Detecting Bombs that DON'T explode?
 

I just had a thought, after reading through all of the numerous threads on this latest 'incident.' Many folks are discussing how inept the TSA and various foreign security agencies are concerning screening and such, especially in light of this latest idiot.

I'm no big fan of the TSA, however, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, no one has successfully and intentionally brought down an American Airliner. The two attemps that come to mind are Richard Reid (shoe bomber) and yesterday's idiot.

Both 'bombs' failed to explode. So, these various screening agencies have not detected two devices that LOOKED like bombs, but didn't ACT like bombs.

Hmmmm... Discuss amongst yourselves.

(I know that there are many other issues, ie visas, watch lists, etc that pertain to this latest 'incident' but let's keep this thread related to the title.

thanks,
John

And what exactly does a bomb look like? Contrary to the Wile E. Coyote cartoons you've been watching John bombs don't have the word "Acme" stamped on them. Thanks for playing.

ETD (Explosives Trace Detection) and ETP (Explosives Trace Portal) would have detected both attempts in a manner that was non-invasive and non-obtrusive to passengers. Sadly, the scumbags "in charge" of TSA have been ignoring the use of these devices for the better part of a decade. :mad:

Thanks, Spiff, for commenting on the point of my post as opposed to just flaming me for the sake of... well, I don't even know why.

John

ETP is phased out for too much maintenance cost and an ABC news expert is quoted as saying WHOLE BODY IMAGERS are needed now. Yippee :mad:

Seems a little work on making the Puffers functional would be a good investment.

Given that a bomb is an explosive device, is this like detecting smart idiots, or massive lightweight objects? Or are we talking about finding broken bombs?

This news expert obviously isn't a security expert.

Maintenance costs too high. That really underscores what a jackass Kip Hawley really was. And is.

Hey Kip! Got calluses from all that enjoyment you got from the Shoe Carnival? Of course not, that's why you instigated Liquid Idiocy in the USA. Hey, at least you don't have to pump quarters into the booth. Just review those "security" tapes, you disgusting little pervert...

Combined with the WTMD, I think the "idea" of the puffer would have worked very well to detect bombs. Maybe include a puffer type system to also auto-puff stuff that went through the x-ray would work well too.

If the TSA said they wanted to stay on the puffer route, I think that other manufacturers would emerge, providing higher quality and lower maintenance devices. I imagine when they made the first WTMD, they also had a high maintenance/operation cost too.

I agree! I can't help but think that the system pretty much worked. Yes, the guy should have been given a more thorough search given his known extremist ties... but given the limited details available now, it seems plausible that the guy just couldn't bring in enough of the material needed to set off an explosion capable of doing enough damage.

If someone put a little firecracker in the frame of their glasses and then set it off in-flight... does that mean we need to ban glasses? Or is it perhaps confirmation that you can't bring enough bad stuff in to cause real problems.

In any case, I think if indeed there is a true al-qaeda connection, it's likely that they knew this wouldn't bring down a plane... and were simply counting on the resulting circus and harm to our economy that would result from even a failed attempt.

The fix is simple and pretty cheap. Get some sniffer dogs.

TK, K9's are the way to go.

Wonder what ever happened to that breeding program for bomb dogs that the TSA was doing. If I recall right they wanted to breed their own because sniffer dogs trained by proven experts were not good enough or some such rubbish.