USA imitates France

Ramone Cila wrote:

>
> I don't think you need "pounds" of explosives if you are training a sniffer.
> But boy, I still wonder why the American testers didn't put their "fake
> bomb" in a box just like those wiley Frenchies did :^)
>
> You're sure about that, are you James, that the Americans didn't put the
I'm sure you're a damn fool - you jumped in with a bogus opinion trying
to look patriotic and ended up looking idiotic.
> bomb in a bag or box to disguise it......just a little bit :^) Ya think they
> just threw a bomb-looking device on a conveyer and lost it?
>
>

I'm sure ( although I have no evidence ) that the fake bomb was placed
in a bag or suitcase or a package of some sort - it was to be run though
the XRAY detectors to see if the operator could recognized a "Bomb" when
it went passed them - obviously they couldn't!! Let's hope It WAS in a
bag of some sort, otherwise the competency of the operator is *truly* in
question.

> Really...like one of those bombs in a cartoon? Dynamite, wires and an
> alarm clock.

if the fake bomb looked like a "cartoon" bomb, all the more reason to
doubt the level of competency of security! Do you what it looked like -
are the damn fool who screwed up? BTW you can buy "dynamite" from a
props supply house that looks real - it just won't explode. or you can
make a bomb with the explosive packed into battery casings and hide it
in a "boom box" or other common electronic device that has circuitry
and batteries, that type is much harder to detect by XRay.

I too wonder why the French used "pounds" of explosive! you'd think the
dog would only need a small amount to get the scent - but that seems to
info we are not privy to.

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rclwd.373$wi2.335@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> "Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote in message
> news:U9kwd.378$Lw.4303@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:0Vjwd.648$iC4.466@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com. ..
> >
> > > Obviously the circumstances are different. The fact remains that the
> > > abilities of each group are now in question.
> >
> > That is a wholly different subject than the issue of whether or not the
> > errors were equal (imitates) in severity.
>
> Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that the losses were equal in
> severity. I'll have to go back and read the thread again. What I read is
> that the French screwed up and lost a "bomb" and the Americans screwed up
> and lost a "bomb". Sounds like a pretty good imitation to me.

Ah...I don't feel like parsing this anymore. I told you what I meant, and
I'd hope you could have taken that at face value.

"Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote in message
news:oPlwd.384$Lw.6128@news.uswest.net...
<snip>

> Ah...I don't feel like parsing this anymore. I told you what I meant, and
> I'd hope you could have taken that at face value.

I would have, but this is Rec.Scuba...

>There is equal import to both losses in the short run. The important part
>about both situations was not even that the security forces couldn't find
>the bombs, but rather that they had found them and then lost them again.

Hmmm....musta been a shift change :)

take care

Blll

"Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote in message
news:6Kiwd.367$Lw.3041@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f1iwd.312$wi2.233@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > I can definitely see the comparison. Both the French screeners and the
> > American screeners are not prepared to properly do their job.
>
> Sorry, but if the USA were imitating France, they would have lost high
> explosives. But they were, instead, more circumspect about the
possibilities
> and used a fake bomb for training. And if it were to be a sniffer test
they
> wouldn't have used, or needed to use, **pounds** of high explosive
material.
>
> There simply is no correlation between the two. Both agencies were testing
> their systems and as such there is an expected occurrence of loss, if it
was
> easy and you would always find the bomb.....why do it. As such it seems
> almost stupid that the French used that much explosive material.

Lets hope both learned something from it, and plugged a couple holes.

It does seem rather arrogant to chance losing an amount of Semtex. I have to
entertain the idea that it may have also been a baggage type, or some other
worker or airport employee the security people pissed off, who snagged it to
give them a black eye. I like the idea of some guy snickering about it as
the heads roll, knowing it has been safely disposed of.

If I were licensed in the US for purchase, transportation and use of
blasting agents (there is precious little commercial use for C4, and it is
*not* commonly available), and I lost that much C4, and they could prove it,
I would lose my license at very best, and be charged with reckless
endangerment at very best, should anyone be hurt or killed with what I lost.