Sad but true. Unfortunately, it's OUR time and money that are being wasted. The more you fly, the more you suffer through this idiocy.

Bruce

You all thought I was joking last month. Just wait.

We will all have to fly nude

Or sedated! (For our safety, of course.)

Bruce

This presents another problem... certain body parts that are normally covered/holstered could, potentially, become weapons (but only if certain conditions were present).

Math quiz for today:

If a shoe could hold X ounces (yes I am a proud American--I don't know metrics ) of C4 THAN how much could a 38C implant hold?

Yes, there are other technologies out there which don't use X-ray to do detection. There's a radar/sonar variety as well.

As people who follow space technology might know, we have radar mapping techniques which allow us to build a stereographic view of underground structures like the ancient Mayan canals in central American [or Russian nuclera missle silos]. The same type of technology has been applied to do screening.

Enough to put a hole in a plane, but if your face is buried in that, I think you'd be a happy man =)

This brings to mind the Sony camcorder which could see thro' clothing once the nightshot (infrared) mode was engaged.

Was this a fact or just another myth?

It is fact. You could see the fuzzy outlines of the body if the cloth was of certain types of fabric.

As for the C4 bringing down the plane, it probably wouldn't unless it managed to ignite the fuel tanks. When pundits talk about how a small bomb brought down a plane, it was because the bomb was strategiclaly placed to ignite a fuel tank.

I've noticed that pundits are largely leaving that one of their TV discussions, which could either be deliberate sensationalism or a decision not to distribute additional potentially useful terrorist info.

While the news media is pushing the fact that the explosives were functional, I still have questions. I have not heard that anything but the explosive and det cord were there. Also I am not surprised that he had trouble lighting det cord with a match. The other part that makes me think that this was amateur hour. The explosives in the 2 shoes would not detonate together. One would explode before the other and the explosion would destroy the other device.

I have a feeling that the explosive was not C4 but something else. Maybe some from fireworks. That would be much easier to believe that a single individual could come across and still possibly appear as C4. I can understand why we have not heard more, but the government is crasy if it thinks that they will be able to detect all of these types of incidents by claiming that every person is an equal threat. Now start profiling. It won't solve everything but it will be atleast as effective and allow air transport to somewhat function.

------------------
Robert

If the guy had been "smart" enough to light the fuse in the lavatory, he probably would have been successful. It would have exploded before a smoke detector went off or at least allowed enough time. The passengers and crew would not even have had the opportunity to fight back. And I am sure allllll terrorists are now hiding explosives in their shoes, so it makes perfect sense for "security" to check all our shoes

The effect of the explosion would still be devastating, regardless of the placement of the fuel tanks. The concussive force of the blast would almost certainly:

A) Blow the nearest three rows into the next three rows (with about a 100% fatality rate for all involved) and

B) Puncture the skin. B is really much worse.. Understand that when that 350mph+ wind now starts pulling at that metal it is like a hand, and it will rip the skin off like peeling a bannana, taking away various necessary bits of electronics that might be needed to guide, land, or communicate. The nearest six rows, all weakened by the blast and collision from the first three will probably then seperate from the aircraft.

You can also add:

C) Explosive decompression at altitude. While B is happening, everything and I mean everything from pens and glasses to glassware and food carts which is not nailed or bolted down will start to be sucked out of the aircraft. It will be like sitting in a Force 10 Hurricane at point blank range.

To get an idea, take a look at any page involving the Aloha Flight 243. http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/

Understand.. these guys were a few miles from the airport when they had explosive decompression of only the top part of the fuselage, and there was NO bomb on board wreaking havoc at the time. They barely made it onto the ground and that they did is both a testament to the pilots skills and the folks at Boeing.

1000mi out over the Atlantic? Your chances are slim to none. And slim left town.

This is not to scare anyone, but the point is this. Even a small Semtex/C4 bomb, probably less than a pound or two (as was in Pan Am 103) can absolutely bring down an aircraft. Not necessarily by sheer immediate destructive power, but by puncturing the skin of the aircraft, destroying control surfaces and letting wind resistance proceed to shear parts of the aircraft away.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

No, most of the silliness that is going on at security will ease in time, and that which is legitimate and needed will not. We are all paying a large temporary price for those that would do us harm, and we will pay a smaller permanant one. That's life.

Directing hostility at the government, screeners, and airlines is ridiculous and counterproductive. Government needs to not only put in place the infrastructure to actually protect us, but in the short term, they need to do what they can to raise pulic confidence, including (especially) that of infrequent fliers. That means that all of us will be inconvienienced in the short haul with security activities that experienced flyers know to be ineefective, but will help restore confidence among nervous fliers.

When enough of the terrorists floating around are neutralized, and their support networks smashed, they will be able to have any level of malevolence and evil that they wish in their hearts, but will not have the ability to act effectively. Just as our Mr. Reid or whatever appears to be dumber than a doorpost, and so was ultimately ineffective.

"Government needs to not only put in place the infrastructure to actually protect us, but in the short term, they need to do what they can to raise pulic confidence, including (especially) that of infrequent fliers."

With respect, I must disagree with this assertion. It is inevitably counter-productive to do this because you end up in a ever worsening cycle of fake security which is then breached and then more fake security, which is then breached. Meanwhile confidence suffers EVERY TIME SECURITY IS BREACHED.

You can't afford to play an image based game against real terrorists. If you do they will accomplish their objectives faster. You will, in fact, be helping them by misleading the public. You will also be destroying your own credibility to boot.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 12-26-2001).]

I have to agree with bouncer. Partial or cosmetic changes to make people feel secure are stupid and in the long run counter productive. I am sure people hate the term but you have to do a cost analysis. Saying that we will check every bag in so many months when the people in charge know it is not possible is crazy. To keep believing that every person is an equal threat is also stupid. And to keep blaming the security companies, when with all their problems, 9-11 had really nothing to do with them.

I do not believe that many of the changes that are being instituted will be dropped. The only thing we are likely to see dropped is the national guard at the airports. The only logical reason for them to be there is for area security against an armed attack. Similar to Rome, yet the positioning, armament and lack of vest/helmets means they are not set for that role.

Finally, I still do not believe that if Reid had gone into the bathroom he could have been able to light and then detonate his shoes. Without a campfire style lighter, I doubt he would have been able to light the det cord. Even with the "rumor" about special chemical additive, something does not seem correct. C-4 can burn without exploding, some demo experts use it to warm coffee and I still have not heard a definite conclusion about it being C-4. Also much of the complexity of the bomb is that the shoe was hollowed out without being too obvious. That shows great shoe repair ability not necessarily bomb making ability. I also do not see how he ever hoped to blow up both shoes. Det cord burns quickly. With how little cord could have been placed in each shoe, once he actually had one lit, it would detonate before he had the other lit. I still say he might have had help but not from a "bomb expert".

------------------
Robert