Full Body Scanners will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives!

NightHawk

Rookie
Nov 20, 2010
2
0
1
Is our audience aware these machines (full body scanners) will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives used by the terrorists? These explosives are RDX and PETN.

The entire security exercise at our airports is a waste of time.

Both Semtex and C-4 contain two powerful explosives RDX and PETN [also known as cyclonite and pentaerythritol tetranitrate] but differ in the plastic binder material. The explosives RDX and PETN are manufactured worldwide. Plastic bonded explosives containing RDX and PETN and binders are manufactured in several other countries, and theft is possible resulting in the explosive following into the hands of terrorists. Iran is believed to manufacture plastic bonded explosives. By agreement, several countries that manufacture plastic bonded explosives (U.S., Canada, Austria) incorporate tracer materials to enable the explosive to be traced to the country of origin.

When officials were asked if full body scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the underpants incident Christmas 2009, they replied as follows.

“The indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a remote chance of its being detected.”

“Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3 oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive the “underwear bomber” used was low-density and so probably wouldn’t have shown up on the scanner.”
 
Figures.

They should use dogs. Or this

Dogs have long been called man's best bomb detector -- until now.

A Tel Aviv University scientist leads a research team that has developed a powerful electronic sensor to detect multiple kinds of explosives -- including those used in the recent Yemeni bomb threat. Based on nanotechnology advances, the new sensor is small, portable, and is more sensitive and reliable at detecting explosives than any sniffer dog, says its lead researcher Prof. Fernando Patolsky of Tel Aviv University's Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Chemistry.

With scientific findings on it published recently in the journal Angewandte Chemie, the new device is attracting considerable attention from security companies and fellow scientists.

Capable of detecting numerous types of explosives, Prof. Patolsky says the sensor is especially effective at detecting TNT. Existing methods and devices used to trace the explosive have the drawbacks of high cost, lengthy decoding times, size, and a need for expert analyses: "There is a need for a small, inexpensive, handheld instrument capable of detecting explosives quickly, reliably and efficiently," says Patolsky.

According to the researchers, this new sensor can out-sniff even a champion sniffer canine.

More at link.

Out-sniffing bomb-sniffing dogs
 
I remember the first time I saw a police bomb dog in action. I wasn't impressed. We were directed to clear the area not because of a potential explosion but because dogs can apparently be distracted by onlookers. Also, we had to place three additional boxes that were similar to the package suspected of containing a bomb. Apparently, this is to make sure that the dog wasn't "alerting" on a package as a way to get a treat as a reward. If it didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes and alerted on the suspect box, then it was a "good test." The dog didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes, didn't do an alert on the suspect box but "showed interest." (That's what the cop said. He couldn't confirm whether or not the suspect box had a bomb, so we were right back to where we started.) Turned out that the suspect box did not contain a bomb.

Point here is that bomb dogs aren't exactly 100% reliable. Perhaps they're good for the one suspect package but I don't think they would be reliable in an airport screening situation because of distractions, fatigue, boredom and other similar things that pose a similar problem for performance animals. If put in a routine situation, they tend to lose effectiveness.
 
Is our audience aware these machines (full body scanners) will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives used by the terrorists? These explosives are RDX and PETN.

The entire security exercise at our airports is a waste of time.

Both Semtex and C-4 contain two powerful explosives RDX and PETN [also known as cyclonite and pentaerythritol tetranitrate] but differ in the plastic binder material. The explosives RDX and PETN are manufactured worldwide. Plastic bonded explosives containing RDX and PETN and binders are manufactured in several other countries, and theft is possible resulting in the explosive following into the hands of terrorists. Iran is believed to manufacture plastic bonded explosives. By agreement, several countries that manufacture plastic bonded explosives (U.S., Canada, Austria) incorporate tracer materials to enable the explosive to be traced to the country of origin.

When officials were asked if full body scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the underpants incident Christmas 2009, they replied as follows.

“The indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a remote chance of its being detected.”

“Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3 oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive the “underwear bomber” used was low-density and so probably wouldn’t have shown up on the scanner.”

Fearmonger! Terrorist sympathizer!

Did I forget something? It seems like I did. I remember.

Right wing partisan wingnut hack!

Now I know why some lefties (and righties) post like that, it doesn't require thinking. You just have to keep a list of catch phrases and post them at random.
 
I remember the first time I saw a police bomb dog in action. I wasn't impressed. We were directed to clear the area not because of a potential explosion but because dogs can apparently be distracted by onlookers. Also, we had to place three additional boxes that were similar to the package suspected of containing a bomb. Apparently, this is to make sure that the dog wasn't "alerting" on a package as a way to get a treat as a reward. If it didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes and alerted on the suspect box, then it was a "good test." The dog didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes, didn't do an alert on the suspect box but "showed interest." (That's what the cop said. He couldn't confirm whether or not the suspect box had a bomb, so we were right back to where we started.) Turned out that the suspect box did not contain a bomb.

Point here is that bomb dogs aren't exactly 100% reliable. Perhaps they're good for the one suspect package but I don't think they would be reliable in an airport screening situation because of distractions, fatigue, boredom and other similar things that pose a similar problem for performance animals. If put in a routine situation, they tend to lose effectiveness.

The best dogs run around 75% effectiveness in controlled tests. They are effective in searching a building for explosives because it is not that difficult to investigate false positives and eliminate them. They would be all but useless in an airport where people can have food in their luggage. That is why companies are working so hard to develop artificial noses and other sceening technology. If dogs would work they would have been deployed by now.
 
Is our audience aware these machines (full body scanners) will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives used by the terrorists? These explosives are RDX and PETN.

The entire security exercise at our airports is a waste of time.

Both Semtex and C-4 contain two powerful explosives RDX and PETN [also known as cyclonite and pentaerythritol tetranitrate] but differ in the plastic binder material. The explosives RDX and PETN are manufactured worldwide. Plastic bonded explosives containing RDX and PETN and binders are manufactured in several other countries, and theft is possible resulting in the explosive following into the hands of terrorists. Iran is believed to manufacture plastic bonded explosives. By agreement, several countries that manufacture plastic bonded explosives (U.S., Canada, Austria) incorporate tracer materials to enable the explosive to be traced to the country of origin.

When officials were asked if full body scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the underpants incident Christmas 2009, they replied as follows.

“The indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a remote chance of its being detected.”

“Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3 oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive the “underwear bomber” used was low-density and so probably wouldn’t have shown up on the scanner.”
It's true. Those body scanners are not 100% effective. Go here:
Schneier on Security: German TV on the Failure of Full-Body Scanners

Enough PETN to blow a huge hole in the fuselage of an airliner can easily be concealed in a rectum or vagina (it doesn't take much).

So it is important to know that these machines are being marketed to the TSA by the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. (He's the guy who looks like a ghoul.)_
 
I remember the first time I saw a police bomb dog in action. I wasn't impressed. We were directed to clear the area not because of a potential explosion but because dogs can apparently be distracted by onlookers. Also, we had to place three additional boxes that were similar to the package suspected of containing a bomb. Apparently, this is to make sure that the dog wasn't "alerting" on a package as a way to get a treat as a reward. If it didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes and alerted on the suspect box, then it was a "good test." The dog didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes, didn't do an alert on the suspect box but "showed interest." (That's what the cop said. He couldn't confirm whether or not the suspect box had a bomb, so we were right back to where we started.) Turned out that the suspect box did not contain a bomb.

Point here is that bomb dogs aren't exactly 100% reliable. Perhaps they're good for the one suspect package but I don't think they would be reliable in an airport screening situation because of distractions, fatigue, boredom and other similar things that pose a similar problem for performance animals. If put in a routine situation, they tend to lose effectiveness.
Caesar Marin (The Dog Whisperer) mentioned on one of his programs that drug search dogs have a limited attention span and tend to get bored after awhile and ". . . don't want to play anymore." I'll assume that bomb search dogs are no different.
 
I wonder what Israel does. Surely they, of all nations, know how to look for people with explosives on them.
I have been seeing this statement on this board allot lately and I truly hope you are not serious. Israel's security is not tenable on a scale that would be meaningful in this country and if you think there is outrage or even a smidgen of discontent with scanners there would be outright revolt with what Israel does. In Israel, all rights take a back seat to security. Having neighbors that get aroused at the thought of your demise let alone the actual act will tend to change your priorities. Bottom line, not only is Israelis system untenable here it would be a travesty for us to even think of going to a system like that. I love my country not because it is like other countries but precisely because it is not. Rights and liberties still have meaning here and I mean to keep it that way.
 
I wonder what Israel does. Surely they, of all nations, know how to look for people with explosives on them.
I have been seeing this statement on this board allot lately and I truly hope you are not serious. Israel's security is not tenable on a scale that would be meaningful in this country and if you think there is outrage or even a smidgen of discontent with scanners there would be outright revolt with what Israel does. In Israel, all rights take a back seat to security. Having neighbors that get aroused at the thought of your demise let alone the actual act will tend to change your priorities. Bottom line, not only is Israelis system untenable here it would be a travesty for us to even think of going to a system like that. I love my country not because it is like other countries but precisely because it is not. Rights and liberties still have meaning here and I mean to keep it that way.
Based on what I've heard Israel does it the smart way, i.e., they have intelligent examiners interview and each passenger to evaluate who should be thoroughly searched without concern for whose feelings are hurt. Here we are so burdened with hypocritical political correctness we resort to inconveniencing everyone unnecessarily and go so far as to humiliate young children.
 
I wonder what Israel does. Surely they, of all nations, know how to look for people with explosives on them.
I have been seeing this statement on this board allot lately and I truly hope you are not serious. Israel's security is not tenable on a scale that would be meaningful in this country and if you think there is outrage or even a smidgen of discontent with scanners there would be outright revolt with what Israel does. In Israel, all rights take a back seat to security. Having neighbors that get aroused at the thought of your demise let alone the actual act will tend to change your priorities. Bottom line, not only is Israelis system untenable here it would be a travesty for us to even think of going to a system like that. I love my country not because it is like other countries but precisely because it is not. Rights and liberties still have meaning here and I mean to keep it that way.
Based on what I've heard Israel does it the smart way, i.e., they have intelligent examiners interview and each passenger to evaluate who should be thoroughly searched without concern for whose feelings are hurt. Here we are so burdened with hypocritical political correctness we resort to inconveniencing everyone unnecessarily and go so far as to humiliate young children.
Sorry but that is one small, infinitesimal piece of Israeli security measures. You may agree with that piece and want to see that implemented here and if you do by all means bring that up. That is NOT the whole picture by a long shot and you should know that. There is far, far , FAR more to what they are able and do carry out within their own country. I am not saying they should not do the things that they do, their situation is very much not our situation but I am saying that we should defiantly NOT do what they are doing. That is, of course, not a reason to observe their measures and take what can work for us. What is tenable, like the profiling you were referring to, can be taken but that is not what their effectiveness is wholly based on. We cannot set up Israeli security here and it is a moot point to say we should.
 
I wonder what Israel does. Surely they, of all nations, know how to look for people with explosives on them.
I have been seeing this statement on this board allot lately and I truly hope you are not serious. Israel's security is not tenable on a scale that would be meaningful in this country and if you think there is outrage or even a smidgen of discontent with scanners there would be outright revolt with what Israel does. In Israel, all rights take a back seat to security. Having neighbors that get aroused at the thought of your demise let alone the actual act will tend to change your priorities. Bottom line, not only is Israelis system untenable here it would be a travesty for us to even think of going to a system like that. I love my country not because it is like other countries but precisely because it is not. Rights and liberties still have meaning here and I mean to keep it that way.
Based on what I've heard Israel does it the smart way, i.e., they have intelligent examiners interview and each passenger to evaluate who should be thoroughly searched without concern for whose feelings are hurt. Here we are so burdened with hypocritical political correctness we resort to inconveniencing everyone unnecessarily and go so far as to humiliate young children.

If you fly El Al you arrive at the airport 4 hours early, and are under armed guard the entire time. They search everyone, and ask questions that are intrusive. If, for any reason, they do not like the answer, you get searched again. I would not tolerate it myself, even to save my life. Some things just are not worth it.

Their system works great because they can supply enough people to thoroughly cover every flight they fly. The US has 7500 flights in the air at the same time. In order to implement the Israeli system here, and make it work, you would have to be at the airport the day before the flight, and would have to go through hours of screening. I admire their system, but it will not work here. And I am a person who supports profiling, so it is not PC that is making me say this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top