Bombs on Planes? Terror hits UK Airports

[star.torturer]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1841149,00.html
im shour the good old US of A is also going to feel the stress, with no coffee on planes (no liquids) and flights into or out of UK Biged up Security at airports

my boss was going out today, he aint in a good mood!


ps it wasnt me

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Many passengers were stoical but worried about becoming bored. "Eight hours without an iPod - that's the most inconvenient thing," Hannah Pillinger, a 24-year-old at Manchester, said.

yes that's courage and forebeareance of a level as yet unprecidented in our youth.

Thanks for the story, the coverage on the news this morning was vague to say the least, there's like some people been arrested, and like there suspected of planning to bomb something realted to flights? Was about the most I got out of it if you want to travel expect delays, well duh

Good old MI5 and the cops, this is how you win the war on terror with intelligence, not violence

 

[Astronuc]

Officials at Heathrow airport said all milk for babies would have to be tasted by an "accompanying passenger".

Hmmmm. I presume that means 'bottled' milk.

Laptop computers, mobile phones and iPods are among the items banned from being carried on board.

Ouch! I don't have an iPod, but I do take a laptop computer and cell phone with me when I travel. I suppose one could check the laptop in the luggage, but would it arrive at the destination? Doing a business trip without a laptop is rather difficult these days, especially since we prefer to put presentations on the laptop. Thankfully, we have memory sticks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now here's an interesting twist: The price of crude dropped about $1.50 a barrel, allegedly due to expectations of reduced air travel.

I love it! Threaten our planes and we'll drop the price of oil.

 

[Bystander]

Sounds like the idiots've been watching too much "MacGyver" --- going to mix the bombs on the plane --- without someone noticing? Without burning holes in themselves? Scotland Yard should've let them go ahead and do the self-mutilations, then, rather than arresting them, just deport them for their friends to see.

 

[Rach3]

This isn't intelligent at all! This is absolutely idiotic! It is common knowledge that al-Qaeda hoped to smuggle explosives onboard disguised as harmless liquids - this is exactly what Ramzi Yousef did when planning for the 1995 attempted bombings, hiding nitroglycerin as a bottle of contact-lens solution! (wikipeda)

And now, eleven years later, they've suddenly decided (NYT) to set up permanent screening of carry-on liquids, only after a repeat of 1995 was attempted. That's idiocy for you. And if they're targeting mothers with babies and milk bottles - well, that's so profoundly moronic and heartless that I will refrain from commenting on it.

 

[Rach3]

Expanding the second link in my previous post:

U.S. Rushes to Screen Liquids at Gates

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — For the near future, the American strategy to deal with liquid explosives is to ban liquids; the longer-term plan is to discriminate among liquids. At least some of the tools for doing both are already in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/w...&en=a6bc1c31c98093e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Yes, they're "rushing" to counter this 'new' threat, a full decade after it almost succeeded in a massive act of terrorism (wiki), right after giving the terrorists a second attempt at the exact same plan.

So remind me - what exactly was our anti-terror strategy for the past five years, again?

 

[Rach3]

Oh yeah, now I remember! Get Saddam Hussein's nukes.

 

[Evo]

So are you saying that all liquids, and carry on electronics should have been banned since 1995?

They're allowing baby formula & medication onboard, although when I traveled, I used the powdered formula as it took up less space and I could mix each bottle fresh and it required no refrigeration.

I haven't read anywhere that this was a "new" type of threat, they uncovered a plot, which they've been monitorting since December of 2005.

 

[Rach3]

No, merely that some appropriate discrimination should have been implemented that could thwart either the 1995 or 2006 attempts. That's what they're going to implement anyway in response to this, it's in the NYT article I quoted. They list various methods of chemical detection there.

Except they've waited until two nearly-successful attempts of the same plot, a decade apart, and since they don't have anything ready there'll be a long period of time where they just ban all liquids. They simply haven't prepared anything for this.

 

[Rach3]

Actually the methods they quote seem absurd to me - X-ray spectroscopy of liquids? Huh? Could our professionals here maybe give an opinion of the stuff they mention there, it seems somewhat impractical to me. I'd think FT-IR would be best, why wouldn't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/w...&en=a6bc1c31c98093e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Evo]

It's because unless there is a crisis shoved in the public's face, people don't want to be inconvenienced. There is no need to take liquids or electronics onboard an airplane, but it is something that people have become used to.

Heaven forbid someone should take a book to read and drink ther water available on board the plane.

It's nice for a business person to be able to work with their computer on long flights, but it's not a necessity.

My concern is that these liquids can be taped to the body, full body searches will be required unless they use those "stripper x-ray machines. But that still won't prevent people from inserting supplies into body cavities. Is there really any way to prevent this? What about those gelled shoe inserts?

 

[Rach3]

A while back they said they would use MS to detect those things.

Fast, accurate detection of explosives on airport luggage possible

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Fast, highly reliable detection of residues that could indicate the presence of explosives and other hazardous materials inside luggage is now possible with technology under development at Purdue University.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2005/050930.Cooks.explosives.html

That source is from 2005, but I remember it being heavily discussed in 2001 and maybe earlier. Not sure what's happened with that - I think it's already used in a few places to screen luggage (not passengers). Anyone know?

 

[Rach3]

Here's a 2004 report about possibly applying it to passenger screening:

Opportunities to Improve Airport Passenger Screening with Mass Spectrometry (2004)
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/030909240X/html

In the case of certain explosives, experiments suggest that it is difficult to make a bomb without contaminating persons and things associated with that fabrication. Many of these materials are very sticky, and once a finger has been in contact with the explosive, it is capable of leaving many subsequent fingerprints (on briefcases, clothes, boarding passes, etc.) with detectable amounts of material. The advantages of trace detection are that it can be used on people and baggage without harming them and that it raises minimal privacy issues. This report focuses on opportunities for improving the ability of ETDs to detect terrorist threat materials in transportation—specifically, airport—environments.

 

[Rach3]

And here's the one-paragraph wiki article, with a half-dozen links at the bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_mobility_spectrometry

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately the liquids to be used this time would not raise any alarms as they are common substances that can be purchased in grocery and hardware stores, they are harmless alone, it's only when mixed that they form an explosive.

 

[Bystander]

Actually the methods they quote seem absurd to me - X-ray spectroscopy of liquids? Huh? Could our professionals here maybe give an opinion of the stuff they mention there, it seems somewhat impractical to me. I'd think FT-IR would be best, why wouldn't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/w...&en=a6bc1c31c98093e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

You want to stand in line behind some dowager while the screeners pull samples from every bottle in her makeup case to run through an FT-IR? Or, you want to stand in line behind the same dowager while her makeup case gets run through X-ray?

______________________________________________________________

Explosives detection methods? Look for nitrated organics --- going to find 'em everywhere --- what's the "trigger" level? What about flash powder and all the non-nitro explosives? There aren't enough people to staff a full analytical laboratory at every airline passenger check-in --- you run X-ray and look for fluoresence fingerprints from a laundry list --- or you "profile."

Better yet, you go where they come from, and kill 'em all there.

 

[Yonoz]

Good old MI5 and the cops, this is how you win the war on terror with intelligence, not violence

Look who's a nationalist...
Surely you do not think the MI5 did it all by themselves. I guarantee you Pakistan did much of the work. Don't think the Americans didn't help either, thank god for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON" eh?

 

[Evo]

Here's that stripper x-ray machine.

Air travelers stripped bare with X-ray machine

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-05-15-airport-xray-bottomstrip_x.htm

 

[Yonoz]

Unfortunately the liquids to be used this time would not raise any alarms as they are common substances that can be purchased in grocery and hardware stores, they are harmless alone, it's only when mixed that they form an explosive.

I think the problem is the lack of chemical sniffers in airports, they're quite expensive. The process is rather slow too, difficult to implement for a high volume airport - Ben-Gurion Airport has two and the line can get quite long. They can find and identify traces of gunpowder and certain chemicals in explosives.
I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Yonoz]

A while back they said they would use MS to detect those things.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2005/050930.Cooks.explosives.html

That source is from 2005, but I remember it being heavily discussed in 2001 and maybe earlier. Not sure what's happened with that - I think it's already used in a few places to screen luggage (not passengers). Anyone know?

I'm not sure if these are the sniffers I mentioned, but it sounds like it. I've some knowledge of those, they're very expensive, bulky and slow - probably why they were decided against.

 

[edward]

The new security reglations are a big step up from just searching every fourth little old lady. This is so totally bizzare.

 

[Moonbear]

The new security reglations are a big step up from just searching every fourth little old lady. This is so totally bizzare.

I agree, these restrictions take it to a whole different level of inconvenience. Already, with the long security lines, I drive more places than I would have in the past...I may extend my range of driving distances based on this, not out of fear of air travel, but because of the degree of inconvenience. I have zero faith that airlines will get my luggage to the place I'm going and get it there undamaged, so have always packed all my essentials in my carry-on luggage, including my toiletries, laptop, and cell phone. It's not about being able to use it on the plane to do work, but about having it when I arrive at my destination to do work. I've also had enough experiences of missing connections due to delays at the original airport and having them send my luggage on an earlier flight than I'm booked on, and having to change flights last minute to avoid weather delays to get to my destination on time. In all those cases, my checked luggage was not in the same place I was, and I'd have been quite ticked off if I couldn't have my toothpaste and deodorant and laptop in my carry-on bag while stranded for hours in an airport or stuck overnight in a city I never planned to be in.

Plus, so many airlines have cut back on in-flight food and snacks that you have to bring your own food too. If I can't even carry a bottle of water onto the flight, they darn well better start serving more frequent beverage services. The air is too dry on the planes to go without water or only get some dinky half a cup of soda on a long flight.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Look who's a nationalist...
Surely you do not think the MI5 did it all by themselves. I guarantee you Pakistan did much of the work. Don't think the Americans didn't help either, thank god for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON" eh?

I have no idea about anything as I said before the only thing I've seen so far is a mention of the great police work, obviously any other agencies I heard nothing about until quite recently in fact until you mentioned it. Thanks to all those involved but don't take my thanks initially as anything other than ignorance about the situation due to the lack of information. Me a nationalist that'll be the day, you won't find many English nationalists who will admit that they are, it tends to be synonymous with racism more often than not in this country, thus it's generally perceived as being an offensive lable, although I know you were only messing

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another interesting note on terror: After Madrid, the London bombing, and now the foiled plot, the stock markets went UP! It seems that the markets are acquiring some immunity to terror.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

And people are in general for example the UK,stirred not shaken we're used to it, the IRA never melted our spirit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

These guys are a bunch of two-bit thugs compared to the Soviets. Sure, they can cause problems, but we've certainly dealt with bigger threats. And Darwinism demands that eventually they will run out of suiciders.