3 ms·
... which was supposed to sniff for explosives. Obviously that mustn't have worked in this case, ... You're assuming that he had actual explosives. From what l
by m_eiman 17y ago
... which was supposed to sniff for explosives. Obviously that mustn't have worked in this case, ...
You're assuming that he had actual explosives. From what little I've read so far they've said that it was some kind of "chemical", which expands the possibilities quite a bit beyond explosives.
Either way, I notice something that might be the beginning of the end of the "air travel safety" spectacle: this whole episode is hardly noticable on the front pages of (Swedish) news papers. That hopefully means that increasing regulations in the area will no longer be a way of publicly showing that "you act against terrorism", which should mean fewer new arbitrary rules. Hopefully.
- andrewcooke 17y ago> A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found attached to Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol. > PETN was used in the device worn by British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who is serving a prison sentence for attempting to blow up a Paris-Miami airliner in Christmas week of 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8431470.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8431470.stm via infowarrior
- m_eiman 17y agoAh, I see. That's apparently something that should have been detected by sniffers. Also of interest while on the subject of airborne terrorists: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror...