Comments on: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 : Myths & Facts

By: Why Do Aviation Security Agencies Miss The Obvious? - Flying With Fish

Why Do Aviation Security Agencies Miss The Obvious? - Flying With Fish — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:21:50 +0000

[...] facts are straightforward, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up Delta Air Lines Flight 253 (operated by Northwest Airlines). On the 25th of December 2009, Christmas Day, Umar Farouk [...]

By: Why TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs” Are Not Effective - Flying With Fish

Why TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs” Are Not Effective - Flying With Fish — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:42:11 +0000

[...] pat down’ would have likely missed the December 2009 ‘underwear bomb‘ that failed to detonate on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. This DHS anti-terrorism expert has first hand knowledge of the complete design of the [...]

By: Flying With Fish » Oh Canada … No Carry On Bags … What Is A Photog To Do?

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:07:39 +0000

[...] of terrorists it makes absolute sense that nearly a month after the botched terrorist attach on Delta Air Lines’ Flight NW253 (Operated by Northwest Airlines), and weeks after nearly every foreign nation has returned to normal carry-on baggage allowances for [...]

By: Thank the Christmas crotch bomber for your upcoming virtual strip search « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:42:29 +0000

[...] past four years, if not longer… would have picked up PETN residue rather trivially.” (bordingarea [...]

By: flyingfish

flyingfish — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:53:03 +0000

JJ,

I do not have a chemistry or physics background. However I know how the current screening systems work which gives me insight into what I am saying here .

Happy Flying!

-Fish

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:22:49 +0000

@flyingfish: Thanks for the response. Out of curiosity, do you have a background in chemistry or physics or something comparable that would lead you to come to such a conclusion?

-JJ

By: flyingfish

flyingfish — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:09:22 +0000

I am choosing not to comment on why I believe the device would have been undetectable at this time. Last week I probably would have answered you…this week I am forced to rethink certain replies.

Happy Flying!

-Fish

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:48:20 +0000

[initial post swallowed my attempt at a URL. it is h t t p://www.gesecurity.com/portal/site/GESecurity/menuitem.f76d98ccce4cabed5efa421766030730?selectedID=5729&seriesyn=true ]

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:47:39 +0000

“I will say this though; the manner in which Abdulmutallab was likely transporting his incindiary device was in a manner, which would be fully undetectable by airport security at any airport.”

Seems to me like a device like the GE EntryScan (in use at SFO for at least the past four years, if not longer; pretty sure comparable devices would be made by at least one or two other companies) would have picked up PETN residue rather trivially.

What specific reasons make you think this would be “fully undetectable”?

-JJ

By: flyingfish

flyingfish — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:20:32 +0000

Bruce,

There is no question that appearing on an intelligence watch list or potential terrorists; the UK denying him a visa based on him providing false information and his father informing the US Embassy that he suspected his son’s motives should have all been red-flags for addition screening.

Where and how the components of the device were hidden however may not have been discovered in a traditional secondary screening.

Happy Flying!

-Fish