Re: TSA: Body cavity bomb undetectable by X-ray scanner
Mar...@aol.com
>
> Regardless of the possible financial consequences to the
> industry of body probe screening, it should be clear to all
> security agencies that this highest level of screen must be
> promptly initiated, no matter what the cost of privacy, civil
> rights or dignity of the flying public. Safety of failsafe
> security come above everything else, including the U.S.
> Constitution, Bill of Rights or any Federal or State statutes
> that stand in the way.
Where does it say this in the Constitution?
"They that can sacrifice essential liberties to purchase a
little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
1759
Robert Cohen
> contraband. 80 gram bombs can easily be carried in the rectal or
> vaginal vault, or both, and are virtually undectable by the soft
> x-ray full body scanners installed at airport security. The
> scanners can visualize the skin, but do not penetrate the body
> to reveal anything secreted within. If the terrorist takes a few
> Lomotil tablets to lock his bowels and coat a nonmetallic
> cylinderical bomb with Xylocaine to paralyze the defecation
> reflex, he or she can retain the deadly device until onboard
> when it can be discretely removed in a lavatory with a yank on
> an attached pull cord. Once freed from the body cavity(ies)
> there is no need for extreme caution as no further efforts of
> detection need be of concern to the bomber. A coat pocket will
> do until it is placed against the fuselage in a strategic
> location and detonated.
>
> The above scenario illustrates the futility in subjecting the
> general public to the humiliation of pat downs, puffer machines,
> wands and full body scanners, all of which are totally
> ineffective. Only hard penetrating x-ray fluoroscopy or skin
> strip searches using medical probes will be effective in
> detecting body cavity bombs. Once the enemy terrorists present
> these diabolical weapons of mass destruction, airline security
> will be forced to the above described draconian security
> measures. The traveling public will never accept such invasive
> measures and the world airline industry will be effectively put
> out of business.
>
> Regardless of the possible financial consequences to the
> industry of body probe screening, it should be clear to all
> security agencies that this highest level of screen must be
> promptly initiated, no matter what the cost of privacy, civil
> rights or dignity of the flying public. Safety of failsafe
> security come above everything else, including the U.S.
> Constitution, Bill of Rights or any Federal or State statutes
> that stand in the way.
What about Dogs, although they're alleged to frighten (as in phobia &
trauma, I suppose)
too many people, which is understandable certainly
THUS I'D ACCEPT A CANINE OPTION, which is preferable
but I'd probably fly anyway if they have nothing else to offer us
modest passensengers
"Doggy Choice" is my very bad pun on the abortion issue, but I betcha,
Former Governor
and perhaps the 2012 GOP nominee,
that most all voters would prefer dogs to mandatory display of nudity,
pat-downs,
and experiencing that humiliation of a prisoner being thoroughly
searched
Mxsmanic
> Regardless of the possible financial consequences to the
> industry of body probe screening, it should be clear to all
> security agencies that this highest level of screen must be
> promptly initiated, no matter what the cost of privacy, civil
> rights or dignity of the flying public. Safety of failsafe
> security come above everything else, including the U.S.
> Constitution, Bill of Rights or any Federal or State statutes
> that stand in the way.
Or methods such as profiling can be adopted instead, which make widespread
invasive body searches unnecessary. You cannot effectively ensure security by
looking only for objects and ignoring intent. The passenger is or is not a
terrorist, the objects he carries are just inanimate matter.
Runge11
<Mar...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
8743d02f-4cc3-44ec...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Fly Guy
> Every prison guard knows body cavities are used to conceal
> contraband.
> Once freed from the body cavity(ies) there is no need for
> extreme caution as no further efforts of detection need be
> of concern to the bomber. A coat pocket will do until it is
> placed against the fuselage in a strategic location and
> detonated.
And you are ignoring the fact that detonation seems to be a some-what
difficult thing to pull off from the passenger seat of a crowded
airplane.
Again I ask why don't these nut-jobs blow themselves up in a crowded US
shopping mall instead?
Fear is fear - isin't it?
Won't you instill more fear in Americans if you make them think that any
public place, shopping mall, coffee shop with a lot of people is
dangerous and potentially a deadly place to be?
Isin't it easier to turn yourself into a more lethal bomb when you're
not on a plane or in an airport?
I don't get it.
And I also don't get why these terrorists never seem to try to plant a
bomb in their checked baggage. Seems that you'd be more able to plant
the same amount of the stuff in a checked bag, along with a timer or
radio-receiver necessary to detonate it.
It's almost like "problem - reaction - solution". Seems more likely
the makers of the puffers and whole-body imagers wanted to force the TSA
and airports around the world to think that they had no choice but to
place orders for hundreds, thousands of these things. The crotch bomber
was given a faulty bomb (but effective enough to cause an in-flight
incident to be sure he'd be caught).
(I removed the saudi-arabia and yemen groups from this reply - no idea
why this was posted to those useless groups in the first place)
Kurt Ullman
> And you are ignoring the fact that detonation seems to be a some-what
> difficult thing to pull off from the passenger seat of a crowded
> airplane.
>
> Again I ask why don't these nut-jobs blow themselves up in a crowded US
> shopping mall instead?
>
> Fear is fear - isin't it?
>
> Won't you instill more fear in Americans if you make them think that any
> public place, shopping mall, coffee shop with a lot of people is
> dangerous and potentially a deadly place to be?
I have had the same problem with this fascination with airlines
and DC/NY. If they REALLY wanted to make Americans upset, blow something
up in Des Moines, or Indy, or Gnaw Bone. There is a certain mindset in
flyover country that explosions, etc., are sorta expected in NY and DC
because.. well they are NY and DC. If you get to the heartland, people
would begin to wonder if there is ANYWHERE where it would be safe.
> And I also don't get why these terrorists never seem to try to plant a
> bomb in their checked baggage. Seems that you'd be more able to plant
> the same amount of the stuff in a checked bag, along with a timer or
> radio-receiver necessary to detonate it.
The Lockerby Pan Am plane was brought down by a bomb in the luggage.
That was some kind of barometric device that did not arm in an earlier
flight because it was set to arm after a certain altitude that wasn't
hit until later on in the flight.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
William Black
> TSA wrote:
>
>> Every prison guard knows body cavities are used to conceal
>> contraband.
>
>> Once freed from the body cavity(ies) there is no need for
>> extreme caution as no further efforts of detection need be
>> of concern to the bomber. A coat pocket will do until it is
>> placed against the fuselage in a strategic location and
>> detonated.
>
> And you are ignoring the fact that detonation seems to be a some-what
> difficult thing to pull off from the passenger seat of a crowded
> airplane.
>
> Again I ask why don't these nut-jobs blow themselves up in a crowded US
> shopping mall instead?
>
> Fear is fear - isin't it?
>
> Won't you instill more fear in Americans if you make them think that any
> public place, shopping mall, coffee shop with a lot of people is
> dangerous and potentially a deadly place to be?
>
> Isin't it easier to turn yourself into a more lethal bomb when you're
> not on a plane or in an airport?
>
> I don't get it.
Because suicide bombers don't make the bombs.
You'd have to get the constructor, someone to buy the materials and
your bomber into the US, then rent/buy/borrow a base, build the
device, select a target and deliver it and get it to work all in a
reasonably hostile environment.
Explosives are reasonably well controlled in the US these days and a
bunch of Muslim 'wierdy beardies' turning up, living with no visible
means of support and buying what could best be described as an
entertaining mixture of chemicals and electrical parts will probably
attract attention.
The people who put committed the 9/11 outrage were almost caught, the
next lot probably will be caught. The US has become a hostile
environment for terrorist bomb makers...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Fly Guy
> > Isin't it easier to turn yourself into a more lethal bomb when
> > you're not on a plane or in an airport?
> >
> > I don't get it.
>
> Because suicide bombers don't make the bombs.
The palestinians didn't seem to have a problem getting suicide bombers
into Israel.
The Columbians and Mexicans don't seem to have a problem getting
thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuna into the US every year.
> You'd have to get the constructor, someone to buy the materials
> and your bomber into the US,
No. You build the bomb in Yemen or Pakistan or where-ever, you have
your suicide guy take it on a flight to the US in a checked bag. Or
maybe put him on a cruise ship to the US via the caribbean.
If he's on a plane, you put a low-power radio transmitter in the bag,
and the terrorist has a reciever, and he knows if his bag is with him on
the plane (assuming it would be useful for him to know this).
When he gets off the plane (or ship) he takes his bag and goes to some
shopping mall and blows himself up.
Kurt Ullman
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> You'd have to get the constructor, someone to buy the materials and
> your bomber into the US, then rent/buy/borrow a base, build the
> device, select a target and deliver it and get it to work all in a
> reasonably hostile environment.
>
> Explosives are reasonably well controlled in the US these days and a
> bunch of Muslim 'wierdy beardies' turning up, living with no visible
> means of support and buying what could best be described as an
> entertaining mixture of chemicals and electrical parts will probably
> attract attention.
Not really. Dynamite goes walk about all the time from mining and
construction sites. Heck 200 lbs of explosives were stolen from the San
Francisco cops in 2004. Another 500 lbs were stolen from a mining
company early last year (09). Two years ago, about 200 lbs of
explosives were not accounted for at a major National Guard training
facilities.
The rest of the stuff is easy enough to get. You aren't looking for
tankers of ammonium nitrate or rivers of fuel oil to pull off a few
suicide bombings. Especially if you bring in some of our homegrown
Muslims who converted in prison and might have access to the shadier
parts of the US.
>
> The people who put committed the 9/11 outrage were almost caught, the
> next lot probably will be caught. The US has become a hostile
> environment for terrorist bomb makers...
Yeah, but keeping the cells to a few people who can keep their
mouths shut (always a hard task in any conspiracy) makes it a lot easier
even in hostile environments.
Bert Hyman
<rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> The above scenario illustrates the futility in subjecting the
> general public to the humiliation of pat downs, puffer machines,
> wands and full body scanners, all of which are totally
> ineffective.
Totally ineffective?
Is it your position that unless a single method is completely foolproof
against any and all threats, real or imagined, it's then completely
worthless?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Fly Guy
> Totally ineffective?
>
> Is it your position that unless a single method is completely
> foolproof against any and all threats, real or imagined, it's
> then completely worthless?
Full-body scanners (millimeter-wave or the phone-booth puffer type) are
yet more techniques designed primarily to cause the would-be terrorist
to elicit a nervous or panic reaction and give himself away because of
his behavior.
If you've trained your terrorist to be calm and confident (maybe given
him drugs to take just for this purpose) then yes, pretty much all of
your new-fangled scanning techniques can be worthless.
Same with all the bullshit interview techniques that some are proposing
here.
Maybe the US shouldn't be so free and easy with the visa's they hand out
to these africans and moozlems. Why isin't anyone thinking of that?
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>>> Isin't it easier to turn yourself into a more lethal bomb when
>>> you're not on a plane or in an airport?
>>>
>>> I don't get it.
>> Because suicide bombers don't make the bombs.
>
> The palestinians didn't seem to have a problem getting suicide bombers
> into Israel.
They didn't, they do now.
Israel built a wall.
> The Columbians and Mexicans don't seem to have a problem getting
> thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuna into the US every year.
So?
That's a high intensity high profit driven business run by people who do
actually believe in truth, justice and the American way.
Islamic terror is low price and ideologically driven.
The druggies are in a position to buy the people on one side of the border.
Even so Colombians are building submarines to run the stuff in because
they've got problems, and they're very rich indeed...
>> You'd have to get the constructor, someone to buy the materials
>> and your bomber into the US,
>
> No. You build the bomb in Yemen or Pakistan or where-ever, you have
> your suicide guy take it on a flight to the US in a checked bag. Or
> maybe put him on a cruise ship to the US via the caribbean.
Checked bags pass through explosive sniffers.
> If he's on a plane, you put a low-power radio transmitter in the bag,
> and the terrorist has a reciever, and he knows if his bag is with him on
> the plane (assuming it would be useful for him to know this).
That sort of silly trick was stopped after Lockerbie.
> When he gets off the plane (or ship) he takes his bag and goes to some
> shopping mall and blows himself up.
There is no evidence of anyone successfully smuggling explosives by
aircraft.
How do you get off the ship in the US?
The only person they had available this time is someone who had made it
onto a terrorist watch list and was on the UK no-fly list.
Fly Guy
> > The palestinians didn't seem to have a problem getting suicide
> > bombers into Israel.
>
> They didn't, they do now.
>
> Israel built a wall.
I'm not so sure that's the only reason those suicide bombings have
stopped.
> > The Columbians and Mexicans don't seem to have a problem
> > getting thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuna into
> > the US every year.
>
> So?
So - it means if an organized group wants to get a suitcase-sized
package into the US, it can be done. Doesn't matter what's in it.
> That's a high intensity high profit driven business
There's lots of arab money supporting moozlem terrorism.
> Checked bags pass through explosive sniffers.
So we are told.
> > If he's on a plane, you put a low-power radio transmitter
> > in the bag, and the terrorist has a reciever, and he
> > knows if his bag is with him on the plane (assuming it
> > would be useful for him to know this).
>
> That sort of silly trick was stopped after Lockerbie.
Since the press has not (in the past 8 years) reported that:
a) a checked bag containing a bomb was ever discovered prior to being
loaded onto a commercial passenger flight (would presumably be
accompanied by evacuation of entire airport, lots of police/emergency
response, etc) and
b) electronic items are routinely packed in checked bags, and
c) no plane during the past few years has crashed mysteriously or
without explanation, then:
We can conclude that terrorists have not, since lockerbie or since 9/11,
have not attempted to place explosive materials in a checked bag,
regardless if the attempt was just to transport them into the US or to
use them to blow up the plane they were carried on.
Until a piece of checked baggage with explosives are actually detected
at an airport, or if a plane is actually brought down by exploding
luggage, then we simply can't know anything about the detectability of
explosives in luggage or about the usefulness, desire or intentions of
terrorists to place explosives in checked bags.
> > When he gets off the plane (or ship) he takes his bag and
> > goes to some shopping mall and blows himself up.
>
> There is no evidence of anyone successfully smuggling explosives
> by aircraft.
Just as there is no evidence that anyone doing it has ever been caught.
> How do you get off the ship in the US?
I don't know - I've never been on a cruise.
> The only person they had available this time is someone who
> had made it onto a terrorist watch list and was on the UK
> no-fly list.
I don't think he was on the UK no-fly list.
He wasn't allowed to fly to the UK because he didn't have a visa to
visit the UK because he was denied a UK visa because he lied on the UK
visa application form the last time he tried to obtain one.
Mxsmanic
> Explosives are reasonably well controlled in the US these days ...
There are many IEDs that can be constructed from entirely uncontrolled
materials.
Mxsmanic
> There is no evidence of anyone successfully smuggling explosives by
> aircraft.
That's because successful smugglers don't leave behind evidence, which is why
they are successful.
Kurt Ullman
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
yeah but it sorta defeats the purpose if there is no evidence. Why
smuggle explosives on an airplane if not to blow it up (and thus give
evidence that they had, indeed, smuggles explosives onto the plane).
Bert Hyman
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why smuggle explosives on an airplane if not to blow it up (and thus
> give evidence that they had, indeed, smuggles explosives onto the
> plane).
>
To blow something else up, of course.
Kurt Ullman
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:f9OdndUj5KJADaLW...@earthlink.com Kurt Ullman
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why smuggle explosives on an airplane if not to blow it up (and thus
> > give evidence that they had, indeed, smuggles explosives onto the
> > plane).
> >
>
> To blow something else up, of course.
Why? There are many easier ways where it is even less likely to be
detected. None of these look to be time sensitive,
William Black
These tend to be controlled these days.
Try buying Ammonium Nitrate if you're not a farmer.
William Black
True, but they get noticed.
The 'liquid bombers' in the UK seem to have been noticed because one of
them had enough money to buy a house.
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>>> The palestinians didn't seem to have a problem getting suicide
>>> bombers into Israel.
>> They didn't, they do now.
>>
>> Israel built a wall.
>
> I'm not so sure that's the only reason those suicide bombings have
> stopped.
Everyone else is...
>>> The Columbians and Mexicans don't seem to have a problem
>>> getting thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuna into
>>> the US every year.
>> So?
>
> So - it means if an organized group wants to get a suitcase-sized
> package into the US, it can be done. Doesn't matter what's in it.
Much of that comes over a contiguous land border and is passed by people
who belong on one side or the other of that border.
>> That's a high intensity high profit driven business
>
> There's lots of arab money supporting moozlem terrorism.
There may well be. Osama bin Ladin's original organisation existed to
connect bombers with money men. It no longer exists, and neither does
the informal 'howalah' system that transported the money around the world...
>
>> Checked bags pass through explosive sniffers.
>
> So we are told.
Why doubt them?
> Until a piece of checked baggage with explosives are actually detected
> at an airport, or if a plane is actually brought down by exploding
> luggage, then we simply can't know anything about the detectability of
> explosives in luggage or about the usefulness, desire or intentions of
> terrorists to place explosives in checked bags.
You think they don't run control experiments now and again?
>> How do you get off the ship in the US?
>
> I don't know - I've never been on a cruise.
Me neither, and I imagine single Muslim men are something of a novelty
as well.
>
>> The only person they had available this time is someone who
>> had made it onto a terrorist watch list and was on the UK
>> no-fly list.
>
> I don't think he was on the UK no-fly list.
>
> He wasn't allowed to fly to the UK because he didn't have a visa to
> visit the UK because he was denied a UK visa because he lied on the UK
> visa application form the last time he tried to obtain one.
The UK 'no fly' list is the list of people who have been denied a visa.
And he didn't lie, the school he had enrolled at didn't meet the
immigration department requirements..
Mxsmanic
> Everyone else is...
"Everyone" is a strong word.
Mxsmanic
> These tend to be controlled these days.
>
> Try buying Ammonium Nitrate if you're not a farmer.
You mean like a cold pack?
Anyway, it's not hard to buy ammonium nitrate--after all, it has legitimate
uses that consume vast quantities of the compound. And there are zillions of
substances that can be used to make IEDs, not just ammonium nitrate.
Fly Guy
> >> Israel built a wall.
> >
> > I'm not so sure that's the only reason those suicide bombings
> > have stopped.
>
> Everyone else is...
Can you cite any editorial or authoritative commentary that attributes
the cessasion of suicide bombers in Israel with the wall? Versus, say,
a change in geo-political factors in the region?
> > So - it means if an organized group wants to get a suitcase-
> > sized package into the US, it can be done. Doesn't matter
> > what's in it.
>
> Much of that comes over a contiguous land border and is passed
> by people who belong on one side or the other of that border.
That statement doesn't discount or take away from what I said in the
paragraph above it.
If you meant to counter my statement, I don't think you did.
> > There's lots of arab money supporting moozlem terrorism.
>
> There may well be. Osama bin Ladin's original organisation
> existed to connect bombers with money men. It no longer
> exists,
And you would know that because ... ?
> and neither does the informal 'howalah' system that transported
> the money around the world...
And you would know that because ... ?
> >> Checked bags pass through explosive sniffers.
> >
> > So we are told.
>
> Why doubt them?
Actually, I don't think that "they" ever told us what happens when
checked bags disappear into the bowels of an airport.
> > Until a piece of checked baggage with explosives are actually ...
>
> You think they don't run control experiments now and again?
Who is they? The "authorities", or the terrorists?
BTW, there have been news reports that terrorist groups either have
their own security devices (metal detectors, chemical-wipe testers,
carry-on X-ray scanners) or they have access to them.
> >> How do you get off the ship in the US?
> >
> > I don't know - I've never been on a cruise.
>
> Me neither, and I imagine single Muslim men are something of
> a novelty as well.
Who says they have to be single (instead of "married")? Or travel
alone?
> > I don't think he was on the UK no-fly list.
>
> The UK 'no fly' list is the list of people who have been
> denied a visa.
So he wasn't let on a plane to the UK because he didn't have a Visa. He
didn't get far enough for the UK no-fly-list to kick in.
And besides, I thought that the US/UK shared and aggregated their
no-fly-lists?
Kurt Ullman
> And besides, I thought that the US/UK shared and aggregated their
> no-fly-lists?
He wasn't on a no-fly list per se, as I understand it. He was on a
no-entry list because of visa problems unrelated to any terroristic
concerns. If I am wrong, the UK contingent will correct me. That is not
likely to be shared.
Robert Cohen
Can a dog be trained to smell-out "plastique?"
If not, then govt needs to persuade the manufacturers
to make it so it can be easily detected (as they do tnt?), or outlaw
it, which is
no doubt impossible as I must assume illicit chemicals can be made
a la meth
Mxsmanic
> Can a dog be trained to smell-out "plastique?"
Yes.
Robert Cohen
We have a West Highland Terrier which would hardly scare
anybody, and I perceive a competent trainer could make the
friendliest-finest a successful bomb-smeller