Log in

View Full Version : Identifying TSA bullshit?


UnderConstruction
January 3rd, 2008, 12:48 AM
I visited the Southwest with my sister, who was flying for the first time since turning eighteen. She forgot to bring identification. The lovely TSA took us to a room far from regular security and passed us through the 'nekked scanners'. They also passed my sister through a machine that blew a pressurized gas onto her, apparently as a means of detecting explosives. Then they hand searched our bags, but that's not too important (just annoying).

I was just wondering what the gas could be, because I can't think of what it could be or what they think it could accomplish.

Barnacles
January 3rd, 2008, 01:19 AM
I believe it's just a pressurized gas burst to blow lose particles of nitrates or whatever off of your skin or clothing and sensors all around the machine pick up the particles and alert them if a explosives presence is detected.

pyromaniac_guy
January 3rd, 2008, 02:40 AM
Yup... Thats exactly what it is... Word to the wise... Don't casually blurt out "There was RDX on my bag" when the machine picks up a positive result for it...

Jacks Complete
January 6th, 2008, 07:55 PM
Wow, the War on Terror has obviously bettered the lot of the average American!

Is your sister cute? *That's* probably the real reason for the public nudity.

As for the gas blast, that will either be nitrogen or air. Most likely nitrogen, as it is non-reactive. In future, expect them to switch to sarin for terror suspects, to keep the jail costs down.

pyromaniac_guy
January 6th, 2008, 09:33 PM
Is your sister cute? *That's* probably the real reason for the public nudity.
it's not PUBLIC nudity - thats why it's done in a small room away from the other screening.

and there isn't all that much to get excited about, it's not as though the screener can see if the drapes match the carpet - or if there is even any carpet at all for that matter!

jellywerker
January 8th, 2008, 02:13 AM
In the same vein of TSA bullshit, did you notice the no liquids over 3oz. rule? Supposedly it's to keep people from smuggling liquid explosives onto a plane, but how hard would it be to recycle those little bottles and refill them all with your substance A and substance B liquid explosive components? In my mind it is nothing more than an alliance with the companies who make said expensive (for quantity, compared to full siezed) little bottles of toiletries for their own mutual profit.

Chris The Great
January 8th, 2008, 03:26 AM
Why not be original and just bring 3oz of some chemical weapon on the plane? What would be scarier than a plane going silent and then falling out of the sky, or better yet having the autopilot land it only to have them find everyone on board dead?

I hope this post doesn't get liquids banned completely again...

I still find it amusing that this restriction was put on recently because of a foiled plot, when decades ago some guy brought nitro onto a plane and it actually went off in flight. Where was the ban then? Obviously BB isn't out to protect you, but now wants you to be in constant fear. Baaaaah in fear, little sheeple! Run to the Shepard and his protective meat cleaver... ;)

Charles Owlen Picket
January 8th, 2008, 09:20 AM
Jesus, Chris...there was some damn good visuals in that post! Twilight Zone plane landing with the dead....People "Baahhhhaing" with sheep muzzles, running with crazed eyes....yea, I like it!

I get this feeling that there is an undercurrent of deeply repressed sexuality in TSA... I think they need counseling.

Rbick
January 8th, 2008, 10:24 AM
Its good to know about the pressurized air they use. Considering I do have one small back pack I use to transport my charges to my site with, I'm glad to know this as I will never use that bag for travel in airports again :o.

I wouldn't be suprised if the TSA did perform the search just to get a kick out of it. Do you see some of the people they have hired? In a rush to up the number of security personnel, I don't think they cared too much about whether the new employees were intelligent or respectable.

Man Down Under
January 8th, 2008, 01:46 PM
Airport concessions sales of little toiletries have no doubt greatly increased since the liquids ban. Wonder what corporation has the concessions contract for major airports? I bet you there's a Halliburton in the woodpile. ;)

UnderConstruction
January 13th, 2008, 02:25 AM
I'm willing to bet that the TSA is incredibly corrupt, but I think the major problem with it is that the lower-level employees are so completely incompetent that they're the real threat to the passengers.

A little anectode: on an earlier flight coming back from the South West several years ago, I had purchased a bottle of salsa (the kinda novelty shit that, although you never expect to use, you find yourself drawn to buy when you're first exposed to it). Passing security, I was stopped and the salsa confiscated. Reasonable enough. So I ask why they're confiscating it (Because they annoyed me, not because I didn't know the answer), they tell me it's in case a toxic or explosive material is being brought on the plane. Then I ask what they're doing with it--and the many other confiscated food products they fear may pose a threat to national security. I'm told they will be giving it to the homeless.

A very efficient method of population control :rolleyes:

DONMAN
January 13th, 2008, 08:50 PM
That is hilarious! I have never been on a plane. I know sounds odd, but I drive were I need to. I imagine the day I finally do fly on a plane all my monitored google searches will come back to bite me on the ass....