the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to attack airplanes anyway", the evidence suggests otherwise on that. If "no terrorist plots" truly means "airplanes are inherently safe from attack", then the logical conclusion is that no security whatsoever should be needed.

your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we should not let the TSA stick their hands down passengers' pants nor perform nude scans of passengers

Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.