Skip to comments.Mother Of Child With Cerebral Palsy Says TSA Treated Daughter "Like Osama Bin Laden"
Posted on 04/26/2012 1:39:22 PM PDT by KeyLargo
Mother Of Child With Cerebral Palsy Says TSA Treated Daughter "Like Osama Bin Laden"
A TSA agent at JFK "started screaming at me and cursing me and threatening me," says a Long Island man who used his cell phone to videotape what he describes as an unnecessarily "aggressive" security screening of his developmentally disabled daughter. Dr. Joshua Frank, a Long Island pediatrician, is the father of Dina Frank, a girl with cerebral palsy who walks with crutches and leg braces. She can't pass through metal detectors for this reason, and is usually patted down by security agents, a procedure that frightens her. And the Frank family tells The Daily that on Monday the procedure was particularly harrowing.
(Excerpt) Read more at gothamist.com ...
“As Big Bird is my witness, I thought pumpkins could fly!
Please don’t beat me anymore ... “ Dina Frank
Incredible, ain’t it? A little girl with a serious, disabling disease and they think she might be a terrorist.
Truthfully, the last time I flew was pre 9/11. And it wasn’t a pleasant experience then. I can only imagine what it is now.
Between the TSA, the rudeness of most (not all) airline employees and the price...why take the chance? Heck I could be treated like a criminal by the TSA or left sitting on the tarmac for hours. Being the customer in this situation seems to be a moot point.
I feel so very sorry for the little girl in this story.
In Chechnya, Iraq and Israel, there have been several incidents of suicide bombs carried by disabled people. If we suddenly stopped screening certain passengers, they would no doubt use it to their advantage.
I think the TSA is incompetent and we definitely need better methods and more competent screeners. More behavior profiling and bomb sniffing equipment instead of groping.
Remember, it only takes a high explosive charge the size of a white-out bottle to bring down a plane with hundreds of people. Everything going on a commercial plane must be screened for explosives and I think groping is less effective than dogs or sniffer machines.
I felt abused as well last weekend, being fully patted down because I was a blonde mama wearing a baby in a front pack. Only I was picked out as suspicious. The TSA agent was decent enough but the fact that I was wearing a baby was what made me suspicious, and I resent that very much. I was steaming angry with tears after it was over.
I see from your profile that you are an engineer. Can you explain to this dumb ol’ pilot how and explosive charge the size of a white out bottle can take down a whole airplane? Does it take out all the engines? Does it take off a wing?
I also see that you are an American by choice. Welcome! Come on down to Texas and learn more about our great country.
Yes, the American people just no longer have any common sense to speak of.
see!!!!!! and at 30,000 feet who knows what could happen!
Major US Airport To Evict TSA Screeners
Orlando Sanford International could prompt stampede of other opt-outs
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
One of Americas busiest airports, Orlando Sanford International, has announced it will opt out of using TSA workers to screen passengers, a move which threatens the highly unpopular federal agencys role in other airports across the nation.
The president of the airport said Tuesday that he would apply again to use private operators to screen passengers, using federal standards and oversight, reports the Miami Herald .
With Sanford International having originally been prevented by the TSA from opting out back in November 2010 when the federal agency froze the ability for airports to use their own private screeners, a law passed by the Senate last month  forces the TSA to reconsider applications.
West Yellowstone Airport in Montana has already replaced its TSA screeners with private security. Bert Mooney Airport, also in Montana, is attempting to do the same.
However, when Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a bill last year that would have outlawed invasive TSA pat downs, the feds threatened to implement a blockade  that would have imposed a de facto no fly zone over the lone star state.
This article is a lie. Orlando Sanford airport is not one of the busiest in the nation. Orlando International is. Orlando Sanford is KSFB. International is KMCO. Big difference.
Seeds everywhere, for one thing. And the pulp is really hard to wash out of your hair once it dries.
I haven’t flown since September 2001, and have no intention of doing so.
I actually always wanted to be a pilot but my vision is terrible. I never worked as an aircraft engineer but was always very interested in planes. Obviously nobody would release information that shows how much explosives are needed and where but here is why I think small explosives are so dangerous:
-An aircraft that flies to high altitude is basically a large cylindrical pressure vessel with comparatively very thin walls. The skin is 1-2mm, about as thick as a dime or quarter. The maximum pressure differential in flight is less than 10psi and airframes are typically pressure tested to only 150% of the maximum expected in flight. I don't know what the burst strength is but it cannot be much higher than 20psi for commercial airliners. Planes are designed to handle normal operating stresses and pressures at the lowest weight possible, not bombs. There is not much safety factor or overdesign in aircraft since weight is so crucial. Im sure you know that an airframe can be overstressed just by flying too aggressively.
-A bomb creates a local high pressure zone around it several times higher than 20psi. The velocity of the explosion is almost 30,000fps. At cruising altitude, the walls are already loaded and a high explosive placed at the exterior wall is guaranteed to punch through with some degree. A jagged hole at cruising speed can quickly begin to tear and disintegrate the plane. How big of a hole and how damaging it will be depends on many factors. It can also punch through the floor and spark the center fuel tank. I didn't say a tiny charge absolutely will take down a plane. I'm saying it can.
We already have seen a few incidents that prove how damaging explosives are:
-The Lockerbie bomb was only 300 grams of mainly RDX. That is about 200cc, the volume of a small 6.7oz cup of water. It is believed that the bomb was concealed inside a walkman tape player. However, the bomb was randomly placed in the cargo hold inside a suitcase and not at the wall. RDX produces incredible pressure up close but has a smaller blast radius than some other explosives. This was also a 747 and large planes have more room for expansion. Even so, the bomb instantly blew multiple holes in the side of the cargo hold, the bulkhead, the floor and the roof of the 747. The plane disintegrated seconds after. A bomb of this size can be fairly easily hidden INSIDE someones body. No gropers or scanners will see it.
- Ramzi Yousef placed a small liquid bomb on a Philippine Airlines 747. The exact quantity was not calculated like in Lockerbie but he claimed that it was only 1/10 of a bottle of contact lens cleaner. This is only 1 to 1.5oz and judging by how much less damage there was compared to Lockerbie, this is an accurate estimate. It was placed under a seat away from the exterior and closer to the center of the plane because his intent was to hit the center fuel tank. It blew a man-sized hole in the floor, cut the control cables in the ceiling and completely blew off the lower half of the man sitting there. The plane did not go down because he miscalculated the location of the tank, placed it in the wrong seat and it was far from the blast radius. It was also was too far inside to punch an exterior wall.
A whiteout bottle is about 1oz. IMO, a crude high explosive of that size can bring down a plane under certain conditions. A shaped charge of that size most definitely will.
Nicely explained. I offer as a counter argument Aloha Airlines flight 243 of April 28, 1988.
When overstressed as a whole with uniform exterior/interior pressures, the fuselage has breakaway points that are designed to allow the plane to remain in flight after the overpressure is explosively released. The structure adjacent to these points is reinforced and designed to keep the plane structurally intact and relatively controllable at a designed airspeed. You can see in this photo how the break was relatively symmetrical with respect to two axes, balancing the forces. It was also opposite the tail control surfaces and this would allow the greatest possible leverage to keep the plane level against the forces generated by this break. If the moment (force X distance from axis) generated by an aerodynamic disturbance is greater than the maximum moment from a fully deflected control surface, you lose control in that axis.
A bomb creates a local pressure at a random or specifically selected point. The break is unlikely to be symmetrical or surrounded by reinforcement. The holes created by the Lockerbie bomb were far smaller than on this flight, but proved instantly catastrophic.
Sir, you need to get out of the environmental business and become an aeronautical engineer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.