Science of a flightmare

Chris Eldridge — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:35:47 GMT

I have a lot of hopes for those super sensitive sniffers!! The one was said to be able to detect a picogram and was a quantity explained like this:

If all the people on the earth were a mass that equaled one gram, a picogram would be the equivalent amount of just one person's fingernail! How's that for sensitive? They said that even if you handled explosives several weeks ago and washed your hands many times since then, it would still detect it!!

Since terrorism can come in much bigger forms that the likes of yesterday's plot or even 9/11, I'd like to mention my Web site which has my article on Preparing for a Super-Disaster at the bottom.

www.trafford.com/04-2708

Science of a flightmare

Steve fowler, Morrisville, PA — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:53:31 GMT

Since liquids and polymers in general can be used to soak clothing, that can then be stored in a zip-lock bag, it is the same as having a bottle, gel-pak, or toothpaste tube of that product for the would-be terrorist to be. Also, as I remember from my less-than 'halcyon' college days, vodka injected into an orange, assured us of a good buzz anywhere on campus, since it was a dry school (no alcohol), dry county, in Kentucky. Liquid polymers and other potential explosives can be injected into fruit and other foods. However, foods and 'wet clothing' are still allowed onto planes. Watch out for the funny looking guys in the hawaiian shirts carrying their WMDs onto the plane or to your local picnic, they're actually Watermelons of Mass destruction. The only alternative is to issue us all Tyvek environmental jumpsuits, ship all our clothes to the final destination, and have us all look like Umppa-Lumpas or actors from Woody Allen's movie 'Sleeper,' as we march onto the planes. Has it become too absurd yet? Don't worry, it will.

Science of a flightmare

Dan, Vancouver WA — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:23:20 GMT

As long as we're willing to "pay any price" to save lives, how about 10%-15% of the cost of a ticket? That's about what it would take to cover the increased operating costs of flying airliners designed and built to withstand small explosives during flight. Sturdier framing and floors along with skin sections designed to blow out in non-catastrophic ways to relieve overpressures would help to insure that while a small amount of explosives smuggled onto an airplane would probably kill a few passengers, it would not bring the aircraft down. No "dramatic effect", so to speak, so why bother trying?

Science of a flightmare

Susan Franklin,Phoenix,AZ — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:38:41 GMT

It would be nice if airlines would have a supply of preinspected bottled water.They already have soft drinks and coffee so there would be no need to carry on your own.Maybe even baby formula that could be prearranged.

Science of a flightmare

Susan Franklin,Phoenix,AZ — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:45:49 GMT

One answer would be very inconvient for a lot of people but better than dieing would be to ban all carry ons except baby needs.

Science of a flightmare

J.C. Matlock, Marble Falls tx. — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:15:47 GMT

I read today about a new scanning technical that could revolutionize paleontology. The lead researcher Phil Donoghur a paleontologist at Bristol University in England. This technique let's Paleontologists look at fossils 500 million years old with out using acid to dissolue the rock. My qustion is this couldn't this same technique be used on the mars meteorite ALH84001 found in antarctica.

Science of a flightmare

Joe Real, Rancho Cordova, California — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:17:12 GMT

Why not separate flight for people and separate flights for luggages? It can be optimized and no carry-ons allowed except for medical purposes. Airlines provide appropriate baby food if necessary by checking ahead of time. We can then use smaller planes to carry just people. The luggage plane can be minimally staffed or remote-piloted with no one to kill. Separate system can be done but they reach the same destination just like how the internet works. If all airlines cooperate, this can be done economically.

Science of a flightmare

Patrick Bishop, Caldwell, NJ — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:01:22 GMT

Since I was a kid I've been interested in rockets, and now my attention has been drawn by all this news regarding liquid explosives. Are the substances causing all this commotion hypergolic? If so, has anybody looked at them as potential propellants? Just a thought...

Science of a flightmare

Allen Evans, Weatherford,TX — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:20:15 GMT

Somethings to think about: Hearing aids require batteries to work which could be used as a part of a bomb. Are we going to make people deaf by removing their hearing aids?? I myself have a cochlear implant and can only guess of the trouble I will get with a wire, transmitor, and receiver on the side of my head if I ever need to board a plane. What about other people with disablities? i.e wheelchairs with very big batteries??

Science of a flightmare

MICHAEL OVERBOE VILLA PARK IL — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:40:47 GMT

EVEN IF NO BOMBS EVER GO OFF ON ANOTHER AIRCRAFT EVER AGAIN, THE BAD GUY HAS WON. THE SIMPLE THINGS THAT WE ALL TAKE FOR GRANTED HAVE BEEN SLOWLY REMOVED FROM OUR LIVES. FEAR HAS US GOING THROUGH METAL DETECTORS, PUTTING OUR THINGS ON THE X-RAY, TAKING OUR SHOES OFF, NO LIGHTERS, NO WATER, NO FOOD, AND NO NOTHING. WE FEAR. NO MATER WHAT HAPPENS NOW THEY HAVE WON. A FEW DETERMINED PEOPLE OVER MANY YEARS HAVE DONE THIS.
MY THANKS TO ALL THE MANY MEN AND WOMEN THAT WORKS HARD TO KEEP THE BAD GUYS AT BAY. I DON'T FEAR TO TRAVEL, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE LESS CONVENIENT TO FLY.

Science of a flightmare

Nicole Glovier, Ashburn, VA — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:38:36 GMT

The TSA's domestic response to this threat has been so over-the-top beyond ridiculous, it defies comprehension. I got caught up in this mess at the crack of dawn yesterday trying to get home from a brief trip with no checked bag. Passengers at that hour had no warning and knew nothing about the situation until AFTER we got on the other side of the metal detectors and TSA started taking our deodorants, toothpaste, etc. Between my purse and my rollerbag, they confiscated and trashed upwards of $100 worth of harmless toiletries, cosmetics and perfume from me. By the time I boarded my connecting flight a few hours later, unlabeled prescription medications were being confiscated. I had to hide a tube of topical prescription creme in my bra and hope they didn't frisk me at the gate. TSA initially even was taking toiletries from flight crews. The level of overkill has been absurd, unnecessary and extremely costly, to consumers, airport retailers and the airlines. The government needs to stop being reactive instead of proactive and institute safety policies that make sense and will be truly preventative.

Science of a flightmare

chris Eldridge — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:57:46 GMT

Any credible aircraft designer should have anticipated the possibility that an airliner could be not only hijacked but used as a missile. This was written into science fiction novels and several hijackers actually tried to fly into a hotel long before 9/11.

One could say the exact same things for any fool who designed and built a skyscraper. Heck, my grandfather had a piece of the B-25 bomber that accidentally flew into the Empire State Building 60 years ago. No way was ever developed to get people out of such a high building in case of a fire nor was their any way for fire fighters to reach the upper floors... And here we thought the Neanderthals had really hard heads…

We never ever address the real issues of our day. Whether it is the fact that we build so many mega cities right on fault lines and in the shadow of volcanoes or the fact that we failed to develop any method to check for or prevent these liquid explosives (known about for over a decade), we literally are an accident waiting to happen. We’ll likely die off from our own stupidity long before any terrorist has had a chance to blow us up.

I would like to see airliners with ultraviolet missile detection systems and standard chaff dispensers like we see on every military aircraft to foil shoulder fired missile attacks.

Science of a flightmare

Lenora Whorton — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:12:02 GMT

I have no problem with stashing my toothpaste and shampoo in the suitcase under the plane, because after all, I'm not going to shampoo my hair on the plane. MY beef is with security personnel in airports who target middle aged grandmas on their way to Portland for wanding and patdowns complete with a feel under the bra, when certain types of people who look very different from me sail right on through without a second glance.

Science of a flightmare

Adam — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:48:54 GMT

As for the 'terrorists' having won, you're (sadly) mistaken. Their idea of 'victory' is simple, bloodthirsty revenge for all the dead Muslims in Lebanon and Iraq - maybe 100,000 dead. They're not making 'political statements' anymore. Instead they want you - any of you - dead for all the real and supposed harm against their coreligionists.

Doesn't matter to such people that most Muslim dead in Iraq are due to faction fighting and sectarian vendettas. Your government and the British did brought this horror upon their 'brothers' and now they want you dead in return.

Wake up people. The enemy wants you buried or bowing your heads - nothing less will do.

Science of a flightmare

Alan Sheets, Loveland, CO — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:41:46 GMT

There are plenty of ways to cause an explosion or fire on an airplane with just parts found in an aircraft lavatory. Is the TSA going to prevent us from going to the bathroom next?

Science of a flightmare

Michael — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:17:19 GMT

Once again I say the bad guys are winning. It goes far beyond blowing up aircraft. Our own government feels that it is OK to tap our call without a warrant and now we fear to build very tall buildings because of an unknown threat. How many more freedoms will we give up before we feel 'safe'.