Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Detecting Bombs that DON'T explode?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 5:57 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western Mass
Programs: AA, HH, Hyatt Gold, Marriott Platinum, UA, DL, US
Posts: 424
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
jbart74 is offline  
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 6:18 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 684
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.
magellan315 is offline  
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 6:18 pm
  #3  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
50 Countries Visited
5M
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,132
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.
Spiff is offline  
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 6:44 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western Mass
Programs: AA, HH, Hyatt Gold, Marriott Platinum, UA, DL, US
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by Spiff
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.
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
jbart74 is offline  
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 7:38 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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
eyecue is offline  
Old Dec 26, 2009 | 8:24 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
Originally Posted by eyecue
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
Seems a little work on making the Puffers functional would be a good investment.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 1:16 am
  #7  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487
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?
ralfp is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 1:18 am
  #8  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
50 Countries Visited
5M
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,132
Originally Posted by eyecue
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
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...
Spiff is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 9:41 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: DL Diamond, HH Diamond, Avis First
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Seems a little work on making the Puffers functional would be a good investment.
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.
Janus is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 12:43 pm
  #10  
emu
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Platinum; UA 1K
Posts: 65
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.


Originally Posted by jbart74
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
emu is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 12:46 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
The fix is simple and pretty cheap. Get some sniffer dogs.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 1:12 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,259
TK, K9's are the way to go.
coachrowsey is offline  
Old Dec 27, 2009 | 1:23 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
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.
Trollkiller is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.