OT: Airport Security Solved!

Martin Brown wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs+drop.by.drop+*-gel-packs+*-*-*-hours+*-peroxide+acetone+*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-manage-*-*-*-*-*+*-enough-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+an-infidel-*-*+*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-dropper+sulfuric.acid+*-constantly+*-chiller+*-*-*-*-hour-*-*+concentrated+fumes+*-*-*-simple-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-myth-*-*-*-*-*-*+several.trips&strip=1#main-content

http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#main-content

Although that is true there are other things that would get through.
In more innocent days I have known people who carried things that most
definitely should never have been on an aircraft in their hand luggage.

The problem is that the enemy has the advantage of knowing what
characteristics of hostile compounds we are looking for.

Yes; there are explosives that use NO nitrogen, but the em-Fa-sis is
totally on the sil-abble of of nitrogen.

Received in the email:
--------------------------------------
Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners. Have
a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will
detonate any explosive device you may have on you. The chamber could
be reinforced sufficiently to withstand a blast, but just getting the
word out should take care of the problem. Absolutely no repeat
offenders, no lodging terrorists in prisons, no expensive trials, and
this solution would be cheaper to install in airports around the
world.

This would be a win-win for everyone.

Good American ingenuity.
---------------------------------------

Cheers!
Rich

Robert Baer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2...

http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#ma....

Although that is true there are other things that would get through.
In more innocent days I have known people who carried things that most
definitely should never have been on an aircraft in their hand luggage..

The problem is that the enemy has the advantage of knowing what
characteristics of hostile compounds we are looking for.
  Yes; there are explosives that use NO nitrogen, but the em-Fa-sis is
totally on the sil-abble of of nitrogen.

It is a reasonable strategy to look for nitrate based organics, but it
is inevitable as a result that the terrorists will use TATP or some
other structurally energetic compound that is not so easily detected.
Thankfully making them is beyond the capability of kitchen sink
chemists, but an unfriendly government might donate some to the cause.

There are a few items that can trigger false positives for nitrate swabs
if handled immediately before travelling too.

Explosives are only one sort of weapon capable of bringing a plane down.

UK recently found an Al Qaeda fund raiser with an airside passhttp://news..bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389219.stm

Here is a UK (right wing) perspective on the CIA's role in making air
travel ever more inconvenient for passengers but not more secure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6949529/Fly...

They are always fighting the previous battle and have no imagination.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 11, 3:06 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2...

http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#ma....

Although that is true there are other things that would get through.
In more innocent days I have known people who carried things that most
definitely should never have been on an aircraft in their hand luggage.

The problem is that the enemy has the advantage of knowing what
characteristics of hostile compounds we are looking for.
  Yes; there are explosives that use NO nitrogen, but the em-Fa-sis is
totally on the sil-abble of of nitrogen.

It is a reasonable strategy to look for nitrate based organics, but it
is inevitable as a result that the terrorists will use TATP or some
other structurally energetic compound that is not so easily detected.
Thankfully making them is beyond the capability of kitchen sink
chemists, but an unfriendly government might donate some to the cause.

There are a few items that can trigger false positives for nitrate swabs
if handled immediately before travelling too.

Explosives are only one sort of weapon capable of bringing a plane down.

UK recently found an Al Qaeda fund raiser with an airside passhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389219.stm

Here is a UK (right wing) perspective on the CIA's role in making air
travel ever more inconvenient for passengers but not more secure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6949529/Fly...

They are always fighting the previous battle and have no imagination.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Speaking of no imagination, it's absurd to think a terrorist has
failed if his bomb explodes say, at the x-ray machine instead of on-
board a plane.
I would go on, but then, the Homeland Security folks might come
knockin'....

JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs+drop.by.drop+*-gel-packs+*-*-*-hours+*-peroxide+acetone+*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-manage-*-*-*-*-*+*-enough-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+an-infidel-*-*+*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-dropper+sulfuric.acid+*-constantly+*-chiller+*-*-*-*-hour-*-*+concentrated+fumes+*-*-*-simple-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-myth-*-*-*-*-*-*+several.trips&strip=1#main-content
http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#main-content
Those three references look almost IDENTICAL, so can be considered as
ONE (with a stutter).
There are some hypergolic liquids that are spectacular when put together.
Hydrazine and IRFNA, and (get this!) oxygen and hydrogen (and results
are super-green so environmentalist APPROVED).
I am sure there are other combinations but i am not an explosive
expert, just some dumb heresy (oops--hearsay).

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:48:15 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs+drop.by.drop+*-gel-packs+*-*-*-hours+*-peroxide+acetone+*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-manage-*-*-*-*-*+*-enough-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+an-infidel-*-*+*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-dropper+sulfuric.acid+*-constantly+*-chiller+*-*-*-*-hour-*-*+concentrated+fumes+*-*-*-simple-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-myth-*-*-*-*-*-*+several.trips&strip=1#main-content
http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#main-content
Those three references look almost IDENTICAL, so can be considered as
ONE (with a stutter).
There are some hypergolic liquids that are spectacular when put together.
Hydrazine and IRFNA, and (get this!) oxygen and hydrogen (and results
are super-green so environmentalist APPROVED).
I am sure there are other combinations but i am not an explosive
expert, just some dumb heresy (oops--hearsay).

Hydrogen and oxygen are not hypergolic. However, phosphorous oxychloride
and water is, sodium metal and water is. And there are plenty more.
Dictionary entry..

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:48:15 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs+drop.by.drop+*-gel-packs+*-*-*-hours+*-peroxide+acetone+*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-manage-*-*-*-*-*+*-enough-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+an-infidel-*-*+*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-dropper+sulfuric.acid+*-constantly+*-chiller+*-*-*-*-hour-*-*+concentrated+fumes+*-*-*-simple-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-myth-*-*-*-*-*-*+several.trips&strip=1#main-content
http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#main-content
Those three references look almost IDENTICAL, so can be considered as
ONE (with a stutter).
There are some hypergolic liquids that are spectacular when put together.
Hydrazine and IRFNA, and (get this!) oxygen and hydrogen (and results
are super-green so environmentalist APPROVED).
I am sure there are other combinations but i am not an explosive
expert, just some dumb heresy (oops--hearsay).

Hydrogen and oxygen are not hypergolic. However, phosphorous oxychloride
and water is, sodium metal and water is. And there are plenty more.
Dictionary entry..

hypergolic : Relating to or using a rocket propellant consisting of
liquid fuel and an oxidizer that ignite spontaneously on contact.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It turns out that either in gas form or liquid form, hydrogen and
oxygen will explode, most especially as the mixture approaches their
stoichiometric ratio.
And remember, terrorist boys and girls, this binary is Greener Approved!

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:04:36 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:06 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

...then you are harmless.
Thomas C. Greene covered this part of Security Theatre in 2006.
It's amazing how many people still repeat this nonsense.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:63mnG_uzEYcJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2...

http://tinyurl.com/TheBinaryLiquidExplosivesMyth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/#ma...

Although that is true there are other things that would get through..
In more innocent days I have known people who carried things that most
definitely should never have been on an aircraft in their hand luggage.

The problem is that the enemy has the advantage of knowing what
characteristics of hostile compounds we are looking for.
  Yes; there are explosives that use NO nitrogen, but the em-Fa-sis is
totally on the sil-abble of of nitrogen.

It is a reasonable strategy to look for nitrate based organics, but it
is inevitable as a result that the terrorists will use TATP or some
other structurally energetic compound that is not so easily detected.
Thankfully making them is beyond the capability of kitchen sink
chemists, but an unfriendly government might donate some to the cause.

There are a few items that can trigger false positives for nitrate swabs
if handled immediately before travelling too.

Explosives are only one sort of weapon capable of bringing a plane down.

UK recently found an Al Qaeda fund raiser with an airside passhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389219.stm

Here is a UK (right wing) perspective on the CIA's role in making air
travel ever more inconvenient for passengers but not more secure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6949529/Fly....

They are always fighting the previous battle and have no imagination.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Speaking of no imagination, it's absurd to think a terrorist has
failed if his bomb explodes say, at the x-ray machine instead of on-
board a plane.
I would go on, but then, the Homeland Security folks might come
knockin'....  :)

Now add a major case of "not invented here", just compare the effectiveness
of Israeli security versus our own.  They live in the hottest area and
are a hotter target than the US but do NOT have the problems we are seeing.
They are obviously doing several somethings right that we (the US &c) are not.
Are we looking at what they do, and model our programs after theirs?  Why not?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -