Liquid explosives detected at West Virginia airport? (Update: “Not a threat”)
posted at 4:44 pm on August 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
In the carry-on bag of a Pakistani woman, apparently. They’ve run two tests, both positive.
On a flight from West Virginia to North Carolina, though?
Almost certainly a false positive, but worth a link. Especially since it gives me an excuse to blog-flirt with Mary K.
Love among the ruins!
Update: HDW notes below that a bomb-sniffing dog alerted on the bottle too. Hmm.
Update: Double hmm from Rusty, who’s watching the live feed:
At first people calm after electronic security device picks up suspicious substance in two water bottles. Witness says bomb-sniffing dog “bee lined it” to the woman’s bag. Panic ensued.
If this does pan out, it’s a huge score for TSA.
Update: The BBC:
Chris Yates from Jane’s Aviation told the BBC that both the swab and sniffer dog tests were extremely sensitive.
The likelihood that a container that had not come into contact with explosives would come up positive on both tests was extremely low, he said.
Update: The latest via the video feed is that cops have confirmed she had legitimate reasons for being on the flight. It also could be that “nitrates,” which could have come from anything, might have set off the detectors. Pointing towards a false alarm but stay tuned.
Update: As expected. CBS says it was cosmetics that set off the sniffers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
An explosives trained dog alerted on the bottle too apparently. That sounds more credible than the two tests to me.
High Desert Wanderer on August 17, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Pakistani is the new Saudi.
BirdEye on August 17, 2006 at 5:00 PM
I have to wonder, if there is going to be a lot of False Positives, or more “Suspicious Acting” people detainened in hopes that Enough Frustration and fear of the legal implications (lawsuits), wipes out ALL our ability to secure planes.
It may be a ploy by the terrorist and their sympathizers (Democrats) to do this…as we all know the democrats want to hurt the President..and they don’t care if they have to stand on the smoldering ruins of America to do it..
havok on August 17, 2006 at 5:24 PM
What OTHER aircraft were loading at the time?
Which OTHER passengers were loading and where were they traveling to?
If panic ensued then the ruse (if such was the case) may have worked.
Speakup on August 17, 2006 at 5:45 PM
Word of the day: Moonshine. You heard it here first.
bdfaith on August 17, 2006 at 5:57 PM
I was joking when I wrote that, but the more I think about it … OK, she’s of Pakistani descent, but she also lives in West Virginia. Moonshine. Good old Mountain Dew. Maybe for personal consumption or maybe as a gift to whoever she was on her way to visit. Think I’m wrong?
bdfaith on August 17, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Erm, these seem to conflict. “Sensitive,” when used to describe a measuring instrument or test means “Registering very slight differences or changes of condition.” That means that a sensitive test is more prone to false positives, not less prone.
Maybe he just misspoke and meant “insensitive.”
Mark Jaquith on August 17, 2006 at 6:17 PM
I think he meant “accurate.”
Allahpundit on August 17, 2006 at 6:19 PM
I noticed the same thing, Mark. I think the correct term would have been “specific”.
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 6:20 PM
Sensitivity = (true positives)/(true positives + false negatives)
Specificity = (true negatives)/(true negatives + false positives)
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Mr. Sullivan just finished typing “I question the timing; the bastards from Homeland are keeping this up until early Nov. ‘06″.
Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 7:18 PM
My wife digs the Mary K. stuff too.
Kevin M on August 17, 2006 at 7:51 PM
Weapon of Mascara Destruction?
Mark Jaquith on August 17, 2006 at 8:00 PM
I should ban you for that pun.
But then you’d ban me!
Allahpundit on August 17, 2006 at 8:05 PM
The local paper, Herald-Dispatch, in Huntington, WV, expects to provide a more detailed report on Friday.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060817/NEWS01/60817009
Summit on August 17, 2006 at 8:15 PM
If cosmetics are the cause, then wouldn’t there be false positives for American women and their cosmetics in an equal ratio representative of the population. Or is it just that Pakistani cosmetics pop positive more, because they are more likely to have been packed in the same bag that Ahmed used last week for transporting C4?! This doesn’t make sense. The public is not being informed of the facts.
Melba Toast on August 17, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Um, the two main ingredients of TATP are nail polish remover and hydrogen peroxide — two things that any women can claim to have on hand for cosmetic or hygiene reasons.
Bad Penny on August 17, 2006 at 11:36 PM
I agree Melba.
“But law enforcement sources say the substances that tested positive were cosmetic-based products and not a threat CBS News reports.”
If this were the case the bomb dogs would be exhausted after 10 minutes at an airport. Not kosher.
darwin on August 18, 2006 at 8:17 AM
- Hillary C. “Bill, order those dogs found and shot; this interferes with my ‘the President is weak on security’ idea to gain back the House & Senate in the fall”.
- Bill C. “Honey, I don’t have that kind of influence any more”.
- Hillary C., muttering, “I wish they had cigar-sniffing dogs in the late 90s”.
Entelechy on August 18, 2006 at 12:11 PM
That assumes that they are searching American women with no regard for race. They may be (unfortunately for upstanding citizens of middle-eastern descent) looking more closely at people who look middle-eastern. Or, when a false positive comes up for Britney McWhiteyface, they’re more likely to label it a false positive. That’s just profiling, and it sure delivers more bang (well, “unbang” in this case) for your National Security buck.
Mark Jaquith on August 19, 2006 at 3:55 AM
Comment pages: