Post by lighthorseman on Nov 1, 2011 4:52:38 GMT -5
I'd actually like to hear what you have to say, but can it be correlated as an official view?
I know what you mean by it being little more than a window-dressing venture, but sometimes that's what's needed. Remember, the terrorists are looking for something that will succeed with maximum publicity, anything that denies them the oxygen of publicity is surely a good thing, no?
Well I hope you understand SG, that while my involvement is a matter of public record, I can't sort of go into vast amounts of specific details, and as I'm no longer actively serving, I'm not actually sure what the classification status of some material is.
So, that said, I thought I'd quote a conversation I had on here earlier this year about the subject, which is a pretty good overview of what I'm talking about. from this thread.
I still agree with the sentiments about the entire TSA farce being about being seen to be doing something rather than any meaningful security provision.
Think I've mentioned before, but there are about a million ways to get harmful materials onto a plane without carrying them through a airport security scanner. There are also dozens of ways to defeat an airport scanner and carry bad stuff right past one. I have no problem with them providing token airport security to make the sheep feel better, but since its little more effective than a sign saying "no bombs allowed", why the heck they feel the have to dick people around and make them so uncomfortable into the bargain is quite beyond me.
You know those little mint tins? I put my Trident in one. No one ever says anything.
What if somebody put something nasty in one of those? Would they even be able to see it through the tin?That is one method. A box in your luggage with a EM shield in it is quite effective, lead foil is sufficient for the cost conscious. Those wishing to be more technical can use all manner of other systems, up to and including miniature Faraday cages. The other extremely simple method to defeat airport scanners is to carry weapons or devices made of X-ray translucent material. Hollywood myth to the contrary, so far there are no production line firearms tht will pass through an airport scanner undetected, however there are any number of polymer and resin compounds that won't show up in one that can be used to form blades and cutting edges. Careful preparation with chemical solvents and vacuum sealing can make explosive preparations undetectable to chemical scanners, too.
However, that's all only relevent if one intends to carry something on board directly, in hand luggage. Back when I was part of the team working on Sydney's airport security for the Olympics, we decided far and away the easiest way to get something on board an aircraft is to have a non passenger carry it past the security barriers. Groundcrew and air crew have virtually unrestricted access to aircraft and can carry all sorts of things that passengers would not be allowed past security with. Especially if they are prepared to spread the task over several days or weeks, e.g. bring in the firing pin one day, the pistol frame another, barrel the next week, and the ammunition one round a day for several days.
One of the culminating points in our exercise back in 2000 was ti deliberately try to get things past security and onto aircraft. Our team managed to get knives and grenades onto aircraft without much hassle, and thats when the airport security guys actually knew about the exercise, and so were (theoretically) even more observant. Granted, this was before September 11, and all the subsequent hysterical security measures that have been brought in, but I remain confident that with adequate preparation I could get anything you want onto a plane without too much trouble.
The biggest flaw in 99% of attempts to get bad things onto aircraft is operational security, i.e. most of these attempts fail because the people attempting to get stuff on board are dumb enough to tell non-operation vital people about their plans, who then report them to security services. An adequately professional group, with adequate training and material, and, most important, the discipline to keep their mouths shut about it (which really is the biggest point) can bypass airport security really without much trouble.
What the Hell? Are you part of a group of grizzled badasses attempting to take down the CIA, or something?Huh? No, absolutely not! I'm very much on the side of the "good guys", even had a fairly serious security clearance at one point! However, just because I'm on the side of the goodies, doesn't mean I necessarily approve of all their tactics. And this pat down and naked scanner stuff is very much in that category. If I thought for the briefest moment these measures would, in any way, provide an effective counter measure to an extant threat, I would very probably change my attitude. However, as I said in my initial, the fact remains, that against anyone but the most amateurish or literally crazy would be attackers, modern airport security is quite simply no more effective than a strongly worded sign.
Myself, and other people in the know predicted pretty much right after 9/11 (after the initial "no highrise building is safe, ZOMG!" period, to which I, as well as everyone else I know in the security community was effected by, wore off) that the serious players wouldn't try for a significant airline attack again, because the cost/benefit ratio in light of stricter scrutiny no longer made them effective targets. Much simpler to go for urban mass transit centres and high density tourist spots. And bugger me, the next 3 significant terrorist attacks were on what? Urban mass transit (London and Madrid) and high density tourism (Bali).
The current thinking in the community is still along those lines, and/or attack on significant civil infrastructure elements, like, say, an oil refinery or power station near a major urban centre.
If you are an issue motivated group, and you really, really want to take out a civil airliner (and this is the method that the various inteligence agencies and CT groups don't want people to think about) the easiest, simplest, most straight forward method doesn't involve breaching airport security, it doesn't involve taking over planes, in fact, you don't even need to be on a plane, or at the airport. Quite simply, you stake out a nice quiet bit of dirt miles away from anywhere, but under a civil aviation flight path, set up a man portable anti aircraft system, and shoot down the comercial jet of your choice. The technology and hardware is pretty freely available. Now... think for a second about how many miles of unmonitored, uninhabited semi desert and bushland there is under American domestic flightpaths, and then tell me with a straight face that its guys at the airport you have to worry about. Then of course, there's the simple alternative of bypassing airport security all together, and simply attacking the airport, like the failed attempt in Scotland a few years back. Airports, crowded with people, and very necessary to air travel. You'll have just as much effect in inspiring fear and terror in the general populace if they think they are likely to get bombed in the entry hall of any given international airport as you would by making them think their plane is likely to be bombed midflight. Possibly moreso, in fact, since most people realise the bad guys can't bomb EVERY flight leaving an airport, but they can sure take out a majority of the airport's passengers with a few well placed bombs or shooters in the flight terminal. I would be very surprised if we don't see an increase in this tactic in the next few years.
Make no mistake, the lack of significant Al Queda or other Islamic fundamentalist based terror attacks in the West in recent years has precisely zero to do with making people take their shoes off and get felt up at air port security barriers. It has everything to do with coalition presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and forensic economists allowing international police agencies to put a strangle hold on cash flow for terrorist groups' funding. If and when the extremists, of whatever flavour, work out how to bypass the various banking restrictions that are holding them up at the moment, you can expect significant attacks to start again, even if every single airline passenger is individually stripped, handcuffed and doussed in detol before being packed into an individual soundproof padded cell on the aeroplane.Umm...I was just asking what it is that you do for a living &/or hobby that you had a "team" whose specific task was to beat airline security.I was in the Army. When Sydney hosted the Olympics, a bunch of us from various corps went through various permutations of EOD training, so we could assess and clear bomb threats for the Olympics. The whole deal was called Op Gold en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gold_(Australia) As part of my duties, I got tasked with various aspects of the security for Charles Kingsford Smith Airport. So its a professional thing, its not something I do for a hobby.
www.smh.com.au/world/i-will-kill-you-all-at-least-35-die-in-moscow-airport-bombing-20110125-1a34c.html
Option 3... bomb the terminal and cut out defeating airport security all together.
Think I've mentioned before, but there are about a million ways to get harmful materials onto a plane without carrying them through a airport security scanner. There are also dozens of ways to defeat an airport scanner and carry bad stuff right past one. I have no problem with them providing token airport security to make the sheep feel better, but since its little more effective than a sign saying "no bombs allowed", why the heck they feel the have to dick people around and make them so uncomfortable into the bargain is quite beyond me.
What if somebody put something nasty in one of those? Would they even be able to see it through the tin?
However, that's all only relevent if one intends to carry something on board directly, in hand luggage. Back when I was part of the team working on Sydney's airport security for the Olympics, we decided far and away the easiest way to get something on board an aircraft is to have a non passenger carry it past the security barriers. Groundcrew and air crew have virtually unrestricted access to aircraft and can carry all sorts of things that passengers would not be allowed past security with. Especially if they are prepared to spread the task over several days or weeks, e.g. bring in the firing pin one day, the pistol frame another, barrel the next week, and the ammunition one round a day for several days.
One of the culminating points in our exercise back in 2000 was ti deliberately try to get things past security and onto aircraft. Our team managed to get knives and grenades onto aircraft without much hassle, and thats when the airport security guys actually knew about the exercise, and so were (theoretically) even more observant. Granted, this was before September 11, and all the subsequent hysterical security measures that have been brought in, but I remain confident that with adequate preparation I could get anything you want onto a plane without too much trouble.
The biggest flaw in 99% of attempts to get bad things onto aircraft is operational security, i.e. most of these attempts fail because the people attempting to get stuff on board are dumb enough to tell non-operation vital people about their plans, who then report them to security services. An adequately professional group, with adequate training and material, and, most important, the discipline to keep their mouths shut about it (which really is the biggest point) can bypass airport security really without much trouble.
Myself, and other people in the know predicted pretty much right after 9/11 (after the initial "no highrise building is safe, ZOMG!" period, to which I, as well as everyone else I know in the security community was effected by, wore off) that the serious players wouldn't try for a significant airline attack again, because the cost/benefit ratio in light of stricter scrutiny no longer made them effective targets. Much simpler to go for urban mass transit centres and high density tourist spots. And bugger me, the next 3 significant terrorist attacks were on what? Urban mass transit (London and Madrid) and high density tourism (Bali).
The current thinking in the community is still along those lines, and/or attack on significant civil infrastructure elements, like, say, an oil refinery or power station near a major urban centre.
If you are an issue motivated group, and you really, really want to take out a civil airliner (and this is the method that the various inteligence agencies and CT groups don't want people to think about) the easiest, simplest, most straight forward method doesn't involve breaching airport security, it doesn't involve taking over planes, in fact, you don't even need to be on a plane, or at the airport. Quite simply, you stake out a nice quiet bit of dirt miles away from anywhere, but under a civil aviation flight path, set up a man portable anti aircraft system, and shoot down the comercial jet of your choice. The technology and hardware is pretty freely available. Now... think for a second about how many miles of unmonitored, uninhabited semi desert and bushland there is under American domestic flightpaths, and then tell me with a straight face that its guys at the airport you have to worry about. Then of course, there's the simple alternative of bypassing airport security all together, and simply attacking the airport, like the failed attempt in Scotland a few years back. Airports, crowded with people, and very necessary to air travel. You'll have just as much effect in inspiring fear and terror in the general populace if they think they are likely to get bombed in the entry hall of any given international airport as you would by making them think their plane is likely to be bombed midflight. Possibly moreso, in fact, since most people realise the bad guys can't bomb EVERY flight leaving an airport, but they can sure take out a majority of the airport's passengers with a few well placed bombs or shooters in the flight terminal. I would be very surprised if we don't see an increase in this tactic in the next few years.
Make no mistake, the lack of significant Al Queda or other Islamic fundamentalist based terror attacks in the West in recent years has precisely zero to do with making people take their shoes off and get felt up at air port security barriers. It has everything to do with coalition presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and forensic economists allowing international police agencies to put a strangle hold on cash flow for terrorist groups' funding. If and when the extremists, of whatever flavour, work out how to bypass the various banking restrictions that are holding them up at the moment, you can expect significant attacks to start again, even if every single airline passenger is individually stripped, handcuffed and doussed in detol before being packed into an individual soundproof padded cell on the aeroplane.
www.smh.com.au/world/i-will-kill-you-all-at-least-35-die-in-moscow-airport-bombing-20110125-1a34c.html
Option 3... bomb the terminal and cut out defeating airport security all together.
and then there was this conversation in this thread
I've said it before, I'll say it again, airport TSA search procedures serve NO practical purpose. They exist purely to be seen, as something to point to to reassure the travelling public.
Americans should protest these ridiculous excesses in the strongest possible terms. Not only is it against your constitution as unreasonable search and seisure, not only does it not achieve anything, but it is actively dangerous to the travellers' health!
On the face of it I understand why this woman was searched--as a disguise, someone intent on harm can't do much better than a very old very sick wheelchair-bound woman (or man, or crippled person, or pregnant woman). Years ago when my aunt was pregnant with her last child she was searched (but not strip-searched) at an airport to make sure she was actually pregnant. But really, this is just flat out excessive and this poor woman's privacy was completely violated. Realistically speaking a person is far more likely to actually BE disabled, pregnant, or in a wheelchair than they are to be strapped to a bomb. If you want to make sure the woman is genuinely disabled and not a faker carrying eighteen pounds of C-4, you don't have to make her strip off for a cavity search to do it.Indeed.
Further... if one REALLY wanted to get a quantity of C4 onto a comercial aircraft, there are significantly erasier ways to do it than disguising ones'self as a 95 year old wheelchairbound leukaemia patient.
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration ...“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” Koshetz told the paper.
Fuck off. TSA spokespeople don't have intelligence clearance. You're talking out of your arse.However, the person who told him what to say probably does.
Further... if one REALLY wanted to get a quantity of C4 onto a comercial aircraft, there are significantly erasier ways to do it than disguising ones'self as a 95 year old wheelchairbound leukaemia patient.
If there's someone who has several pounds of C4, wants to kill people, doesn't mind if they die in the process and is at an airport, the last thing you need to worry about is them getting on a plane.Indeed. As has been discussed elsewhere (and as recent events in Russia have shown) if one's intent is to kill a bunch of civilians in spectacular fashion, an airport departure hall on the outside of the security barrier is an excellent place to do so.
Outside my area, but there are apparently significant difficulties in gathering adequate, useful intel against these groups, and infiltration is even more difficult.
I think the best part is we have sophisticated detection devices, which we eschew in favour of public displays of "security."
In other words, we'd rather look safer than be safer.
I say safer because such devices are never completely foolproof. Besides, I doubt we'll ever be completely safe. Doesn't stop me from shopping, though. >.>
Never. Never, never never.
As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed.
The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above.
I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800.
Do enjoy your next flight.
Americans should protest these ridiculous excesses in the strongest possible terms. Not only is it against your constitution as unreasonable search and seisure, not only does it not achieve anything, but it is actively dangerous to the travellers' health!
Further... if one REALLY wanted to get a quantity of C4 onto a comercial aircraft, there are significantly erasier ways to do it than disguising ones'self as a 95 year old wheelchairbound leukaemia patient.
Fuck off. TSA spokespeople don't have intelligence clearance. You're talking out of your arse.
If there's someone who has several pounds of C4, wants to kill people, doesn't mind if they die in the process and is at an airport, the last thing you need to worry about is them getting on a plane.
I think they're going about this the wrong way. When did infiltrating terrorist groups stop being the way you stop them killing you? When did it become acceptable for a person to start hating Americans and obtain the means to kill them in the US or fly there, without virtually everyone in Langley knowing every move they make? In my view, if they're at that stage, it's a criminal failure on the part of some three-letter agency.
Forget all this bullshit with 'airport security' (and the GWOT, actually). Spend the money on intelligence guys and bribe money.
Forget all this bullshit with 'airport security' (and the GWOT, actually). Spend the money on intelligence guys and bribe money.
In other words, we'd rather look safer than be safer.
I say safer because such devices are never completely foolproof. Besides, I doubt we'll ever be completely safe. Doesn't stop me from shopping, though. >.>
Never. Never, never never.
As I've said elsewhere, if anyone really wants to bring down a civilian airliner, the easy way to do it is pick out a nice bit of vacant land a few kms from the airport, and bring down the aircraft of your choice while its climbing with one of these babies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse. Costs about 4 or 5 times the cost of an RPG 7. If your target country has significant unpatrolled sea and land borders, getting them in shouldn't be a problem. To bring down a 747 you might need half a dozen or so, but that shouldn't really be too much of a problem. Also particularly attractive about this method (to me at least) is there's a pretty good chance you can get away without being killed yourself. Best of all, if you do it to an aircraft leaving an airport near or in a significant population centre, you'll get lots of secondary casualties on the ground, and even more news coverage. Launch, watch the fireworks, then head for the nearest border, and you're home and hosed.
The only POSSIBLE reason to want to hijack an airliner from onboard is because you want to change its destination and/or make some sort of statement, which is what 9/11 was. If it was simply about bringing down aircraft in spectacular fashion, see above.
I know about this technique, I know the security agencies, including the TSA, know about this technique (not least because I wrote a report on it as a possibility in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics) and you better believe the bad guys sure as shit know about this method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#Use_in_alleged_plot_against_Air_Force_One. In fact, according to some people, they've already been successful with this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800.
Do enjoy your next flight.
