Truth News Australia

TSA Tacitly Admits $1 Billion Dollar Body Scanner System Is Critically Flawed

09 March 2012 (Original: 2012-03-08) | Permalink | comments: 1
By Paul Joseph Watson

Share |
Categories: [ Full Body Scanners ]

The Transportation Security Administration has tacitly admitted that the critical flaws brought to light in a viral You Tube video yesterday which exposed how airport body scanners could easily be beaten are accurate, rendering the entire $1 billion dollar program virtually worthless.

Engineer Jon Corbett of the popular blog TSA Out of Our Pants! posted a video yesterday that demonstrates how the TSA’s radiation firing body scanners can easily be bypassed. The clip has already received over 700,000 views.

The video shows Corbett carrying a metal case through the scanner, away from his body in his side pocket. Corbett explains that because metallic objects appear as black on the image the scanners produce, the machines do not pick up such objects if they are obscured by the background, which is also black.

The video went viral and despite You Tube slapping an age-restricted censor on the clip, the story was picked up by dozens of major news outlets, forcing the TSA to respond.

On the TSA’s official blog, the agency attempts to discredit Corbett by describing him as “some guy” who launched a “crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.”

However, nowhere in the response does the TSA actually address or attempt to disprove Corbett’s demonstration that the body scanner can be easily fooled.

In labeling Corbett’s successful effort to evade the body scanner as “crude,” the TSA has inadvertently admitted that its $1 billion dollar body scanner system can be defeated by “crude” methods.

Body scanners are “one layer of our 20 layers of security,” the blog states, before adding, “our nation’s aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports.”

Obviously, it is not safer if these 600 units can all be rendered useless merely by placing an object inside a pocket sown on to the side of a shirt.

Illustrating how insufficient the TSA’s response is in disproving Corbett’s evidence, the comments in response to the blog post completely savage the federal agency.

“Beautiful, so instead of posting anything to refute the video and/or support it. You give us the old soft shoe and call it good. Sorry, not good enough, if someone has figured out how to bypass the screening. Then this is a cause for concern,” writes one.

“So, TSA detects an artfully concealed item, and it makes that detection a part of its weekly brag report, saying “look how wonderful AIT is, it caught this”. But then when ordinary people find a way to smuggle contraband past a checkpoint, TSA’s response is “oh, that’s not important, because we have other layers, too. Either AIT is important, or it’s not. Which is it, TSA?” asks another.

“This was such a carefully worded blog post that one can safely conclude that the vulnerability described in the video is true,” adds another.

Almost all of the 60 odd comments made in response to the TSA blog post are critical of the agency and express the belief that Corbett’s video has completely destroyed the justification behind body scanners.

During a press conference yesterday, Janet Napolitano was asked about the viral video but stated she had no knowledge of it. Napolitano has probably heard of it by now given the fact that it could represent the final nail in the coffin for the TSA’s expensive, unpopular and completely useless body scanner program.

Comments

Conductor Hamano is extremely addicted to murano glass pendants radio controlled gadgets, becoming a child advocate. And lastly she gets motivated by chilling together with her family and friends.

By shell pendants on 2012 04 24 - 13:08:01

In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.

You are currently visiting as a guest, to login or register please click here.


RSS feed icon

Recent Comments

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.

So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.


1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?

2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?

3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?


If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.

Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.

By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hereward Fenton
Hereward Fenton

Categories