http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39348615
Printable View
A field day for the baggage thieves. Typical of my sad little country that it poodles along after the US. Blair and Bush; now May and Trump. Always seeking a pat on the head from our masters. It's ironic that the Brexiteers claimed that they were interested in UK "independence". In fact, many of the leading Tories in the group are far-right Atlanticists. Fox, Gove, Johnson... they'd be much happier in Redneckville.
In all probability Oliver the Intel for this came from The UK. Even the Chinese have complained about GCHQs listening skills.
It all sounds suspicious. How would it, detonating in cargo, be any less impactful? No doubt, when the device is out of the hands of the rightful owner, it can be searched more discretely. Perhaps an increase in lost or late baggage from these carriers passing through the US would explain what's really up.
Surfcrest
Lithium batteries plus crazed but brilliant zealots plus seriously skilled electronics experts = not too hard to work out really.
By this logic, shouldn't shoes and underwear be banned on all flights too? Terrorists have tried to sneak boms in them too.
n
I stopped believing this sort of intelligence years ago. MI6 has lost its credibilty. Remember Iraq?The lap-top danger was faced a decade ago. We sitll have to remove our devices from their bags at UK airports....why should the scanning be more effective than this in the baggage area?
The problem is that our governments feed off our fear; and security services are always demanding more money, whatever their level of competence or the veracity of the "security" alerts. Orwell saw this when he wrote 1984.
And so my first question when something like hits the news, via our beloved government, is always, "Cui bono?" It's certainly not us.
By the way, do these security experts believe that a guy who is willing to kill himself (as well as you and me) and can have the means to cheat the scanners used for hand luggage, hasn't the ability to start the journey from elsewhere?
In my view , it is May and MI6 sucking -up to Trump. And I'd be interested in the link between this and the allegations made by Trump about MI6.
It seems that Oliver and Trump share similar levels of paranoia. About almost everything..
Unfair. Iraq and the lies we were told by security services, actually happened. This from The Independent;
Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International magazine, said: ”If we cannot, in 2017, distinguish between a laptop that contains an IED and one that does not, then our screening process is completely flawed. And encouraging people to check laptops, and other such items, into the luggage hold simply makes the challenge even harder
You can't hark back to Iraq every time you want to not believe the security services Oliver. Different PM and different govt now. However it does seem that almost anything can be hacked including the controls of a plane.
rubbish - this is just security theater the same as the 100ml of liquid, etc - there has never been any evidence that "crazed but brilliant zealots" could assemble a significant explosive device inside the secure area of an airport or in an airplane toilet from such liquids and I am waiting with bated breath for the evidence that there is a credible threat that this can be done from components concealed in a laptop!Quote:
Originally Posted by arsenal
but even if it can theoretically be done do they seriously expect us to believe that scanning of carry-on items for for passengers from say Egypt to the USA transiting through or originating in Bangkok on Thai is significantly better than transiting through or originating in Dubai on Emirates?
and do they seriously expect us to believe that US/UK "no-fly lists" and carry-on baggage scanning is so reliable that laptops present no risk on flights leaving the US/UK, only on arriving flights? or do these governments not care about their nationals being killed on exploding outgoing flights?
and I am sure the major US/UK airlines, after years of crying into their beers about unfair government support for Emirates, Qatar, et al. (no not EL AL), are not that upset about the "inconvenience" for their passengers!
bkkguy
I read somewhere that x-rays cannot penetrate through laptops and pads. I have zero idea if this is true, but if so it will explain why they have to be taken out of hand luggage before screening.
Terrorists blowing planes out of the sky have been around for decades. There was the Al Quaeda 1994 plot to down 12 US aircraft en route for the US over the Pacific. A dry run was held and a bomb left inside a life jacket under a seat exploded on a Philippines Airlines 747 en route to Tokyo in December that year, killing one and injuring many. Only the skill of the crew landed the aircraft safely.
The 1985 downing of an Indian Airlines 747 en route from the US off Ireland has still not been explained and is thought to be terrorist-related. And then Pan Am 103 proved that one bomb in the cargo hold could bring down a full 747.
Like Surfcrest, If a mobile phone can detonate a bomb on the ground, surely it's not beyond the wit of these murderers to find a way of detonating a bomb in a suitcase using the phone they are still able to carry on board?
Fountainhall is right. And bkkguy, you have no idea at all what they can or can't do. Fact.
Not a trueQuote:
Originally Posted by fountainhall
Attachment 4421
They asking cuz they can more precise focus x-rays at solo laptop and see picture more clear, accumulators are real problem: almost no one of them isn't transparent for x-ray cuz of using multi-layered metallic foil inside: each accumulator consist from few lithium elements, and each lithium element consist from rolls of layers 2 of them are manufactured from metallic foil and aren't transparent for x-rays
Attachment 4422
Attachment 4423
I should have written that whilst x-rays can see inside a laptop, they might not be able to see something lurking behind a laptop. At least, that is what I read. I accept it might not be true.
Hey, where the hell did my post go? Moses!
Anyway, this entire debate is quite stupid. Ok, Someone boards a plane with a laptop packed with explosives, and heads to the US. I'm assuming they plan to detonate that bomb over the Atlatic Ocean, right? Or are they planning to blow up the customs area of their destition airport?
So how exactly is this protecting the US again?
looks like you made click at wrong button :) do you want me to restore it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
Attachment 4424
Take note! Terrorist attack outside of Parliament.....Some dead.....Parliament locked down.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ernment-London
This one is not difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
1 US citizens might be on the plane that's blown up over the Atlantic.
2 They might manage to blow the plane up directly over New York. If the bomb is manually detonated, looking out of the window should provide sufficient information about the location.
3 The US might actually take some interest in citizens of other civilised countries.
Incidentally, I have high confidence in UK intelligence.
Introducing restrictions for dodgy middle-Eastern countries with dodgy security is also fine by me. I don't even understand why we allow planes to fly to our country from places like Egypt.
If this practice spreads to other countries where we actually want to fly to, then the risk of tablet & laptop theft becomes a concern.
I hope most of the countries I fly to will keep reliable security screening procedures.
Somali airliner bombing suspect smuggled exploding laptop onto plane: officialQuote:
Originally Posted by bkkguy
DEBKAfile February 7, 2016, 9:49 PM (IDT)
The passenger who became the lone fatality in the February 2 bombing of a commercial flight from Somalia to Djibouti was handed a laptop by two people, suspected airport workers, in military uniforms at the airport in Mogadishu before boarding the flight, a Somali government spokesman said Saturday. The suspect was sucked out of Daallo Airlines Flight 159. He has now been identified as Abdullah Abdisalam Borleh, who knew exactly where to sit. Nevertheless the pilot managed to turn back and land the plane safely at Mogadishu.
The spokesman added that over 20 people, including the two airport workers, government officials and businessmen, have been arrested on suspicion of being linked to the attack. The FBI is said to be assisting the Somalian government in the investigation. http://www.debka.com/newsupdatepopup...lane-official-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo...nes_Flight_159
It takes a significantly larger quantity of explosives to bring down an airliner if the explosion is in the hold. If you think that an explosion in the cabin at cruising speeds just needs to blow out a window to have a good chance of bringing down the plane. The hold is a more solid structure, and the greater quantity of explosives needed also mean that there is a greater chance of detection in taking them onto the plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfcrest
I don't know if this has been put into use yet, but a while ago a bomb proof lining for the hold was developed in the UK that meant that even if there was an explosion there, it can be contained within the hold.
http://www.sciencealert.com/this-bom...ns-on-aircraft
The problem with that theory though, is that you'd have to bag the needle in the haystack to save the day. So if you knew where the bomb was to bag it, why would you simply not allow it on board? With how infrequently bombs are blowing up in cargo holds, I'd seriously doubt any airliner would spend the money to reinforce the hold and because of the weight it would add to the plane. The next problem, inside the hold is all the other cargo...including the flammable stuff. If something blows up, it's the resulting fire that would be the catastrophic event.
I would think, from my perspective with our air cargo business that it is far more likely for something in the cargo hold to burst into flames far more so than blow up.There have been multiple incidents around the world in cargo holds involving lithium ion batteries and improper packaging.
Besides, if the real problem was all these issues...all airliners coming from specific destinations would be targeted, not just the ones identified.
Surfcrest
Years ago, I had a good friend who worked at YYC (Calgary) in baggage handling in a foreman capacity. He always joked about how piss poor the security is. If someone wants to blow an airplane out of the sky, they'll just grab a job as a baggage handler for $10/hour, have full access to the runway, and throw a bomb on any plane they want.
Banning iPads from a few select countries doesn't help, and in my opinion, just makes things worse. In my eyes, it should either be no iPads for anyone in the world, or no ban on iPads at all. Putting bans like this on a few select countries doesn't work, because then we end up having a debate, wondering why others hate our freedoms, and why they became radicalized.
There's about 1.5 billion muslims on this planet, and we're blanketing entire nations with the same brush due to the actions of say 300,000 people. This is about as stupid as Trump's wall idea.
Not to mention, when was the last time a terrorist blew a plane out of the sky with explosives in their laptop? Oh right, never.
n
y
I believe the only airliner which reinforced anything - in this case the fuel tanks - was the Concorde after the horrific Paris crash. But after BA and Air France spent many millions, the passengers were not so keen and supersonic travel died.
This isn't an attempt to stop terrorism; it is a naked attempt to keep us scared while pretending that the authorities can do anything at all to stop individual attacks by lunatics and fanatics. Close one door and another one will be opened.
As we in London found out yesterday - if we didn't already know. A determined guy can buy a knife (a knife! so high tech!) in Sainsbury's, rent a car from Avis and cause mayhem in the most heavily-patrolled part of London.. And there is nothing our government , nor others,can do about it. The UK and USA imposed this upon us when they decided to invade Iraq and-unwittingly- created ISIS. And, to be fair to the UK security services, Blair was warned about this, time and time again. but the vainglorious poodle went ahead and opened Pandora's Box.
No problem for this wealthy, blood-stained war-criminal- he travels by private jet amd has 24/7 security in all of his many properties. However, we Londoners (and I live six miles away from the attack and travel into Westminster twice a week on public transport), are at the mercy of these lunatics. And our only defence is to stay in our homes . Which I'm not prepared to do.
iSIS and Blair; blood-brothers in every sense. Bearing in mind the heavy price Syrians have paid and they weren't even the ones who invaded, we've got off lightly so far, if four dead and fifty injured can be so described.
facts are marvelous things - you just have to be careful who/where you get them from - forgive me if I pass on getting mine from you based on your posts hereQuote:
Originally Posted by arsenal
careful or arsenal will be berating you for having "no idea" as well - did you investigate the details of this incident? It has been often mentioned recently in light of the recent ban but I have still seen nothing in the recent or original articles to support a claim that the significant issue in this attack is concealment in a laptop - the bomb was delivered to the attacker by airport staff in the departure hall just before he boarded the plane at an airport even the plane's pilot described as having "no security" so the bomb could just as easily been in an overnight bag, an umbrella or indeed the attacker's wheelchair frameQuote:
Originally Posted by Brad the Impala
so I am still waiting, though the breath is a but less bated
bkkguy
bkkguy: Either you have no idea what they can or can't do. Or, you are privy to information that the general public is not. And if you are you shouldnt be bragging about it here. So I'm sticking with my original suggestion of ignorance. Fantasize to yourself if you want to.
I have to agree with Oliver - the "security measures" we are subjected to are mostly all kidology, and the war criminal Blair ought to be standing in the dock at The Hague rather than appearing on TV to give us the extremely dubious benefit of his opinions.
I have to take my laptop out of my bag every time I go through security, and in Istanbul I even had to switch it on so staff can see the screen is working.
I have no idea what you are talking about, can you elaborate? Anyway, there is little "brilliant" and "skilled" about most of the attacks, rather crude and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by arsenal
The hold is at the same pressure as the surrounding air, I don't think it can sustain a fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfcrest
I think an explosion at the right place inside the passenger area (choosing a seat next to window over the wing?) needs much less explosive than in the luggage area to bring the plane down. And it can be done over a populated area to maximize damage.
I'm not sure the comment about fire in the hold is accurate. In 1987 a South African Airways B747 combi en route from Taipei to Johannesburg crashed into the sea off Mauritius with the loss of all lives. The cause of the crash was a fire in the cargo hold which was so hot it disintegrated part of the hull. It is thought that lithium batteries might have spontaneously combusted, but the true cause of the fire was never discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by christianpfc
In 1996 a ValuJet DC9 crashed in the Everglades due to fire In the cargo hold. And the whole lithium battery issue was highlighted in 2010 with a cargo hold fire which caused the crash of a UPS 747
Live animals travel in the hold and survive so a fire probably can too. Ask bkkguy he knows everything apparently.