TSA now loses fake bomb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


[ Unusual from France; expected from TSA. -Ed. ]

Newark Airport Screeners Lose Fake Bomb
Dec 15, 1:33 PM (ET)
By WAYNE PARRY

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty International
Airport spotted - and then lost - a fake bomb planted in luggage by a
supervisor during a training exercise.

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a fake
bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made it onto an
Amsterdam-bound flight. It was recovered by airport security officials
in Amsterdam when the flight landed several hours later.

"This really underscores the importance of the TSA's ongoing training
exercises," said Ann Davis, a spokeswoman for the Transportation
Security Administration, the agency responsible for screening
passengers and baggage for weapons and explosives. "At no time did the
bag pose a threat and at no time was anyone in danger."

Earlier this month, French authorities lost a bag containing real
explosives that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs. That led
French authorities to prohibit using live explosives in future tests.

The incident at Newark Liberty International was only the latest
embarrassment for screeners at one of the airports from which some of
the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers took off.

In October, The Star-Ledger of Newark reported that screeners missed
one in four fake explosives and weapons in secret weekly tests
conducted throughout the summer by TSA agents.

In Tuesday night's test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the bomb,
which was designed to resemble the plastic explosive Semtex, inside a
bag that was put through screening machines, Davis said.

A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers somehow lost
track of the bag, which was then loaded onto a Continental Airlines
flight.

Despite the incident, no flights were delayed and the terminal
remained open.

Davis said the TSA is still investigating how screeners lost track of
the bag.

"It was an error that the bag was not intercepted before it was
loaded," she said, adding it was too soon to say if anyone would be
disciplined for the failure.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBwJo/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAp6rAJ99wv8uoQ1CPYFMK+wtXZhli3/NAgCdGbCq
DaW5hTGmOUWP+c90Qu8NtOQ=
=+F/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a
fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made
it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane's cargo
hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because
it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening
process in a controlled manner.

What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it
made it through screening.

Was a luggage tag printed for it - is that how it ended up on that
particular flight? If so, why put a tag on it? That would be just
asking for trouble. Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of
luggage for just this reason.

If it had no tag - then how did it end up on that flight?

In Tuesday night's test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the
bomb, which was designed to resemble the plastic explosive
Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines,
Davis said.

A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers
somehow lost track of the bag, which was then loaded
onto a Continental Airlines flight.

Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger's
bag? And they DIDN'T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the
pax name or flight number? Could they be that stupid?

Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated?

Can't they go to the airport's lost and found, grab any old unclaimed
bag, fill it with crap - and the fake bomb - and then use that as
their standard test item?

Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag
from time-to-time? (or not. It's not like there's a high retention
of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become
familiar to what the standard test bag looks like).

I'm surprised this incident didn't trigger a hysteria-induced airport
closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a
fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made
it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane's cargo
hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because
it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening
process in a controlled manner.

What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it
made it through screening.

Was a luggage tag printed for it - is that how it ended up on that
particular flight? If so, why put a tag on it? That would be just
asking for trouble. Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of
luggage for just this reason.

If it had no tag - then how did it end up on that flight?

In Tuesday night's test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the
bomb, which was designed to resemble the plastic explosive
Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines,
Davis said.

A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers
somehow lost track of the bag, which was then loaded
onto a Continental Airlines flight.

Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger's
bag? And they DIDN'T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the
pax name or flight number? Could they be that stupid?

Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated?

Can't they go to the airport's lost and found, grab any old unclaimed
bag, fill it with crap - and the fake bomb - and then use that as
their standard test item?

Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag
from time-to-time? (or not. It's not like there's a high retention
of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become
familiar to what the standard test bag looks like).

I'm surprised this incident didn't trigger a hysteria-induced airport
closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

New TSA Sign;

ATTENTION TERRORISTS; Your weapons may be delayed. If lost, Please see the
Baggage Claim Attendant.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Some Guy wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a
fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made
it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane's cargo
hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because
it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening
process in a controlled manner.

What we don't know is if this happened at the security
check-in, where they check carry-on baggage, or if this happened after
luggage was checked in. What make this newsworthy, is that TSA misplaced
it ALTOGETHER. regardless of the fact that it was escorted through the
screening process, it was missed. They caught it, but then lost the
location of the bag. The people who conducted the test knew it was fake.
But regardless, screeners should have caught it, and dealt with it.
It was missed.

What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it
made it through screening.

Was a luggage tag printed for it - is that how it ended up on that
particular flight? If so, why put a tag on it? That would be just
asking for trouble. Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of
luggage for just this reason.

If it had no tag - then how did it end up on that flight?

Very good questions. But if the screeners didn't know of such a
test happening (which they shouldn't), it could easily make it on a
flight. But that would raise the question of why it would make it on a
flight with no tags at all. Test or no test, it should have halted the
screening process until authorities could come down (including those
conducting the test), gone through the entire process of diffusing the
bomb, and have given an all clear. This really calls into question the
training process of the TSA.

In Tuesday night's test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the
bomb, which was designed to resemble the plastic explosive
Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines,
Davis said.

A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers
somehow lost track of the bag, which was then loaded
onto a Continental Airlines flight.

Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger's
bag? And they DIDN'T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the
pax name or flight number? Could they be that stupid?

You really don't want me to answer that, do you?

Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated?

Simple. It's the TSA.

Can't they go to the airport's lost and found, grab any old unclaimed
bag, fill it with crap - and the fake bomb - and then use that as
their standard test item?

Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag
from time-to-time? (or not. It's not like there's a high retention
of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become
familiar to what the standard test bag looks like).

I'm surprised this incident didn't trigger a hysteria-induced airport
closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

You're right. It should have, let alone any flights at or near
the destination airports the flight containing the fake bomb would have
been on. Since they misplaced that baggage, it could have been on any
flight leaving EWR. That would mean tracking down every flight that
left after they realised it was missing. And not knowing the 'time'
left on the bomb before it 'blew' any destination of the flights
leaving EWR would have been vulnerable.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBwfBMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhdXAJ9I/SC2ovtRlzqZqmzxUQGX7vX0kwCgjQLW
5gEAlNbwpeUr38H+zjMc3VA=
=SPyA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Some Guy wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a
fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made
it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane's cargo
hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because
it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening
process in a controlled manner.

What we don't know is if this happened at the security
check-in, where they check carry-on baggage, or if this happened after
luggage was checked in. What make this newsworthy, is that TSA misplaced
it ALTOGETHER. regardless of the fact that it was escorted through the
screening process, it was missed. They caught it, but then lost the
location of the bag. The people who conducted the test knew it was fake.
But regardless, screeners should have caught it, and dealt with it.
It was missed.

What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it
made it through screening.

Was a luggage tag printed for it - is that how it ended up on that
particular flight? If so, why put a tag on it? That would be just
asking for trouble. Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of
luggage for just this reason.

If it had no tag - then how did it end up on that flight?

Very good questions. But if the screeners didn't know of such a
test happening (which they shouldn't), it could easily make it on a
flight. But that would raise the question of why it would make it on a
flight with no tags at all. Test or no test, it should have halted the
screening process until authorities could come down (including those
conducting the test), gone through the entire process of diffusing the
bomb, and have given an all clear. This really calls into question the
training process of the TSA.

In Tuesday night's test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the
bomb, which was designed to resemble the plastic explosive
Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines,
Davis said.

A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers
somehow lost track of the bag, which was then loaded
onto a Continental Airlines flight.

Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger's
bag? And they DIDN'T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the
pax name or flight number? Could they be that stupid?

You really don't want me to answer that, do you?

Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated?

Simple. It's the TSA.

Can't they go to the airport's lost and found, grab any old unclaimed
bag, fill it with crap - and the fake bomb - and then use that as
their standard test item?

Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag
from time-to-time? (or not. It's not like there's a high retention
of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become
familiar to what the standard test bag looks like).

I'm surprised this incident didn't trigger a hysteria-induced airport
closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

You're right. It should have, let alone any flights at or near
the destination airports the flight containing the fake bomb would have
been on. Since they misplaced that baggage, it could have been on any
flight leaving EWR. That would mean tracking down every flight that
left after they realised it was missing. And not knowing the 'time'
left on the bomb before it 'blew' any destination of the flights
leaving EWR would have been vulnerable.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBwfBMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhdXAJ9I/SC2ovtRlzqZqmzxUQGX7vX0kwCgjQLW
5gEAlNbwpeUr38H+zjMc3VA=
=SPyA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----