Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page > If drug mules swallow drugs and fly, can't terrorists swallow explosive devices?

If drug mules swallow drugs and fly, can't terrorists swallow explosive devices?

Reply

Old May 6, 10, 5:31 pm
  #1
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 43
If drug mules swallow drugs and fly, can't terrorists swallow explosive devices?

I wa



/

Last edited by Connie_DFW; May 9, 10 at 3:37 pm
Connie_DFW is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 10, 11:04 pm
  #2
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,802
They have been working on it for months

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6862247.ece
cordelli is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 2:01 am
  #3
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by Connie_DFW View Post
if it ever happens, how will the TSA react?
How will they react?, you ask

Something like this...

"He surprised me by blowing himself up," Prince Mohammed bin Nayef reportedly told al-Arabiya, in a masterpiece of understated commentary.
PhlyingRPh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 6:39 am
  #4
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,678
Originally Posted by Connie_DFW View Post
more importantly, if it ever happens, how will the TSA react?
Crank up the x-rays on the nude-o-scope enough to see through the entire body, make it mandatory for primary screening, and let the health consequences be d****d. After all, it's "for your own safety" and that "of the children" and done "out of an abundance of caution." And if you don't like it, you can always choose to take the bus.

Unfortunately I don't think this sarcastic response is all that far off from what TSA leadership would think about or like to do.
studentff is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 9:11 am
  #5
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Next to a salty lake in Utah
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 3,693
This technique (of mule explosives) is why I am against WBI. WBI can not detect such devices and as such are worthless as a known way of avoidance is already possible. Of course until cargo is 100% inspected we could all fly naked and it would not make any difference.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 9:34 am
  #6
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,781
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.
clrankin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 11:46 am
  #7
Ambassador, China
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Beijing
Programs: TG, OZ, UA, AA
Posts: 6,373
Originally Posted by clrankin View Post
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.
Great Post. I'm with you all the way. I refuse to kowtow to the fearmongers--what kind of a life is that?
jiejie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 12:39 pm
  #8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
N965VJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,473
Originally Posted by studentff View Post
Crank up the x-rays on the nude-o-scope enough to see through the entire body, make it mandatory for primary screening, and let the health consequences be d****d.
It's already being done to pets.
N965VJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 3:44 pm
  #9
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SFO/SJC/SQL
Posts: 1,411
I have worked with a large variety of companies to develop technology solutions that best suits their needs in industries such as semiconductors, finance, education, aerospace/defense, and most recently, adult entertainment. To best understand a business, I have been invited into clean rooms that make chips, sit inside the cockpit of a C-5 Galaxy heavy transport, and attend university lectures like I was back in college.

Part of the fact finding at my last job has proven to me that the WBIs are a pointless exercise. Most people cannot comprehend how much volume the human body can accommodate with little visible discomfort. Given a few weeks of training and a lot of motivation, surprisingly large objects of a variety of shapes and sizes can be retained rather easily. Factor in a person's sex and you can easily double capacity.

I really could care less about the nudity aspect. What I do hate is tax dollars being spent on a technology that is easy defeated.
WChou is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 4:28 pm
  #10
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by WChou View Post
I really could care less about the nudity aspect. What I do hate is tax dollars being spent on a technology that is easy defeated.
these companies get multi-million(if not billion) government contract to make these new devices..... I'm sure the shareholders are quite happy about it.

it's kind of like world peace.... defense contractors are the last people who want that...
Connie_DFW is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 4:39 pm
  #11
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SDF
Programs: Delta PM, IC Ambassador, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,182
Clearly the best solution is to start swabbing everyone's mouth when they go through security.
SomeGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 4:42 pm
  #12
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Miami
Programs: AA EXP/CK; DL DM; Hilton Diamond; SPG Platinum 100; Sixt Platinum; National Exec and others
Posts: 4,695
What fine ideas. Not just swabs, though. there aslo should be insertion of surgical cameras to check each relevant orifice. No need to check cargo, just carryon baggage is quite enough.
jbcarioca is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 4:57 pm
  #13
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CH
Posts: 237
Won´t be long and a human body will have to be put into a 100-gallon clear ziplock container that can be hung in blast proof compartments on the aircraft. Of course, the human body will have to be unclothed and not exceed a maximum weight of 200 pounds. The number of human bodies per container will be limited to one, unless there is a baby. It can go with its mother, but of course the 200 pound total limit still applies.

As a positive side effect, this will take care of the fitting into a seat with armrests down issue, as well as gate-licing will be eliminated by new forklift based boarding procedures.
hwmorth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 5:26 pm
  #14
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SFO/SJC/SQL
Posts: 1,411
Originally Posted by SomeGuy View Post
Clearly the best solution is to start swabbing everyone's mouth when they go through security.
Oh, a lot of what I saw was not done orally.
WChou is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 10, 5:33 pm
  #15
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,191
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.
TSORon is offline  
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:57 pm.

Home - News - Forum - Hotel Reviews - Glossary - Contact Us - Airport Code Lookup - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy - Advertise on FlyerTalk - Archive - Top

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by Flyertalk.com. Copyright © 2017 FlyerTalk.com. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.