. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

What about #4? That any remaining or newly recruited terrorists in this country are just biding their time and planning something else? A plane might not be hijacked again, but other types of attacks could be in the works.

I could be wrong about this, but I can't recall any potential disaster that the TSA single-handedly averted after 9-11. However, I can think of a few where ordinary citizens on a plane took matters into their own hands - like the instance where a mentally-unstable young man tried to storm the cockpit and was tackled by fellow passengers. I just don't entrust my personal safety with an unreliable organization, I figure that it's up to me to stand up for myself since I'm the one who is going to be on the plane, not the TSA.

"What about #4? That any remaining or newly recruited terrorists in this country are just biding their time and planning something else? A plane might not be hijacked again, but other types of attacks could be in the works."

That is always a possibility, but I think that #3 lessens that chance dramatically. I think you can just about bet that they will try though. It will be on a small scale: one loser with an AK47 who starts firing into the crowd in some small town pavilion. Everybody worries about bio, chemical, or nuclear weapons, but I think that the FBI covers that. The next attack, when it comes, will be small scale. Arm yourselves.

" I just don't entrust my personal safety with an unreliable organization, I figure that it's up to me to stand up for myself since I'm the one who is going to be on the plane, not the TSA."

Good for you. Wear two pairs of socks and carry a lot of change when you fly...

> Then I would invite you to speculate on why we have not been attacked here in the last 4-1/2 years.

We've been attacked here in the UK. As far as I can tell, the attack came as a surprise, partly because it did not originate from a global terrorist network but from a small group of self-starters. (I know you were talking about the USA rather than the UK, but I don't think they are that different in this.)

"Our enemies are at Guantanamo, or in other jails, and the ones who are not have the FBI crawling up their backs, tapping their phones, infiltrating their places of worship, and reading their emails."

Personally, I think that's just more feel-good mindlessness from the political PR dept. After all, weren't the FBI the ones who were supposed to be doing EXACTLY that kind of thing BEFORE 9/11? They did kind of a sloppy job, didn't they? What happened, did they just get religion and now they're actually doing their job?

Cynical Sue

True, we must not forget London, or Spain and Bali for that matter. I think that after those attacks the various intelligence services stepped up their surveillance as well.

"What happened, did they just get religion and now they're actually doing their job?"

I guess you could say that they now worship at the altar of the Patriot Act. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The next attack is not a question of "if" but "when". It will happen and quite honestly if it will be aimed at the flying industry and our airports we will see a lot of places go bankrupt. Also certain religious groups and ethnicities will find themselves to be in the spotlight that would single them out and bring many unpleasenteries. It's very easy to hate and stereotype in lack of concrete evidence, knowledge and arrested suspects. Gov’t agencies can track groups but they can’t track individuals. Single person is far more dangerous than an organized group.

I've dealt with 911 and it is an experience I don't want to go thru again. It bonded me with some people more and set me distant from others. Now 5 years later I still deal with the fallout and leftovers from that day. During next attack I will have to deal with it on professional and personal level.

It will happen again since you can’t stop a religious fanatic unless you execute each and single one of them which in this case is not even remotely possible. You can't make peace because than you show that terror is the way to go in order to obtain your goals. There are no right answers and this will go on and lengthiness of inactivity will be dictated by how successful the intelligence was and how proactive did we get. We will bomb them today with planes and conventional warfare killing 10-20 terrorist. They will come back tomorrow and blow up a train station killing 1000 of civilians. Rules of proper engagement do not apply in this war.

Darned Right there will be another one, -someday, someway. Getting variously Soft and Lax on our parts, (and Forgetting),-only considerably encourages this. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Polak187[/email]

Ironraven, Susan, and Ki4buc,-

Seriously speaking, -Just stick with Skymarshalls. Such a person or persons should remain anonymous, -*not* be readily known. And sure, -we need substantially more than we've got.

If you're seriously not kidding, -weapons under some or all seats are a complete Non Starter. Terrorists or other skyjackers could just as easily get at them.

(no matter that they already could just as easily have weapons etc of their own too. And paraphrasing the famous NRA slogan, -if you eliminate defensive weaponry from a plane, -only a skyjacker etc will have a weapon, -this is true. But also just having weapons aboard ready for their taking, -is folly too.)

Again, -just stick with the anonymous Skymarshall. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]ki4buc[/email]