

Travelers, brace yourselves for the latest indignity




The incident has been leaked onto YouTube (of course):


TSA drink screening
[Image Source: YouTube]











Sources: YouTube, Daily Mail

Comments     Threshold


Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/2012 12:53:58 PM , Rating: 5
If you watch the video closely, you'll understand this has nothing to do with chemicals, explosives, poisons or whatnot. Because what strikes me the most about the whole thing, is everybody is actually agreeing to this. Not only that, but with a smile!

This is merely to have you get used to having everything on you checked at all times. It's not substances they're after, it's compliance. And i have to say the people in the video are pretty well trained.

RE: Not about chemicals
RE: Not about chemicals



RE: Not about chemicals
RE: Not about chemicals


Remember that


RE: Not about chemicals
RE: Not about chemicals







RE: Not about chemicals





RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals
Yup even with terrorist trying to blow up planes



RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals


RE: Not about chemicals

"An armed society is a polite society.

- Robert A. Heinlein.


RE: Not about chemicals
By croc on 9/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
"your kind" ?
A gun owner?

RE: Not about chemicals
by croc on September 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM




RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals




And the sheeple keep going along for the ride!

RE: Not about chemicals


Unless you think Israel isn't threatened by terrorism...?

So you prefer no attempt?


RE: Not about chemicals


RE: Not about chemicals
By mocyd on 9/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
Inadequate commercial screening resulted in airplanes crashing into buildings.





RE: Not about chemicals
Inadequate commercial screening resulted in airplanes crashing into buildings.




Meanwhile, airlines are kicking passengers off for this: today:


RE: Not about chemicals


RE: Not about chemicals




Pull your head out of your ass!

RE: Not about chemicals



RE: Not about chemicals




RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals
By tecknurd on 9/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals



RE: Not about chemicals
By max_payne on 9/5/2012 1:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you sir for allowing us to do preventive cavities search on yourself as you enter the airport. You are a model flyer !

RE: Not about chemicals
He does have thumbs...

RE: Not about chemicals
By SPOOFE on 9/5/2012 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 2


Mercury doesn't play very well with aluminum, at all.

Just a tiny amount of mercury in just the right spot on an airplane and you can take the sucker down.

RE: Not about chemicals
I think you are overexaggerating.



RE: Not about chemicals
By ClownPuncher on 9/5/2012 4:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Mercury?! Are you serious? A bigger threat would be a crate of motherfucking SNAKES on a plane!

RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 4
Caustic liquid like acid they got from terminal vendors? I don't think so...

Remember, all your liquids are already check when you go through security; anything people have liquid wise now was picked up from the airport vendors, who are already screened. Furthermore, it takes -a lot more- to bring down an aircraft than a little cup of liquid acid or mercury; from the inside anyways.

Now if you could slip something to the maintenance crew and sabotage the plane on the ground... but the normal flight checks should discovery such a problem before it even left the terminal.

People need to not be so cowardly; it's a type of ignorance and naivety of its own. The planes of 9/11 were brought down by hijackers that flew them manually into objects; not by a cup of vendor sold liquid.

RE: Not about chemicals

RE: Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals







RE: Not about chemicals
By NullSubroutine on 9/5/2012 2:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually this is the exact same test given to medically exempt liquids at the checkpoint. And is specifically looking for one type of liquid explosive. Because the test is not being done at the, it would be part of random screening, that each airport does differently (as this type of policy is set by Federal Security Director at the regional hub).

I would say more but it can be difficult to know what specifics are considered SSI (Sensitive Security Information) and that is unfortunate as the TSA clearly seems to be failing at communicating with the public about what the TSA procedures are (within limit on details) and what they are not.

From everything I see in the news 90% of the misinformation that is spread could be eliminated if TSA simply shared 2 paragraphs of factual information to the public and it wouldn't reduce security at all.

RE: Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/2012 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why would they test for one paticular type of explosive? Why would they test everybody on that paticular type of explosives? Why would they test regular folks with approved bought beverages on one paticular type of explosive?

I'm sorry but it doesn't add up. It doesn't make logical or reasonable sense, the gain is far too small (read: not there) in order to have this test conducted in the name of safety. You can tell those people aren't a threat just by looking at them. So why test them? Everything humans do happens for a reason, though we might not always understand it.

It's clear those TSA people aren't at fault. Belive it or not, everybody can be brainwashed to turn on their fellow man as long as it happens gradually enough, and affects only a few at once (the nazi's started with putting jews in ghetto's before deportation, removing them from the general populace and thus their impact on them). This might also be training for them. They might not actually be testing anything. After all, the possibility of a positive is negligibly small.

Strange as it might seem, but if you've been testing people for years and you hit a positive, you're much more likely to just follow the rules and not listen to what they say, because so far the test has always been right. If you're the new kid on the block you might question the test by looking at the people who clearly aren't a threat. Of course if a terrorist attack ever does happen with liquid explosives, conveniently, they wheren't tested at all.

Now i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've seen all the documentairies sure but i like to make up my own mind, and the entire world controlled completly by <300 people is insane. There is no master plot. They know as little about what they're doing as we are. That said, conspiracies have happened, and do exist (just not on a grand scale). And if we substitute the explanation "sasfety from terrorism" to "controlling the people", suddenly what they're doing makes alot more sense. So i tend to belive that's the real reason why they are doing what they are doing. Not the actual looking for explosives.

RE: Not about chemicals
By NullSubroutine on 9/5/2012 8:58:46 PM , Rating: 2

Testing (presumably in the sterile area) is done randomly and the tests they do are also random (meaning different types of tests are done). When this specific test is used in the checkpoint it is to make sure the medically exempt liquids do not contain that specific type of explosive. However, random selects "regular folk" as well as other types of suspicious people. That's why its called random.

The general reason why this test is done is to have interaction with the passengers. Interaction with the public is a way to engage them for intelligence.

It doesn't matter if you work for the TSA, the CIA, or the Secret Service, all departments working with security have to use human intelligence to mitigate security threats. People and their behaviors are something that is watched. It isn't about profiling or anything like that, even the American public is aware of how people normally act when traveling and can sense when something is out of place.

No security in place is perfect, there are hundreds of ways that explosives, weapons, and other threats could make it on board and aircraft and threaten peoples lives. You can throw all the money you want at the problem and it won't change. The way to address the issue is to have different layers of security, so that even if one does fail, then another layer could in theory catch it. It isn't perfect, but when there are limited resources then choices have to be made.

Interacting with the public is a very cheap (fiscally) of detecting abnormal behavior that may be an indicator of someone who is a threat to the passengers and the aircraft, remember they don't have to be terrorists. There are plenty of "regular" crazy people out there.


Again, its random, even low risk people are screened randomly. It is the interaction with the people that help determine what risk they are.


I am someone very concerned about personal liberty and freedom. However, I don't see the link between the Nazi's and holding a test strip above a cup for 4 seconds then placing a drop on it is evidence of a slippery slope to genocide.

Please remember, for starter, all airports (those who own the airports) can choose to have private contractors or the TSA as in charge of security. Whether contractors or TSA, neither have any authority to do anything to you. (The only people who can are actual sworn law enforcement that usually work for the local municipality of the airport, but they are regular LEOs, not TSA). They can't detain you, they can't arrest you, they can't even search you without your consent. You choose to fly on a publicly funded airline or not(airlines take federal money) and you can choose not be subjected to any screening.

If you don't want to undergo any screening private charter flights are available that to do not undergo any screening.

Far as the rest of your post. Liberty is not something that should be sacrificed for safety. However, there are threats that must be addressed. In my opinion so long as there is a choice of air travel of public with security screening or private with no screening liberty is at stake. As for the limits and types of screening it is important for the public (and the courts) to engage law makers about what they feel is legit and what is not acceptable. It is my opinion though that the TSA is not doing a good enough job explaining the processes and all it leads to are a bunch of misinformation. Instead of the public and law makers dealing with actual problems, they are often dealing with the misinformation.

RE: Not about chemicals
By ian80 on 9/5/2012 10:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
So basically - there's no evidence of wrongdoing even after passing existing barriers but what the hey, you're still a suspect. Ideally we're just here to be seen to be doing something on the massively remote chance someone somewhere may do something remotely suspicious just because of the way they look.

I know, it's cheap and hasn't actually yielded results compared to actual intelligence (even rendition and torture's more effective than this crap) but something's better than nothing - at least as long as it's random because that will stump any organised terrorist organisation. Let's just hope they don't realise their plan of drinking the lethal explosive as they pass through the Starbucks outlet they've infiltrated with operatives despite TSA screening already - JUST. WONT. WORK.

Oh, and for the love of god don't let those terrorists figure out they could bring our train, bus and car networks to their knees because god forbid the nasty men realise that in actuality muppets just like us will crucify our transport capacity by demanding anyone who gets in a car submit to a full gastro-endoscopical exam in case they drive their cars loaded with explosives into major freeways (or am I just giving them commonsensical ideas). Perhaps I'm wrong, everyone submit to an exam before they get into their cars.

But I digress, this is not nazi-esque so must be alright - consequently ignore any other connotations involved, after all it's all random and involves private companies (using airspace belonging to and in all probability funded by you).

Liberty should not be sacrificed except... for the fact that maybe we're not explaining ourselves very well but trust us it's scary out there.

RE: Not about chemicals
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2012 4:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
When are Americans going to finally decide this is to much? How's this for a protest idea. Americans should choose one airline at a time to boycott until TSA brings things down to an acceptable level. If it looks like passengers will put one airline out of business at a time I think the airlines will bring immediate pressure on Congress.

