Saturday, February 28, 2015

TSA Issues Secret Warning

Exclusive: TSA Issues Secret Warning on ‘Catastrophic’ Threat to Aviation

Featured photo - Exclusive: TSA Issues Secret Warning on ‘Catastrophic’ Threat to Aviation
Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
The Transportation Security Administration said it is unlikely to detect and unable to extinguish what an FBI report called “the greatest potential incendiary threat to aviation,” according to a classified document obtained by The Intercept. Yet despite that warning, sources said TSA is not adequately preparing to respond to the threat.
Thermite — a mixture of rust and aluminum powder — could be used against a commercial aircraft, TSA warned in a Dec. 2014 document, marked secret [PDF here]. “The ignition of a thermite-based incendiary device on an aircraft at altitude could result in catastrophic damage and the death of every person onboard,” the advisory said.
TSA said it is unlikely to spot an easy-to-assemble thermite-based incendiary device during security screening procedures, and the use of currently available extinguishers carried on aircrafts would create a violent reaction. The TSA warning is based on FBI testing done in 2011, and a subsequent report.
A thermite device, though difficult to ignite, would “produce toxic gasses, which can act as nerve poison, as well as a thick black smoke that will significantly inhibit any potential for in-flight safety officers to address the burn.”
TSA warned federal air marshals not to use customary methods of extinguishing fires — the water or halon fire extinguishers currently found on most aircraft — which would make the reaction worse, creating toxic fumes. Instead, air marshals are told to “recognize a thermite ignition” — but TSA has provided no training or guidance on how to do so, according to multiple sources familiar with the issue.
TSA circulated these Dec. 2014 materials through briefings, according to sources familiar with the issue, but did not offer up guidance on what to do with this information, and equipment that could mitigate this threat, like specific dry chemical extinguishers, has not been provided. According to the TSA advisory, federal air marshals and other on-flight officers should: recognize a thermite ignition, advise the captain immediately, ensure the individual who ignited the device is “rendered inoperable,” and move passengers away from the affected area.
“We’re supposed to brief our [federal air marshals] to identify a thermite ignition — but they tell us nothing,” said one current TSA official, who asked not to be named because the official is not authorized to speak to the press. “So our guys are Googling, ‘What does thermite look like? How do you extinguish thermite fires?’ This is not at all helpful.”
Several aviation officials, who also asked not be named, confirmed they had been briefed on the threat, but given no information or training on identifying thermite ignition. “They say to identify something we don’t know how to identify and say there is nothing we can do,” one federal air marshal said. “So basically, we hope it’s placed somewhere it does minimal damage, but basically we’re [screwed].”
Aviation security officials who spoke with The Intercept said TSA floods its employees with intelligence products from other agencies on various types of threats, but does not tell its employees what, if anything, to do about this threat. “You’re signing off on this saying you’ve received this briefing,” a former transportation security official said. “This covers their ass in case something happens, they can say, ‘We shared our intel.’”
“As a general matter, DHS, the FBI and other partners in aviation security regularly share information on potential threats affecting air travel safety,” S.Y. Lee, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, told The Intercept in a statement. “This information is shared in a timely and consistent fashion. When relevant and actionable information is developed, we work to identify countermeasures to mitigate the threat.”
The TSA bulletin was distributed by the agency’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis in response to a Dec. 10 classified 29-page FBI Intelligence Assessment titled, “Threat Assessment of Viable Incendiary Devices to Passengers and Aircraft.” A copy of that report was also obtained by The Intercept.
According to the FBI’s description of their tests, thermite devices “spew molten metal and hot gasses” and can potentially “burn through steel and every other material” on the aircraft.
“Since 9/11/01, coordination between public safety, aviation, and national security focused agencies occurs on a continuous and collaborative basis to identify and neutralize threats to aviation safety,” the FBI said in a statement to The Intercept. “While often this analysis is done regardless of the specific threat environment, we nonetheless work closely with aviation security experts regularly to examine all potential vulnerabilities. Information is then shared immediately with those responsible for aviation security for appropriate security enhancement considerations.”
Despite the TSA warning, and FBI report, how much of a threat thermite represents to aviation security is up for debate.
“Available reporting at this classification level, however, does not indicate any extremist interest in thermite to target aircraft,” the FBI report said.
A source with knowledge of current threats to aviation said other intelligence gained from safe houses overseas points to greater interest, not in thermite, but in other types of incendiary materials.
Jimmie Oxley, a professor of chemistry at the University of Rhode Island, and an expert in explosives and explosives detection, said thermite — though a theoretical threat — seemed an unlikely candidate to slip through security, particularly since the would-be terrorist would also have to carry an igniter. “You’ve got to get a pound of something that is a really thick mass through security without anyone noticing,” she said. “I find that hard to believe.”
The problem is one of practicalities, said Oxley, who has worked with the FBI and other federal agencies on explosives testing, but was not aware of the specific TSA or FBI reports on thermite obtained by The Intercept. If the hope were to burn a hole through the aircraft, then the thermite would have to be placed on the floor, and then there’s still no guarantee it would take down the aircraft.
Setting off thermite is also impractical, according to Oxley. “Somebody has to give you time to play on the plane,” she said. “Like with the shoe bomber, people do notice if you’re doing something weird in this day and age.”
While declining to address thermite specifically, Lee, the Homeland Security spokesman, insisted that the aviation security system is robust: “Today, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen, including: intelligence gathering and analysis, cross-checking passenger manifests against watchlists, thorough screening at checkpoints, random canine team screening at airports, reinforced cockpit doors, Federal Air Marshals, armed pilots and a vigilant public. In combination, these layers provide enhanced security creating a much stronger and protected transportation system for the traveling public. TSA continually assesses and evaluates the current threat environment and will adjust security measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of aviation security without unnecessary disruption to travelers.”
- Sharon Weinberger contributed to this article.
Photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
* This article has been updated to include comment by the FBI that was provided to The Intercept after publication.
Email the author: jana.winter@theintercept.com

Another Record: $4.235 Per Pound for Ground Beef

Another Record: $4.235 Per Pound for Ground Beef

February 26, 2015 - 9:12 AM
cows, beef, farm
Cattle on a farm near Jerome, Idaho. (AP Photo/Mitchell Schmidt)
(CNSNews.com) - The average price of a pound of ground beef climbed to another record high -- $4.235 per pound -- in the United States in January, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In August 2014, the average price for a pound of all types of ground beef topped $4 for the first time, hitting $4.013, according to the BLS. 

In September, the average price jumped to $4.096 per pound; in October, the average price climbed to $4.154 per pound; and in November, the average price climbed to $4.201 per pound. In December, the price declined slightly to $4.156 per pound. But in January 2015,ground beef hit the highest price ever recorded at $4.235 per pound.
A year ago, in January 2014, the average price for a pound of ground beef was $3.467 per pound. Since then, the average price has increased 22.2 percent in one year.
ground beef graph
Five years ago, in January 2010, the average price of a pound of ground beef was $2.279, according to the BLS. The price has since climbed by $1.956 per pound, or 85.8 percent.
The overall Consumer Price Index measures the relative change in the prices of a basket of goods and services relative to a basis of 100.  Subordinate indexes measure the relative change in price for individual goods or services or categories of goods and services.
While the price of ground beef hit a record high in January, the CPI went down. “The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) declined 0.7 percent in January on a seasonally adjusted basis,” the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. “Over the last 12 months, the all items index decreased 0.1 percent before seasonal adjustment.”
“The food index was unchanged in January after rising through all of 2014,” states BLS. “Four of the six major grocery store food groups declined in January. The fruits and vegetables index fell 0.9 percent, with the indexes for fresh fruits and fresh vegetables both declining.

"The dairy and related products index also fell 0.9 percent, its largest decline since April 2012. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs fell slightly in January, decreasing 0.1 percent despite the index for beef and veal rising 0.1 percent,” it states.
“The largest increase was posted by the meats, poultry, fish, and eggs group, which rose 8.7 percent with the beef and veal index increasing 19.0 percent,” states BLS.
The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.


CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. 
CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure.

Why Bibi’s Speech Matters

Why Bibi’s Speech Matters


Column: It exposes the Iran deal as indefensible—and Obama's politics as bankrupt
BY:

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is indefensible. The White House knows it. That is why President Obama does not want to subject an agreement to congressional approval, why critics of the deal are dismissed as warmongers, and why the president, his secretary of state, and his national security adviser have spent several weeks demonizing the prime minister of Israel for having the temerity to accept an invitation by the U.S. Congress to deliver a speech on a subject of existential import for his small country. These tactics distract public attention. They turn a subject of enormous significance to American foreign policy into a petty personal drama. They prevent us from discussing what America is about to give away.
And America is about to give away a lot. This week the AP reported on what an agreement with Iran might look like: sanctions relief in exchange for promises to slow down Iranian centrifuges for 10 years. At which point the Iranians could manufacture a bomb—assuming they hadn’t produced one in secret. Iran would get international legitimacy, assurance that military intervention was not an option, and no limitations on its ICBM programs, its support for international terrorism, its enrichment of plutonium, its widespread human rights violations, and its campaign to subvert or co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. Then it can announce itself as the first Shiite nuclear power.
And America? Liberals would flatter themselves for avoiding a war. Obama wouldn’t have to worry about the Iranians testing a nuke for the duration of his presidency. And a deal would be a step toward the rapprochement with Iran that he has sought throughout his years in office. The EU representative to the talks, for example, says a nuclear agreement “could open the way for a normal diplomatic relation” between Iran and the West, and could present “the opportunity for shaping a different regional framework in the Middle East.” A regional framework, let it be said, that would leave American interests at risk, Israel one bomb away from a second Holocaust, nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, and Islamic theocrats in charge of a large part of a strategic and volatile region.
I feel safer already.
Close to a decade of negotiations meant to end the Iranian nuclear program is about to culminate in the legitimization of that program and an enriched—in both senses of the word—empowered, and no less hostile Iran. Our government and the media that so often resembles its propaganda organ will attempt to characterize this colossal failure of nerve as a personal victory for a lame duck president and a milestone in international relations. It is important that they lose this battle, that the Iran deal is revealed to the world for the capitulation that it is, that the dangers of sub-letting the Middle East to the Koranic scholars of Qom and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are given expression, not only for substantive reasons of policy and security but also because the way in which the advocates of détente have behaved has been reprehensible.
What the opponents of a bad deal with Iran have witnessed over the last few months is the transference of Obama’s domestic political strategies to the international stage. A senior administration official is on record likening an Iranian nuclear agreement to Obamacare, and the comparison makes sense not only in the relative importance of the two policies to this president, not only because both policies are terrible and carry within them unforeseen consequences that will not be manifest for years, but also because of the way opponents of both policies are treated by the White House. If they are not ignored or dismissed, their motives are impugned. They are attacked personally, bullied, made examples of.
The alternative to a bad deal is not a better deal or tougher sanctions, Obama says, but war: “Congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened, and Congress will have to own that as well, and that will have to be debated by the American people.” The opponents of a nuclear Iran aren’t sincere, Obama explained to Senate Democrats last month, but are merely acting at the behest of their (Jewish) donors. Congress has no role to play in either approving of or enforcing a deal with Iran, John Kerry says, because any attempt to strengthen America’s hand or verify that Iran is in compliance would be like “throwing a grenade” into the meeting room.
As for Netanyahu, he is called “chickenshit” by anonymous sources, the national security adviser says his decision to address Congress is “destructive” of the U.S.-Israel alliance, Kerry tells Congress they shouldn’t listen to Bibi because he voiced wan support for regime change in Iraq (a war that Kerry voted to authorize), the congressional liaison rallies the Congressional Black Caucus to boycott the speech, and the administration leaks to the AP its strategy “to undercut” his speech and “blunt his message that a potential nuclear deal with Iran is bad for Israel and the world.” The strategy includes media appearances and the threat of a “pointed snub” of AIPAC, which has done everything it can over the last several years to ignore or acquiesce to President Obama’s anti-Israel foreign policy.
This sort of contempt for one’s opponents has become so commonplace in American politics since the 2010 “bipartisan healthcare summit” where the president snidely told John McCain “the election’s over” that I suppose it was only a matter of time before it influenced the administration’s relationships with foreign powers. But it says something about this president that the only country in the world that he treats seriously as an opponent is the state of Israel—that he holds the Israeli government to a standard he applies to no other government, that he is openly hostile to the elected prime minister of Israel and not-so-secretly hopes for the prime minister to be replaced in the upcoming election, and that he threatens reprisal against an domestic interest group with predominantly Jewish leadership and membership for a disagreement he has with a foreign prime minister—as though Jews were interchangeable when they are not, as in the case of the “deli” where they were “randomly” gunned down, invisible.
Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday matters precisely because it is a rebuke to the Obama mode of politics to which America has become numb. Netanyahu’s refusal to back down in the face of political and media pressure, his insistence in making his case directly and emphatically, is as much a statement as any of the technical and strategic and moral claims he will make in his speech. And by going to war against Bibi, the White House has inadvertently raised the stature of his address from a diplomatic courtesy to a global event.
Netanyahu’s commitment to warning America about a nuclear Iran has given him the opportunity to explain just how devoid of merit the prospective deal is. His speech is proof that Congress is a co-equal branch of government where substantive argument can triumph over vicious personal attacks and executive overreach and utopian aspirations. Of course Barack Obama can’t stand it.


Iran destroys mock U.S. carrier in Persian Gulf war games
Iran destroys mock U.S. carrier in Persian Gulf war games
Next Media

Qahwaji Says Ras Baalbek Operation 'Pre-emptive Strike' إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية

Qahwaji Says Ras Baalbek Operation 'Pre-emptive Strike' إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
W460
Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji revealed on Friday that the army's operation along Lebanon's eastern border the day before was a pre-emtive strike, which allowed the military to advance in the area and control positions held by gunmen.
He considered in comments published in local dailies that Thursday's operation was an “important milestone to fortify Lebanon's border.”
Qahwaji hailed soldiers deployed along the border, in particular the units that participated in operation in the northeastern villages of Ras Baalbek and Arsal.
“It is a new accomplishment carried out by our brave troops,” the high-ranking military official added.
He pointed out that the army “proved that it's capable of achieving victories and engage in battles that most of the militaries around the world are incapable of engaging in.”
Qahwaji stressed that the Lebanese military is ready for all options, saying: “We will not allow the takfiri terrorists to defeat us... It's an open battle.”
The Army chief remarked that the “military is the sole guarantee for Lebanon's stability and averting danger,” reiterating that the country will not become a terrorist hub.
The Lebanese army seized on Thursday two hilltop positions on the outskirts of Ras Baalbek.
The army command said in a communique that the operation was in line with efforts to secure villages near the eastern border with neighboring Syria.
Three soldiers were wounded in the operation, during which militant positions were shelled with artillery and heavy weaponry, it added.
The statement did not name the militants, but most are believed to be from the Islamic State group. They and the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front have been holding around 20 Lebanese soldiers and policemen hostage since August.
The army frequently clashes with the militants in their hideouts near the Syria border.
H.K.
G.K.
Comments 18
Thumb magnum357 Yesterday
God bless our lebanese army,our soldiers are the bravest,our army is the only army that has ever defeated israel.And most probably the only army that will totally defeat all terrorists.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
God bless the Army only, and NO other foreign militants. Why is such a simple concept so difficult for Hizbullah and ISIS supporters? Oh that's right! Because their loyalty is to foreign powers, good morning all.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
I'll be awaiting FT and his precious thumbs down brigade after they have their morning rounds. Foreigners are foreigners, watch and see the results viewers.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
I see the passive-aggressiveness has begun, thanks for proving me right you foreigners :)
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
AH yes, Flamethrower, was I right or what lol. Keep it up foreigner.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
A foreign group is a foreign group :) Quit your manipulation, you're equally as manipilative and sadistic.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
Don't forget your fake accounts, as pathetic as they are. Add tric.portugal if it'll make you feel better.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
FT you whiny child, foreigners are foreigners :) Quit your manipulations and trying to equate me with your lovers south of us, are you proud of yourself?
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
FT, "Hezb" are Iranian revolutionary guard implants who imposed on the regular Shi'a of Lebanon. And no, I'm not gonna "explode" you whiny 4 year old, if anyone enjoyed that church burning it was you, your Iranian brethren and ISIS. I bet you smoked a joint afterwards too. Grow up you manipulative rat.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
Just a heads up, Iran's glorious leader Flamethrower will now come back later on and say "oh it looks like you were talking to yourself..." Watch and see how he manipulates like a spoiled kid...
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
Grow up FT.
Default-user-icon mahdi firuz berhouz (Guest) Yesterday
hahaha! You see how when you come back from your Hiatus the boards light up with joy and ecstasy! Even my boss was wondering when you will appear again. Somesing Anazar flamesrower, completely anazar.
Thumb Elemental Yesterday
Making another fake account I see FT? Way to prove me right.
Thumb Bandoul Yesterday
@ H.K. & G.K., pre-emtive???? Oh really? How about you two invest in a spell checker? After all, you are supposed to be professionals, right?
Thumb Bandoul Yesterday
Almost forgot, bravo Army, you make me so proud!
Thumb -phoenix1 Yesterday
When good days come, they come in this shape and form. The Lebanese Army is our sole protector, the only guarantor of our security and peace. I have always maintained my trust in our army, today the army is showing its capabilities because now it is beginning to get the weapons and equipment it so crucially needs. Let the weapons continue to land and very soon our army will prove to everyone that Lebanon will stand as a leader in our region. We Lebanese want no war with anyone, but at the same time, if and when provoked, we should be able to respond and respond forcefully. Help Lebanon build a good army and forget about us, we would have become fully reliable and dependable as a real state. It all starts with a strong army, Allah yer7amak ya Bachir, since your days you made it clear about a strong Lebanon dependent on a strong army.
Thumb zahle1 Yesterday
The Christians don't have a strong armed militia like HA. Therefore we need a strong army. Thank God they are protecting the village.
Missing whyaskwhy Yesterday
Bravo and pour me another espresso you have managed to find out who truly got Jimmy Hoffa and where he lays!

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *