OT: Airport Security Solved!

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

On 10/03/2010 10:53 AM, Rich Grise on Google groups wrote:





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

And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive which are
individually not explosive?

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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.

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

And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive
which are individually not explosive?

....then you are harmless.

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.
---------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> schreef in bericht
news:e3332bb9-5e52-432f-883c-fc96106cdd55_at_q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:53 am, Rich Grise on Google groups
richardgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------

Pity that it doesn't deal with the two-part explosives that you mix
together in the toilent on the plane.

This seems to be one of those magnificently simple solutions that
every manager can come up with.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yea, managers seldom have real solutions.

petrus bitbyter

On Mar 9, 6:57 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:



On 10/03/2010 10:53 AM, Rich Grise on Google groups wrote:

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

And if you're carrying the components of a binary explosive which are
individually not explosive?

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In that case, it's just a win (not a win-win) situation.

Old hat. It has already been done for anti-terrorist work.
Why do you think some terrorist bombs detonate prematurely?

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

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.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Yes; there are explosives that use NO nitrogen, but the em-Fa-sis is