[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Up until yesterday I thought it would be unrealistic to assume that a guy could get on a plane with a fake suicide belt made out of phone cases covered in cloth, in these times unrealistic scenarios can quickly become reality.

Phone cases and fabric tends to be easier to smuggle than nuclear material but okay.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Phone cases and fabric tends to be easier to smuggle than nuclear material but okay.

But used to hijack a plane is pretty unrealistic right? as being gunned down in a Parisian street in large numbers on a Friday night? Or being slaughtered on a Tunisian beach by a lone guy dressed as a tourist who arrived on a boat, or Christian children being blown up in a playground, all scenarios straight out of a Hollywood blockbuster right?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

But used to hijack a plane is pretty unrealistic right? as being gunned down in a Parisian street in large numbers on a Friday night? Or being slaughtered on a Tunisian beach by a lone guy dressed as a tourist who arrived on a boat, or Christian children being blown up in a playground, all scenarios straight out of a Hollywood blockbuster right?

Wouldn't watch it tbh, sounds depressing.

[bots]

If one looks at this logically, accessing a dead terrorists phone to see what he had planned to do next doesn't make sense, he is more than likely dead because he carried out the planned act.

It may provide information on other cell members, but in this particular case, they appeared to be working in isolation, so nothing to be gained there.

Also, something to add, once you are dead, you lose all rights to privacy, so the FBI can do what they want with your phone. If you are still alive, its a different matter, and they should go through the correct legal procedures to obtain it on a case by case basis.

The point I am making is that the highest value information comes from the living, not the dead, and that's where security forces should be channeling their efforts

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

But used to hijack a plane is pretty unrealistic right? as being gunned down in a Parisian street in large numbers on a Friday night? Or being slaughtered on a Tunisian beach by a lone guy dressed as a tourist who arrived on a boat, or Christian children being blown up in a playground, all scenarios straight out of a Hollywood blockbuster right?

Again, that has little to do with the discussion of the possibility of a WMD being acquired by IS and being smuggled into and used against the US.

To compare someone getting their hands on a gun and saying it's as realistic as terrorists going nuclear is just plain dumb. Anyone can get their hands on a gun, but nuclear weapons are.....less available.

It's the same thing with the bombs used in attacks, they are often home made. You can't really make a homemade nuke.

IS somehow acquiring 'lost' WMDs, having the capacity and resources to ACTUALLY use them and smuggling them into the US is pretty much an impossible scenario.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Up until yesterday I thought it would be unrealistic to assume that a guy could get on a plane with a fake suicide belt made out of phone cases covered in cloth, in these times unrealistic scenarios can quickly become reality.

So a guy with phone cases stuck to him and bits of cloth got on a plane?

Alert the authorities.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Phone cases and fabric tends to be easier to smuggle than nuclear material but okay.

Yes Dezzy
thats why Terrorists are using Sea Shipping
Like you say they should get caught,


But if its in a new case that Sealed
under Metals
it may get through.

Thats all I am saying.


Not From Any Movie.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Dezzy
thats why Terrorists are using Sea Shipping
Like you say they should get caught,


But if its in a new case that Sealed
under Metals
it may get through.

Thats all I am saying.


Not From Any Movie.

Its ridiculous and I'll tell you why. Building a nuclear bomb takes many years, involves dozens of top scientists in that field and costs billions. Yes, they could steal one from somewhere like Pakistan but that would have to be either dismantled and re-assembled by a team of expert scientists who could take years to put it back together when it reached its destination or it would have to be transported complete and therefore easily detectable.

Why on earth would they go to all that trouble when they can easily make and let off a dirty bomb?

[arista]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Its ridiculous and I'll tell you why. Building a nuclear bomb takes many years, involves dozens of top scientists in that field and costs billions. Yes, they could steal one from somewhere like Pakistan but that would have to be either dismantled and re-assembled by a team of expert scientists who could take years to put it back together when it reached its destination or it would have to be transported complete and therefore easily detectable.

Why on earth would they go to all that trouble when they can easily make and let off a dirty bomb?

Yes it takes a long time I agree DR.
but no one knows if any have got through a year ago,
Experts work for Big Cash
and they care not about whats going , sadly

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, that has little to do with the discussion of the possibility of a WMD being acquired by IS and being smuggled into and used against the US.

To compare someone getting their hands on a gun and saying it's as realistic as terrorists going nuclear is just plain dumb. Anyone can get their hands on a gun, but nuclear weapons are.....less available.

It's the same thing with the bombs used in attacks, they are often home made. You can't really make a homemade nuke.

IS somehow acquiring 'lost' WMDs, having the capacity and resources to ACTUALLY use them and smuggling them into the US is pretty much an impossible scenario.

I'm not comparing anything, you are doing that yourself, I'm just pointing out scenarios that would have been passed off as unrealistic in the past like training as pilots and flying planes into buildings are now a reality, just because you think it's unrealistic and difficult to do doesn't mean someone with determination and intent can't do it at some point

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Its ridiculous and I'll tell you why. Building a nuclear bomb takes many years, involves dozens of top scientists in that field and costs billions. Yes, they could steal one from sowhere like Pakistan but that would have to be either dismantled and re-assembled by a team of expert scientists who could take years to put it back together when it reached its destination or it would have to be transported complete and therefore easily detectable.

Why on earth would they go to all that trouble when they can easily make and let off a dirty bomb?

IT IS NOT "RIDICULOUS" AT ALL - but the so-called FACTS in your post are. You are such an expert on everything it seems, but should check or update your sources because your post is non-factual and very misleading.

NOTHING would have to be "dismantled and re-assembled" and certainly not by a "team of expert scientists", and nor would it "take years to put it back together", and neither would it be "easily detectable" if it was "transported complete".

For DECADES, both the USA AND The SOVIET UNION have assembled 'mini-nukes' by a process known as 'TWO POINT LINEAR IMPLOSION' - a process which uses an alloy of PLUTONIUM and GALLIUM.

The USA built nukes by this method which fitted within an artillery shell which measured just 6.1" in diameter x 33.3" in length, and equalled 72 TONS of TNT when exploded in addition to the very fatal radiation.

MORE ALARMING, is the fact that in September 1997, former SOVIET NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, General Aleksander Lebed claimed that the former Soviet Union had manufactured FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE mini nukes in the form of a CASED NUCLEAR BOMB which had the appearance of a SMALL SUITCASE measuring just 24" x 16" x 8" inches, and each had the power of 1 KILOTON or 1000 TONS OF TNT.

These 'Suitcase Bombs' were designed to be detonated by 'one man', needed only 30 minutes notice, and had been distributed to members of the GRU (foreign military intelligence directorate).

LEBED SHOCKED THE WORLD BY CLAIMING THAT OVER 100 OF THESE SUITCASE BOMBS HAD 'GONE MISSING' DURING THE COLLAPSE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

I for one, have not suggested that ISIS or any other terrorist group HAVE BUILT a Nuke or ACQUIRED a Nuke, or that they have SMUGGLED one in to the USA.

What I DID post, are TWO IRREFUTABLE SETS OF FACTS; that Nukes have gone 'missing', and that illegal tunnels from Mexico to the USA have been discovered - and I posted these TWO FACTS along with those above - in order to put a stop to the unfair and BASELESS RIDICULING of Arista's perfectly feasible hypothesis concerning terrorists detonating a nuke within the USA.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I'm not comparing anything, you are doing that yourself, I'm just pointing out scenarios that would have been passed off as unrealistic in the past like training as pilots and flying planes into buildings are now a reality, just because you think it's unrealistic and difficult to do doesn't mean someone with determination and intent can't do it at some point

By 'pointing them out' you are comparing them.

Hijacking a plane is far easier than acquiring nuclear materials, creating a nuke and smuggling it into the US to detonate.

Your previous examples are all doable but IS acquiring and using Nuclear technology is not likely at all.

It's time to drop the nuclear angle, it's dumb, juvenile and it's based on nothing but fiction. It ain't gonna happen so it's pointless wasting time discussing it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

IT IS NOT "RIDICULOUS" AT ALL - but the so-called FACTS in your post are. You are such an expert on everything it seems, but should check or update your sources because your post is non-factual and very misleading.

NOTHING would have to be "dismantled and re-assembled" and certainly not by a "team of expert scientists", and nor would it "take years to put it back together", and neither would it be "easily detectable" if it was "transported complete".

For DECADES, both the USA AND The SOVIET UNION have assembled 'mini-nukes' by a process known as 'TWO POINT LINEAR IMPLOSION' - a process which uses an alloy of PLUTONIUM and GALLIUM.

The USA built nukes by this method which fitted within an artillery shell which measured just 6.1" in diameter x 33.3" in length, and equalled 72 TONS of TNT when exploded in addition to the very fatal radiation.

MORE ALARMING, is the fact that in September 1997, former SOVIET NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, General Aleksander Lebed claimed that the former Soviet Union had manufactured FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE mini nukes in the form of a CASED NUCLEAR BOMB which had the appearance of a SMALL SUITCASE measuring just 24" x 16" x 8" inches, and each had the power of 1 KILOTON or 1000 TONS OF TNT.

These 'Suitcase Bombs' were designed to be detonated by 'one man', needed only 30 minutes notice, and had been distributed to members of the GRU (foreign military intelligence directorate).

LEBED SHOCKED THE WORLD BY CLAIMING THAT OVER 100 OF THESE SUITCASE BOMBS HAD 'GONE MISSING' DURING THE COLLAPSE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

I for one, have not suggested that ISIS or any other terrorist group HAVE BUILT a Nuke or ACQUIRED a Nuke, or that they have SMUGGLED one in to the USA.

What I DID post, are TWO IRREFUTABLE SETS OF FACTS; that Nukes have gone 'missing', and that illegal tunnels from Mexico to the USA have been discovered - and I posted these TWO FACTS along with those above - in order to put a stop to the unfair and BASELESS RIDICULING of Arista's perfectly feasible hypothesis concerning terrorists detonating a nuke within the USA.

Where are the checkable facts for your post?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

By 'pointing them out' you are comparing them.

Hijacking a plane is far easier than acquiring nuclear materials, creating a nuke and smuggling it into the US to detonate.

Your previous examples are all doable but IS acquiring and using Nuclear technology is not likely at all.

It's time to drop the nuclear angle, it's dumb, juvenile and it's based on nothing but fiction. It ain't gonna happen so it's pointless wasting time discussing it.

You have spent more time on it than anyone in the thread

[Kizzy]

Do airport scanners have Geiger counters in them?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Where are the checkable facts for your post?

I researched this very subject recently for my book by googling. I suggest you can do the same. You are after all an expert at googling aren't you?

I do wonder though why you persist in always responding to my posts in the negative - especially when most of my posts are not specifically addressed to you but to other members? As with this one for example.

[Kizzy]

I do love a good google. It's nothing personal I would've said same to anyone, as it seemed a bit hypocritical to berate someone for not citing sources and then doing the same.

[arista]

[Harvard researcher warns Isis may be on
the brink of using nuclear weapons: Chilling report
highlights risk of dirty bombs, power station
sabotage and device detonation]

[Detonation of an actual nuclear bomb ]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz44RGlw0fj

Feck me a Nuke Bomb


Its hard to stop
a Blank Van with a Nuke in the back
in any nation,
& after going off.
Its Harder to find out who did it?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

You have spent more time on it than anyone in the thread

Because it's part of the debate dear and it's been debated to oblivion, not that it matters to you. Any chance to try and fail at a snipe I guess.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

If one looks at this logically, accessing a dead terrorists phone to see what he had planned to do next doesn't make sense, he is more than likely dead because he carried out the planned act.

It may provide information on other cell members, but in this particular case, they appeared to be working in isolation, so nothing to be gained there.

Also, something to add, once you are dead, you lose all rights to privacy, so the FBI can do what they want with your phone. If you are still alive, its a different matter, and they should go through the correct legal procedures to obtain it on a case by case basis.

The point I am making is that the highest value information comes from the living, not the dead, and that's where security forces should be channeling their efforts

..this is what I keep thinking, bitontheslide...if the FBI themselves are saying that they were acting completely alone and now obviously they're both dead...then what information would there be that could link to any terrorist cells because they weren't part of one..their determination doesn't quite make sense to me with this because it seems so contradictory...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Because it's part of the debate dear and it's been debated to oblivion, not that it matters to you. Any chance to try and fail at a snipe I guess.

If people want to discuss it where is the problem, it's not your call to finish a discussion

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..this is what I keep thinking, bitontheslide...if the FBI themselves are saying that they were acting completely alone and now obviously they're both dead...then what information would there be that could link to any terrorist cells because they weren't part of one..their determination doesn't quite make sense to me with this because it seems so contradictory...

Isn't the key phrase there "they appear to be working in isolation", surely they have to follow it up to its conclusion even if they find nada, it would be pretty incompetent to just assume there is nothing on the phone

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Isn't the key phrase there "they appear to be working in isolation", surely they have to follow it up to its conclusion even if they find nada, it would be pretty incompetent to just assume there is nothing on the phone

...I think the phrasing by them was more 'no indications of being part of a network', Cherie..and no indications of being part of a wider network, leading to so much determination to access this particular phone, doesn't quite make sense to me...

[bots]

Originally Posted by arista

[Harvard researcher warns Isis may be on
the brink of using nuclear weapons: Chilling report
highlights risk of dirty bombs, power station
sabotage and device detonation]

[Detonation of an actual nuclear bomb ]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz44RGlw0fj

Feck me a Nuke Bomb


Its hard to stop
a Blank Van with a Nuke in the back
in any nation,
& after going off.
Its Harder to find out who did it?

Where is jack bauer when we need him

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I think the phrasing by them was more 'no indications of being part of a network', Cherie..and no indications of being part of a wider network, leading to so much determination to access this particular phone, doesn't quite make sense to me...

Even if there was a small chance something was on the phone I would have thought they has a duty to follow it up, not sure how the FBI works, but leaving no stone unturned must be the basis for any investigation, how many dead ends are followed in an investigation of any kind