Posted on 12/28/2009 6:52:30 PM PST by Starman417
ABC has the pictures of Umar Farouk Abdulmutalla's underwear:
And you can see for yourself none of the present day security at our airports would of protected us against that, except the technology our Congress is attempting to ban:
Privacy advocates, for example, have tried to stop or at least slow the introduction of advanced checkpoint screening devices that use so-called millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger’s body, so officers can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been hidden. Security officers, in a private area, review the images, which are not stored. Legislation is pending in the House that would prohibit the use of this equipment for routine passenger screening.
The other method used is to use swabs on a persons skin to test for any trace amounts of the explosive but this is only used on those who are placed on the watch list, which they didn't do for Abdulmutalla despite the warnings from his father.
Danger Room describes the process of the first scan: (h/t Hot Air)
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Congress banning? Like profiling?
I heard on the radio today that a good bomb sniffing dog checking passengers is more accurate than the sniffing machines that they spend tons of money on and randomly select people to sniff.
Give me a good dog any day. Who the frak cares if dogs offend Muslims.
What no skid marks?
Could have....
To Flopping Aces....
“Of”? Did you mean “Have”? Title makes no sense.
Why not just pat down everyone named Mohammed Abdul Abu Allah-Jiahd?
God is gonna get me for this, but I hope the perp can’t reproduce any more. I know.......I know.........
Maybe dogs that don't like muslims.
Maybe very undisciplined dogs that bite that don't like muslims.
Maybe very LARGE undisciplined biting dogs that don't like muslims!
Let’s call him the Camel Diaper Bomber.
That should go well on the Arab Street.
This is my 14,000th post. It’s only taken eleven years. I need to ramp it up.......
“Could of?” I had to click to the link to see if the author of the headline was really that illiterate.
On topic, a lot of tools for preventing terror attacks are gone, by either the Bamster or by The New York Times. I have found the operative question to ask any liberal jabbering about the evil Bush administration is, “Are we at war?”
Liberals believe we are not at war, and this motivates every argument on the subject of terrorism.
Will SOMEBODY PLEASE teach the writer of this article the difference between, and correct useage of, the words ‘of’ and ‘have’
“...would OF protected us”...
Public education...sheesh!
AAC
or PIGS on PLANES.
I’m so glad they cut the brown stain out. I’m sure he pooped in his britches when the dutch producer grabbed him and threw him in the aisle. Allah must be pretty unhappy with the Pantybomber.
Jumpin’ jehosephat I think you are on to something here. We all know that pigs are very intelligent animals and as such can be trained to sniff out drugs, explosives, etc.
To watch one of these pigs sniff out someone who absolutely hates pigs would be very enjoyable, in fact downright entertaining. Of course new rules of conduct would have to be enacted for those passengers observing the sniff-down. Maybe some time limits such as: pointing—15 seconds, laughing—30 seconds, smiling and pointing—1 minute. Only smiling—a lifetime.
What the hell is "... That Could Of Stopped Bomber?...
What the hell is "could of?"
How can we take a writer seriously when he can't tell the difference between a preposition and a compound or auxiliary verb form?
Gheeeez, Louise...
Hey!
If you’re willing to be a suicide bomber, place the explosives in your rectum or vagina, or stomach!
Now, who’s going to check you out before boarding?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.