TSA Security Manual comprimised. 15 days later...

[PatekPhilippe]

Interesting thought for discussion.

On December 10th it was discovered that the TSA's security manual was posted online for anyone to access...how long it was available and what specific information was comprimised is a point of contention but I submit this.

Al Qaeda is known for it's computer experts and more than likely they found this manual online. I will wager my next paycheck they adapted their attack on December 25th to the specific security procedures addressing searching individual persons.

What do others think about this hypothesis?

 

[Xenophon]

Could be, who knows.

And its not an attack, its an attempt at a 'man caused disaster' according to St Barry of the buffalo balls.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It all makes perfect sense to me now.

Our intelligence community knew something was going to happen. They were aware of what was going on in Yemen and were aware that airliners would be used in an attack.

Let's look at the clues released to the media.
26 September 2009. Yemeni Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed sent back to Yemen from Gitmo.
10 December 2009. TSA Airport security manual reported compromised.
17 December 2009. Cruise missile strike on Yemeni Al Qaeda terrorist training camps.
25 December 2009. Terrorist attack on U.S. bound flight by Al Qaeda member trained in Yemen.

The guy sent back in September was either a double agent or a dupe who was tracked to the terrorist camps location. How long was that manual available online? They had to have known something was up otherwise why launch a cruise missile strike at Yemeni Al Qaeda terror training camps on THE 17TH. Here's why...
Cops fear 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners | The Sun |News

Our intelligence community knew what was up but couldn't do anything to stop it so they attacked Al Qaeda in Yemen in an effort to kill the would be bomber....instead of looking at what sort of individuals had approved visas to the U.S. The panty bomber was radicalized IN BRITAIN, REJECTED FOR A BRITISH VISA AND ON A TERROR WATCH LIST.

DHS FAILED. Napolitano should resign.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I would like to see the PDB's from November and December......THESE MOTHERFUCKERS KNEW!!!!!!! AND FAILED TO PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."

What the fuck is going on in Washington!!!!!!!!!!!

Cruise Missiles Strike Yemen - ABC News

 

[JW Frogen]

This is the dichotomy of democracy, we are open and free; we like to speak our minds. Those who want to kill us both hate that and use that wonderous freedom.

But remember, most of all they want to kill that wonder of freedom. Their God told them it is all for the best.

Stay open, free, speak your mind, but you really don't need to post airline security measures on the Internet, the only people who will read that are Al Qeada or fat 40 year old men still living with their mothers.

 

[strollingbones]

This is the dichotomy of democracy, we are open and free; we like to speak our minds. Those who want to kill us both hate that and use that wonderous freedom.

But remember, most of all they want to kill that wonder of freedom. Their God told them it is all for the best.

Stay open, free, speak your mind, but you really don't need to post airline security measures on the Internet, the only people who will read that are Al Qeada or fat 40 year old men still living with their mothers.

this is what has always troubled me about the 9/11 terrorists...they had lived in florida for 2 years ...they had tasted freedom...drank deeply from the cup of freedom and yet rejected freedom. a concept i just cant wrap my head around....rejecting freedom...for a religion.

 

[strollingbones]

this has always been the problem with the security measures enacted by the government....all the agencies are ran as individual units ...they should be combined with one clearinghouse for information...remember the 9/11 terrorists could have been stopped too....

but yes she should resign.

 

[strollingbones]

i am always amazed at the lax security in areas.....lets take dams for example....now i would think that would be a highly secured area....from the signs around it....it sure sounded like they would do something.....if i walked a few more feet...well apparently it was not enough...so i went closer...passed the do not enter signs.....the only fence was more a suggestion of staying behind it...you could easily walk around it..towards the main operation building of the dam....o it was an earthen dam...which we drove across....no search...we just drove right across it....now i wonder how many people would die if that dam were suddenly broken?

we got no security people....you people....swatch boy that includes you....bitch about the government not be trusted to do this and that...yet suddenly you expect them to provide 'security'

isnt the defination of terrorism....a RANDOM act of terror?

 

[JW Frogen]

this is what has always troubled me about the 9/11 terrorists...they had lived in florida for 2 years ...they had tasted freedom...drank deeply from the cup of freedom and yet rejected freedom. a concept i just cant wrap my head around....rejecting freedom...for a religion.

Freedom implies risk, the chance, perhaps even probability, of failure. Freedom is a wonderful imperfection.

Those who kill under the name of religion seek certainty and perfection (even if it is a fairy tale), they need an infidel to blame their failure on, and they fear freedom, because freedom demands the truth that any failure is your own.

The servants of Allah are really the slaves of their own fear.

They dare not be real men or women, they dare not be free.

 

[Ravi]

Since no one has ever looked in my panties at the airport or felt me up in *ahem* a couple of places it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that sewing something in to your underwear is a feasible way to get a bomb on board.

So we should fire someone that is the head of a department that oversees waay too many agencies? I don't think so. Better the Republicans stop stonewalling Obama's appointees and perhaps divide homeland security into more logically manageable entities.

 

[Si modo]

Since no one has ever looked in my panties at the airport or felt me up in *ahem* a couple of places it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that sewing something in to your underwear is a feasible way to get a bomb on board.

So we should fire someone that is the head of a department that oversees waay too many agencies? I don't think so. Better the Republicans stop stonewalling Obama's appointees and perhaps divide homeland security into more logically manageable entities.

Eleven months later and Obama STILL doesn't have a TSA director? That speaks volumes to his priorities.

 

[Ravi]

Since no one has ever looked in my panties at the airport or felt me up in *ahem* a couple of places it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that sewing something in to your underwear is a feasible way to get a bomb on board.

So we should fire someone that is the head of a department that oversees waay too many agencies? I don't think so. Better the Republicans stop stonewalling Obama's appointees and perhaps divide homeland security into more logically manageable entities.

Eleven months later and Obama STILL doesn't have a TSA director? That speaks volumes to his priorities.

He has one. The Republicans won't let the man be confirmed.

So you must be one of those that blames 9/11 on Bush. Interesting.

 

[Si modo]

Since no one has ever looked in my panties at the airport or felt me up in *ahem* a couple of places it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that sewing something in to your underwear is a feasible way to get a bomb on board.

So we should fire someone that is the head of a department that oversees waay too many agencies? I don't think so. Better the Republicans stop stonewalling Obama's appointees and perhaps divide homeland security into more logically manageable entities.

Eleven months later and Obama STILL doesn't have a TSA director? That speaks volumes to his priorities.

He has one. The Republicans won't let the man be confirmed.

So you must be one of those that blames 9/11 on Bush. Interesting.

Obviously he does NOT have one. Eleven months? Unacceptable. But it speaks volumes about Obama's priorities.

 

[Ravi]

Republicans can do no wrong, can they Queasy?

Why don't you call De Mint and tell him to quit being an asshole...

 

[Si modo]

Republicans can do no wrong, can they Queasy?

Why don't you call De Mint and tell him to quit being an asshole...

Perhaps because I don't think TSA employees whould be unionized.

The burden is on Obama to get a director. He hasn't managed to do so. But, we have second and even third attempts at other appointees from the administration in other areas where ease of appointment was questionable.

Not in transportation safety, though. Eleven months.

 

[Ravi]

So you agree that losing a few planes is a good price to pay to keep from confirming someone that supports collective bargaining.

Got it.

Don't whine when a plane blows up.

 

[Si modo]

So you agree that losing a few planes is a good price to pay to keep from confirming someone that supports collective bargaining.

Got it.

Don't whine when a plane blows up.

I don't agree with non sequiturs. My mind doesn't work in illogical spin.

 

[Ravi]

So you agree that losing a few planes is a good price to pay to keep from confirming someone that supports collective bargaining.

Got it.

Don't whine when a plane blows up.

I don't agree with non sequiturs. My mind doesn't work in illogical spin.

It follows...you'd deny someone that supports collective bargaining at the risk of national security.

You should familiarize yourself with the meaning of terms before you sprinkle them in your posts.

 

[Si modo]

So you agree that losing a few planes is a good price to pay to keep from confirming someone that supports collective bargaining.

Got it.

Don't whine when a plane blows up.

I don't agree with non sequiturs. My mind doesn't work in illogical spin.

It follows...you'd deny someone that supports collective bargaining at the risk of national security. ....

Really? I don't see unionization as a solution to preventing terrorists with bombs on planes. I don't think in non sequiturs either, as I said.

.... You should familiarize yourself with the meaning of terms before you sprinkle them in your posts.

Your unintentional irony makes me laugh.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

i am always amazed at the lax security in areas.....lets take dams for example....now i would think that would be a highly secured area....from the signs around it....it sure sounded like they would do something.....if i walked a few more feet...well apparently it was not enough...so i went closer...passed the do not enter signs.....the only fence was more a suggestion of staying behind it...you could easily walk around it..towards the main operation building of the dam....o it was an earthen dam...which we drove across....no search...we just drove right across it....now i wonder how many people would die if that dam were suddenly broken?

we got no security people....you people....swatch boy that includes you....bitch about the government not be trusted to do this and that...yet suddenly you expect them to provide 'security'

isnt the defination of terrorism....a RANDOM act of terror?

You will get no argument from me with respect to the points you made bones...but let me add this. In this day and age we have been at this terrorist campaign for 8+ years. One would think that we would at least have the most vulnerable parts of our transit system under a security blanket tighter than Dick's hatband. ALL THE SIGNS and INFORMATION were right there yet no one was able to put the pieces together....AGAIN!