If drug mules swallow drugs and fly, can't terrorists swallow explosive devices?
May 7, 10, 4:33 pm
#16
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CLT
Posts: 7,249
Originally Posted by SomeGuy
Clearly the best solution is to start swabbing everyone's mouth when they go through security.
It's all a game of cat and mouse. There is no way to win. For every procedure TSA establishes the people who want to hurt us are already working on other ways to hurt us.
Just look at prisoners. They can't have a lot of things, but what they can have they use to make weapons.
May 8, 10, 1:11 am
#17
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by clrankin
"What ever happened to the thought that living in society involved certain risks that people inherently accept by their choice to live in society?
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true."
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true."
Well then, I have a great idea for you. First, purchase your own aircraft and use only non-TSA-run airports. After all, you don't want TSA ruining the experiment, right? Call up your rational friends to fly with you. Next, call the CIA to see if they have a terrorist that fits the bill who is ready and willing to swallow explosives (I think you meant surgically-implanted as swallowing explosives will kill [email protected]:-)). Next, make sure your insurance on the aircraft, especially liability, is up to date. After all, on the SLIM chance that terrorist blows up the aircraft, you want to be sure the aircraft is paid up and any relatives of the dead victims that may be killed on the ground are justly compensated. You don't want them coming after your surviving family members for compensation(or payback). Lastly, put a surveillance system inside the aircraft so the rest of us can watch the fun, remotely of course, since we are not as brave as you.
[/sarcasm]
May 8, 10, 10:31 am
#19
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by Bart
I truly don't know if this is practical. Getting explosives aboard is one thing; being able to detonate them is something different. The human body has a lot going on inside it. If a bad guy were to swallow a plastic baggie of explosives with the intent of removing it later, then here are the unknowns:
Will the explosive's chemical properties or composition be affected by internal bodily acids or gases? Body temperature?
Will the explosive still work if moist or soiled?
How reliable is the retrieval method while inside the lavatory of an airplane?
Under the risk-management approach, is this something for TSA to worry about? or is this something that is theoretically possible but realistically unlikely?
Will the explosive's chemical properties or composition be affected by internal bodily acids or gases? Body temperature?
Will the explosive still work if moist or soiled?
How reliable is the retrieval method while inside the lavatory of an airplane?
Under the risk-management approach, is this something for TSA to worry about? or is this something that is theoretically possible but realistically unlikely?
Then when it is time you pull out your iPhone, saying "Allahu Akbar", and turning on the BlueTooth so the detonator does its thing.
The only reason that this isn't being looked at is that the TSA is a reactive agency and doesn't know how to be proactive.
-Mike
May 8, 10, 10:54 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by Bart
Perhaps. But I think it's more complicated than that. I'm not disagreeing with you; what you've described may be all it takes. What I do know is that it is very tricky to make an improvised bomb explode because the bomb-maker is making do with substitute components. Signal interference, out-of-range frequencies, electronic shielding all factor into the equation. And, again, I don't know how normal bodily functions may interfere with the effectiveness of the explosive. It's not a factor when smuggling drugs because all the body does is transport the item; they can clean it up, filter it, etc. later after they've retrieved it. But an explosive still needs to function even after it's been digested.
Even Claymore mines aren't 100% reliable on the battlefield.
Even Claymore mines aren't 100% reliable on the battlefield.
I am just saying that something like this is possible and this has the advantage that if it fails there is no smoke coming from your crotch.
Finally I would point out that this wouldn't be an improvised explosive device where some guy has to take an artillery shell and turn it into a weapon. When we have an enemy that has nearly unlimited amounts of money, any level of sophistication is possible.
May 8, 10, 11:13 am
#22
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: TPA
Programs: AAdvantage 2 million, Marriott Gold
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by clrankin
What ever happened to the thought that living in society involved certain risks that people inherently accept by their choice to live in society?
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true.
Flying has certain risks that come with it. There is no way to make airline travel completely safe or guarantee that terrorists cannot do something to attack, destroy, or disrupt the air travel system or individual airliners. People should either be willing to accept these risks, as slim as they are, or simply not fly from place to place. (After all, isn't that the security maven's answer to everything-- "you don't have to fly"... What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Prior to 9/11 airline hijackings happened. So did airliner bombings. And yet somehow we all managed to survive without invasive scanning techniques, sexual assault-style pat-downs, and Little Johnny Peepants running around screaming "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" every 15 minutes. Prohibited items made it through, and so did the occasional person without being scanned, and that didn't result in wasting hundreds of peoples' time by initiating terminal dumps.
I'm willing to risk stepping on board with a terrorist that has swallowed explosives and is ready to blow himself up, rather than accept even more intrusive and invasive procedures. I'm willing to risk the remote detonation of a bomb, rather than risk TSA theft of my laptop or cell phone by having to put the items in checked luggage. I'm willing to accept the slim risks of air travel, and steadfastly believe that any other rational person should be too.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Unfortunately some of its policies-- and much of its implementation of all policies-- hasn't done too much to make travel appreciably safer. Instead of making us safe, they've concentrated on the irrelevant and the mundane. They're more geared toward throwing out bottles of Aquafina and confiscating grandma's applesauce than implementing policies to ensure that everyone and everything going into the "sterile" area are properly screened. And they're more focused on enforcement of existing "rules" than they are on figuring out the next rule-changing scenario before it plays out somewhere. It's unfortunate, but true.
May 8, 10, 12:21 pm
#24
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Did no one read the link I provided? 
Listen folks, a bomb is far more than a package of explosives.
Basic components of a bomb:
Explosive
Initiator (blasting cap/detonator)
Power source
Switch (optional in some cases)
Explosive: Most explosives are toxic. Eat them and they kill you.
Initiator: An initiator is filled with what? Explosive. And they are not tiny. Nor would they be easy to swallow. Some have a fuse, and lighting an initiators fuse while in your stomach might pose some serious challenges. Most have wires, which of course require a battery.
Power Source: Ever try to swallow a battery? That is the most common power source for explosives. There are others out there, but trying to get them into one’s stomach presents issues that I don’t think we can cover here.
Switch: Micro switches are possible, but making them immune to stomach acids would be difficult. Most switches are a bit too large to swallow.
These things are the reason that “stomach bombs” are a remote possibility. Very remote.
Listen folks, a bomb is far more than a package of explosives.
Basic components of a bomb:
Explosive
Initiator (blasting cap/detonator)
Power source
Switch (optional in some cases)
Explosive: Most explosives are toxic. Eat them and they kill you.
Initiator: An initiator is filled with what? Explosive. And they are not tiny. Nor would they be easy to swallow. Some have a fuse, and lighting an initiators fuse while in your stomach might pose some serious challenges. Most have wires, which of course require a battery.
Power Source: Ever try to swallow a battery? That is the most common power source for explosives. There are others out there, but trying to get them into one’s stomach presents issues that I don’t think we can cover here.
Switch: Micro switches are possible, but making them immune to stomach acids would be difficult. Most switches are a bit too large to swallow.
These things are the reason that “stomach bombs” are a remote possibility. Very remote.
May 8, 10, 12:55 pm
#25
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
You don't need to remove them to detonate them. There is absolutely nothing to keep somebody from swallowing a quantity of explosives contained in a condom with an embedded detonator.
Last edited by RichardKenner; May 8, 10 at 12:55 pm Reason: Typo
May 8, 10, 1:34 pm
#26
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by TSORon
Did no one read the link I provided?
Originally Posted by TSORon
Listen folks, a bomb is far more than a package of explosives.
Originally Posted by TSORon
Basic components of a bomb:
Explosive
Initiator (blasting cap/detonator)
Power source
Switch (optional in some cases)
Explosive
Initiator (blasting cap/detonator)
Power source
Switch (optional in some cases)
Originally Posted by TSORon
Explosive: Most explosives are toxic. Eat them and they kill you.
Originally Posted by TSORon
Initiator: An initiator is filled with what? Explosive. And they are not tiny. Nor would they be easy to swallow. Some have a fuse, and lighting an initiators fuse while in your stomach might pose some serious challenges. Most have wires, which of course require a battery.
Originally Posted by TSORon
Power Source: Ever try to swallow a battery? That is the most common power source for explosives. There are others out there, but trying to get them into one’s stomach presents issues that I don’t think we can cover here.
Originally Posted by TSORon
Switch: Micro switches are possible, but making them immune to stomach acids would be difficult. Most switches are a bit too large to swallow.
Originally Posted by TSORon
These things are the reason that “stomach bombs” are a remote possibility. Very remote.
May 8, 10, 1:36 pm
#27
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC & Delhi
Programs: CO Pres. Plat, SPG
Posts: 546
If only they could find some type of rubber membrane which would make it possible to temporarily ingest something toxic... Then they could create a sealed, swallowable or insertable package containing [REDACTED]. Have the circuit set to count down for a few hours (long enough for the bomber to enter the terminal and possibly board their plane). The parts and explosives are commercially available, which means they can also be purchased on the black market for the right price.
Of course, since all this equipment is going to cause the lines to run even slower, the easier solution is to [REDACTED] the TDC. Don't even need an ID or a ticket. Just show up at the terminal.
Does the TSA have a "bring your own weapon" testing program? I have worked on some software projects where the developers opened up the system to all comers, looking for any effective means of defeating the system. Would the TSA be willing to pick a checkpoint at random and allow a tester to mix with regular passengers and test out the layers of protection?
Of course, since all this equipment is going to cause the lines to run even slower, the easier solution is to [REDACTED] the TDC. Don't even need an ID or a ticket. Just show up at the terminal.
Does the TSA have a "bring your own weapon" testing program? I have worked on some software projects where the developers opened up the system to all comers, looking for any effective means of defeating the system. Would the TSA be willing to pick a checkpoint at random and allow a tester to mix with regular passengers and test out the layers of protection?
Last edited by marklyon; May 8, 10 at 1:48 pm
May 8, 10, 3:20 pm
#28
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SFO/SJC/SQL
Posts: 1,412
Originally Posted by TSORon
For those who might like to see why this “idea” is so remote a possibility, here is a link to some information. Just swallowing some explosive is not going to cut it.
The "talent" wore surgical gloves up to her elbows but I still made sure she washed her hands before I introduced myself. The other "talent" could have sat on a 24oz water bottle and not notice.
May 8, 10, 3:41 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,461
Originally Posted by TSORon
These things are the reason that “stomach bombs” are a remote possibility. Very remote.
Last edited by Ari; May 8, 10 at 8:38 pm
May 8, 10, 3:51 pm
#30
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 505
After watching the food channel guy devore the majority of a SIX pound burritto, I'd say it would be a challenge, but possible.
An earllier covered topic would be a implanted one, particularly like breast implants.
But removing a kidney,alot of the small intestines, and stapling the stomach, you'd have room for the equilivant of several hand grenades, or a land mine.
As for the other persons excellent comments regarding the remote chance of a terrorist, I'd love it if an airline could be like a club where the members sign a waiver and forgo the TSA.
But with the argument of bringing a building down with the airplane, doubt it could ever happen.
I'd be in line though if it were.
An earllier covered topic would be a implanted one, particularly like breast implants.
But removing a kidney,alot of the small intestines, and stapling the stomach, you'd have room for the equilivant of several hand grenades, or a land mine.
As for the other persons excellent comments regarding the remote chance of a terrorist, I'd love it if an airline could be like a club where the members sign a waiver and forgo the TSA.
But with the argument of bringing a building down with the airplane, doubt it could ever happen.
I'd be in line though if it were.
