Airline security a waste of time
vitw
Forget strip-naked x-ray scanners, metal detectors, bomb dogs etc at
airports. They might stop a few isolated terrorists, but for well-
resourced organisations, they create an excellent and easily exploited
false sense of security.
For a major offensive all you would need is a nurse, a computer
programmer/hardware designer and a few building demolition people, all
with Al-Queda links.
The nurse would need to have some surgical theatre experience, and be
able to insert epidurals. With these skills s/he would be able to
surgically insert time-bombs into the bellies of operatives, most likely
within the fatty areas of the omentum. Epidural injection would suffice
for the anaesthesia, and be easier/safer than a standard general.
The inserted bombs would draw their potency from C4 or similar high-yield
explosive, which is where the demolition people come in. They could
misappropriate a few grams of C4 with each job until they have enough
stockpile for enough bombs for the operation.
The programmer would be someone with embedded systems and hardware
experience, who could, together with the explosives expert, encase the
explosive, the detonator and a bluetooth-connected microcontroller into a
biologically inert enclosure, suitable for surgical insertion.
The idea is that all the operatives have the surgery about 2 weeks before
the date, enough time for their wounds to heal. They would all be booked
on simultaneous domestic flights. In the airport carpark, after all
flights are confirmed, a coordinator with a bluetooth laptop would set
the final detonation times, then disable the devices' bluetooth radios.
There would be a contingency plan - any operatives who is not allowed on
his/her plane would instead head to a significant ground target.
Within a 1-second window, dozens of planes would rupture in mid-air and
crash to the ground.
The only way to guarantee safe airlines is to put the entire world's
population onto the no-fly list.
Matty F
> The only way to guarantee safe airlines is to put the entire world's
> population onto the no-fly list.
No, just ban anybody who looks like any of the hijackers for the last
few years. They all look the same.
Matty F
I just changed my mind having seen the latest hijacker. But they all
look very dodgy.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> For a major offensive all you would need is a nurse, a computer
> programmer/hardware designer and a few building demolition people, all
> with Al-Queda links.
*Yawn* <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/third_annual_mo.html>
John Cawston
The 911 success and near success this time goes down to PC. You
can't racially profile or concentrate on obvious or suspicious
characters.. so Mrs B aged 79 has to get the same treatment as
the shifty nervous character alongside her.. or not.
But the US or most Anglo countries are stuffed on profiling and
quick interviews anyway.. we don't have the personnel to pick the
signs because we don't (yet) have the culture.
JC
religionofpeas
They are all muslim.
Roger Dewhurst
They could all fly stark naked. Scars on belly, no ticket!
R
Roger Dewhurst
Simple then, no foreskin, no fly!
R
vitw
> They could all fly stark naked. Scars on belly, no ticket!
Well, yeah, it is far fetched. The point I'm trying to make here is that
there are Islamist groups who are so staunch that they'll do anything to
hit at the west, and there's no way to guarantee everyone's safety.
Flying is a calculated risk at the best of times. The terrorist threat is
just another risk to be added in to the mix and managed.
Brian Dooley
How can you tell?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> They could all fly stark naked.
Ssh, nobody tell him about this
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/ass_bomber.html> ...
vitw
Terrorists like that are a complete pain in the butt.
Lucky the guy wasn't using a decent explosive, or he would have blown of
his own ass, the prince's ass, and blown out the walls and windows of the
building he was in.
That's where you need the surgery - you can implant a bigger and better
bomb among one's viscera than anything you can shove up a guy's ass.
Katipo
"vitw" <nos...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:4b3826e5$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
> Forget strip-naked x-ray scanners, metal detectors, bomb dogs etc at
> airports. They might stop a few isolated terrorists, but for well-
> resourced organisations, they create an excellent and easily exploited
> false sense of security.
>
Well security at Auckland Airport obviously isn't working. I see Helen Clark
is back in the country!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:42:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <hhb56e$a72$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>>
>>> They could all fly stark naked.
>>
>> Ssh, nobody tell him about this
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/ass_bomber.html> ...
>
> Lucky the guy wasn't using a decent explosive ...
What explosive should he have used?
Rich...@hotmail.com
Roger, yours is the knee-jerk reaction of the fearful far right,
realising that there ae limits to their authoritarian power, and blind
to common-sense in an insane desire to identify an enemy and punish -
even if they are not the real enemy. You would employ terror tactics
against terrorists, and spread a greater fear than the terrorists
could have imagined in their wildest dreams, offering them a clear win
at minimal cost or risk to themselves. Roger, the terrorists friend in
our midst.
vitw
> What explosive should he have used?
C4, or any of the available plastiques. You need maximum energy density.
vitw
> Well security at Auckland Airport obviously isn't working. I see Helen
> Clark is back in the country!
The real question is who, between her and Al Queda, can do the greatest
damage to a country's economy.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:33:40 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> What explosive should he have used?
>
> C4, or any of the available plastiques. You need maximum energy density.
What do you think he used?
vitw
> What do you think he used?
Some low-grade IED made from supermarket ingredients
Roger Dewhurst
No. The terrorists are almost 100% muslim. Say 30% muslims sympathise
with the terrorist objective. Say 1% are actually prepared to blow
themselves up for the terrorist objective. On those grounds I find it
reasonable to exclude these people from flights.
R
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:31:03 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> What do you think he used?
>
> Some low-grade IED made from supermarket ingredients
If C4 is so wonderful, why would he settle for anything less?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Say 30% muslims sympathise with the terrorist objective. Say 1% are
> actually prepared to blow themselves up for the terrorist objective. On
> those grounds I find it reasonable to exclude these people from flights.
Say 30% of the above statistics are right, and the rest are just hot air. On
those grounds I find it reasonable to exclude people like you from anything
resembling a reasoned debate.
Rich...@hotmail.com
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
"The terrorists"? That would be most of the terrorists that are not
something other than musim I guess. A high proportion of terrorists
seem to be male - do you want to ban all males frrom flying too Roger?
Why not? - after all its that sort of knee-jerk irrational fearful
response that the terrorists are looking for . . .
Rich...@hotmail.com
We voted on that last year - sadly we voted for the party that is
doing the greatest damage to this country's economy.
Name one thing that John Key or National have done to make our
country's economy stronger in either absolute terms or (to use the
measure National wanted to use but have now gone quiet on) in
comparison with Australia.
Matty F
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:45:38 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
>
>
>
The easy solution is for the muslims to fly on their own airline. Or
they could charter planes as needed. In the usual free market way, if
a plane crashes it will cost more for the muslims to hire planes in
future.
Brian Dooley
It means no Jews and half what's left of the males in the USA are
grounded.
Brian Dooley
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL
religionofpeas
>
> Lucky the guy wasn't using a decent explosive, or he would have blown of
It's been reported that the substance he used was more than capable of
blowing out the plane, it's just that something went wrong in the
detonation.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
If anyone's deliverying a heavier authoritarian hand, it's those who
refuse to identify the enemy. In avoiding any identification of the
enemy, everyone must be targetted. But that's what they want. Equality.
vitw
> If C4 is so wonderful, why would he settle for anything less?
C4 can be very hard to get hold of, hence the mention of demolition
people in the OP
Brian Dooley
Aha, gotcha!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:01:17 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> If C4 is so wonderful, why would he settle for anything less?
>
> C4 can be very hard to get hold of ...
Surely not for a world-class organization like Al-Qaeda, the most feared
terrorist group in the world?
After all, the old IRA seemed to be able to manage it on a routine basis.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
A news report that's right up Brian Dooley's alley. Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44&feature=player_embedded
Collector_NZ
> Forget strip-naked x-ray scanners, metal detectors, bomb dogs etc at
> airports. They might stop a few isolated terrorists, but for well-
> resourced organisations, they create an excellent and easily exploited
> false sense of security.
>
> The only way to guarantee safe airlines is to put the entire world's
> population onto the no-fly list.
>
Katipo
That is a no brainer - obviously the answer is Helen
Katipo
> The only way to guarantee safe airlines is to put the entire world's
> population onto the no-fly list.
>
Does that mean if you want to get on a plane you are not allowed to wear
trousers? :P
Brian Dooley
>A news report that's right up Brian Dooley's alley. Enjoy:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44&feature=player_embedded
I only subscribe to where I can extract hard copy.
Ala
Only if you wear a gold hot dog necklace? Just a guess.
Brian Dooley
And she is laughing all the way to the bank.
So is H2.
Gib Bogle
>>
>>> The only way to guarantee safe airlines is to put the entire world's
>>> population onto the no-fly list.
>> few years. They all look the same.
>
> I just changed my mind having seen the latest hijacker. But they all
> look very dodgy.
Ban dodgy-looking people from flying. Sounds like a plan.
Matty F
Perhaps they could be allowed to board only if they are handcuffed.
If there are lots of them they could charter a plane for themselves.
SupergoofNZ
I seems as if anyone who looks even remotely middle-eastern has been
getting extra close scrutiny at airports all over the world anyway, so
short of banning all brunettes I'm not sure what else they can do. (Yet
one of the British bus bombers was an English redhead as I recall.)
Rachel
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> (Yet one of the British bus bombers was an English redhead as I recall.)
Ah, well, that’s easily explained. The white folks are just mass murderers,
you see, and can be left to ordinary police to deal with. But the others are
actual Terrorists bent on spreading Terror by Terrorizing people in
Terroristic ways which are worse than any ordinary crime, so we need special
state superpowers that go well beyond the normal justice system to deal with
them, because otherwise the whole of reality as we know it will implode into
cut-price chaos.
Brian Dooley
And the latest guy is a northern Nigerian, fairly black and Bantu
looking. Not at all like your average Arab - but most Muslims
don't.
SupergoofNZ
In other words, nobody is scared of a Gingernut. ;oP
Rachel
Matty F
I suggest that a computer should compare pictures of all passengers
with those of all known past hijackers. The computer then makes the
decision whether the passenger should be examined more carefully i.e.
Xrayed, checked by dogs for explosives etc.
My boss used to have a black beard and looked dodgy. He got sick of
being examined internally for drugs every time he went on a plane so
he shaved his beard off.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
bc9812...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Matty F wrote:
> I suggest that a computer should compare pictures of all passengers
> with those of all known past hijackers. The computer then makes the
> decision whether the passenger should be examined more carefully i.e.
> Xrayed, checked by dogs for explosives etc.
Gosh, a computer. Isn’t it miraculous how easy it is to solve problems with
such modern technology.
Matty F
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <2e909f16-2618-45fd-b2d4-
Well that would save arguments that racist people were making the
decision to ban a passenger. A computer would be fair. The programmers
would of course not be racist :)