BoatBanter.com - What no one is talking about...

On Jan 7, 8:52*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:57:11 -0800, jps wrote:

Is the sophistication of the technology used in the latest attempt to
bring a US jet down. *This wasn't a stick of dynamite disguised as a
sausage in his pants.

From what I've been able to find, the chemical used and the way it was
dispersed in the kid's clothing was undetectable by any current means.

And if it had worked properly, would have been quite forceful and
would have likely been effective in its intended job.

These aren't technologies of cave dwellers or luddites. *This is very
advanced, clever use of stealth weapons.

If they actually had several people bringing several ounces on each
and they all pooled their materials in the air they would have
something. The real weakness with Reid and this last bozo was the lack
of a decent detonator. This is not rocket science. There are hillbilly
coal miners all over the Appalachians who could make a heluva bomb out
of stuff they work with every day.
As far as I can tell they still haven't done much to stop a bomb in
checked luggage. You can make explosives look like anything on an X
ray and if it is really sealed up well, the sniffer is useless.
The little secret cops don't talk about is that their dogs don't
usually smell the contraband through the container. They smell the
residue on the outside, because the smuggler didn't wash his hands
after he packed.
I am not even that smart but I see holes in our security every time I
look.

Being the kind of person who develops crazy instruments, I've given
this sort of thing a lot of thought. All I've come up with is "I dont
want to fly". Off the top of my head, I can come up with several
deadly things to raise hell on an enclosed airliner USING MATERIALS
LIKE ORANGE JUICE OR A BOTTLE OF WATER, and another ingredient that
could easily be put in a condom and stuffed up some guys ass (or in a
woman). These materials are not common explosive ingredients so they
would not be detected by the sniffers.
There is no good technical solution to this problem although some
techie things make it harder for the really obvious things to get
through. Even if you look for nitrogen compounds as are in most
explosives, that peroxide based exploisive is not nitrogen based so
would not be detected.
Any solution will have to be multi-pronged using technical solutions
whose capabilities are secret to using dogs BTW, did you know a
bloodhound has roughly 100 million times the smell acuity of a human
BUT, a bear is 7x better? This will have to be combined with methods
that actively stress people who are probably terrorists. For example,
not knowing the capabilities of a dog, train the dog to give somewhat
positive indications toward someone you have profiled and then watch
how the person responds to this.
THIS WILL REQUIRE PROFILING. Nobody expects a group of Scandanavian
girl scouts to hide explosives in their panties so they are low on the
profile probabilities list. However, Achmed from Somalia who went to
school in Pakistan sure rates high on the profile probability index.
Profiling isn't PC but I'd rather **** some people off than have
another 9/11.