# Detection Dogs for Cargo containers



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

A friend of mine is working for a research company who is finding new ways to search containers, and better the current ways. Thye vaccum the air out of the container through a cigarette filter(much bigger) and experimental filters for explosives. Then bring the filters in for the dog to sniff. He said the dogs are spot on and can even pick up detonation cord. The facility/lab was really cool looking! Anybody hear of this or maybe it's old news?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I have seen human containment trailers with air intake on one side, out put on the other. Didn't see it in use. It was hush hush. They said they were having great results on pretty small to large amounts. just controlled air across a humans body with a vent at dogs level. Set up in a trailer it was pretty slick. Saw the same thing at a trade show in VA. Not for cargo tho


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

That was among the first advancements in technology. It's pretty old stuff, technology wise. I first saw it demonstrated in the 70's. they used a dust buster. It can be effective as far as telling the presence of whatever you are looking for. Not as proficient as determining an exact location. As I recall there were also a significantly high number of false positives. 



DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> That was among the first advancements in technology. It's pretty old stuff, technology wise. I first saw it demonstrated in the 70's. they used a dust buster. It can be effective as far as telling the presence of whatever you are looking for. Not as proficient as determining an exact location. As I recall there were also a significantly high number of false
> 
> 
> DFrost


I think a lot has to do do with the filter size he was saying. They are increasing the size of the surface area of the filter and experimenting with different filter material.
Correct, about exact location. If it's indicated as positive then the container is searched, Kind of the whole point it saves them the time of rummaging through a container
Are you saying they were searching cargo containers like this that long ago?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Interesting stuff.

Someone is going to have to PM me why it would be surprising for dogs to smell det cord in this case?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Interesting stuff.
> 
> Someone is going to have to PM me why it would be surprising for dogs to smell det cord in this case?


I don't know but he did say some people didn't think it was even possible for the dog to detect det cord. I have no idea.

He also talked about there being two different smell to TNT and one of the smells dissipated after a few hours so if the dog was trained on the one smell it would never find bombs that were there for a day or two. 

He was also training dogs for Iraq in Kuwait a while back. He also talked about problems with the bombs being in places for days in high heat etc etc. I can't remember it all but it was very interesting!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I don't know but he did say some people didn't think it was even possible for the dog to detect det cord. I have no idea.
> 
> He also talked about there being two different smell to TNT and one of the smells dissipated after a few hours so if the dog was trained on the one smell it would never find bombs that were there for a day or two.
> 
> !


It was used for a multitude of different venues, including containers. "Det" cord is just another explosive. If the dog is trained on the explosive that is used in a particular cord, of course it can find it. If it's not trained on the particular explosive used in a particular det cord, then the dog probably wouldn't find it, unless it found the explosive the det cord was being used to detonate. As for TNT, I'd say your source isn't exactly sure what he's talking about. There is more than one type of TNT. Beyond that folks can do their own research. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> As for TNT, I'd say your source isn't exactly sure what he's talking about. There is more than one type of TNT. Beyond that folks can do their own research.
> 
> DFrost


Huh WTF are you talking about? I think he knew what he was talking about but I'm not explaining it correctly..... But Yeah David you know all there is, I'm sure, even though your info goes back 40 years I'm sure there are no advancements that you never got the memo on :???:


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Seems strange to hear this technique was utilized in the 70's for cargo containers but .......


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> If it's not trained on the particular explosive used in a particular det cord, then the dog probably wouldn't find it, unless it found the explosive the det cord was being used to detonate.
> 
> DFrost


I'm talking about det cord in a huge container and the whole process. Not just detecting det cord in a Dutch box or some other training scenario!
Smelling the det cord in a container and packaged in something else, with air being vacuumed into a filter I assume is quite a feat.


----------



## Michael Santana (Dec 31, 2007)

David, What exactly are you trying to say by there not just being one TNT. Do you mean that there a various companies packing TNT (trinitrotoluene)? I still don't see your point? 

I guess it would depend on how much det cord was being used. Regardless, I'm sure that it wasn't much. In which case, I would agree that it is impressive.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

What Frost said is kind of what I was getting at...

I couldn't think of a reason a dog could not be taught to alert to the explosive in det cord (I know what it is made of, use it at work), and was wondering why it would be impressive that a dog could find it.

My thought was maybe the guy was talking about it as a quantities issue, small amount of det cord vs a possible larger amount of another explosive. Since you all just talked about it in the open..guess I just did too.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Not saying a dog can't indicate det cord. I'm saying it can can indicate enough det cord that could detonate a bomb. That is,,,, in a container, packaged, sucked through a vacuum, and into a filter!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Not saying a dog can't indicate det cord. I'm saying it can can indicate enough det cord that could detonate a bomb. That is,,,, in a container, packaged, sucked through a vacuum, and into a filter!


I don't know exactly what set you off. I'm not a know-it-all, however, when it comes to explosives and explosives detection, I do know a lot. I know what det cord is. I also know it's made with different components and it's made in varying strengths. Det cord is an explosive. I figured, since the discussion was about containers, it was still about containers and my remarks are pertaining to containers or any where else an explosive (s) might be hidden. You are saying: "can indicate enough det cord that could detonate a bomb". That indicates to me, you don't really understand they dynamics. How do you know it's the det cord (which is an explosive such as RDX or PETN, among others) that is being detected and not the explosive substance the det cord is being used to detonate? Doesn't really matter, because the dog is probably trained on both. 

and you say: "Huh WTF are you talking about? " What I said was, there is more than one type TNT. To further answer you question, I actually do have all the memo's and updates. I'd say your "friend" does not, or as you pointed out, you're just not repeating it correctly. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Holy shit ](*,).


David Frost said:


> . That indicates to me, you don't really understand they dynamics. How do you know it's the det cord (which is an explosive such as RDX or PETN, among others) that is being detected and not the explosive substance the det cord is being used to detonate? Doesn't really matter, because the dog is probably trained on both.
> 
> 
> DFrost


Comments like your first sentence and the other one where you try and degrade somebodies(a friend whom I'm giving second hand info)knowledge set me off!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Michael Santana said:


> David, What exactly are you trying to say by there not just being one TNT. Do you mean that there a various companies packing TNT (trinitrotoluene)? I still don't see your point?
> 
> I guess it would depend on how much det cord was being used. Regardless, I'm sure that it wasn't much. In which case, I would agree that it is impressive.


All I said was; there is more than one type of TNT. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> . That indicates to me, you don't really understand they dynamics. How do you know it's the det cord (which is an explosive such as RDX or PETN, among others) that is being detected and not the explosive substance the det cord is being used to detonate? Doesn't really matter, because the dog is probably trained on both.
> 
> DFrost


This indicates to me that you really don't understand how things are proven in a lab!

So they did these container searches in the 70's David? The exact way I described?


----------



## Jehane Michael Le Grange (Feb 24, 2009)

check out www.mechemdemining.com...they have used the technique in south africa for a long time now. I remember the first experimental tests being done as far back as the early 80's.

These are not your average detection dogs though. there is alot behind it and their training. They are literally trained on a single particle principle. Unfortunately I dont have much more information. We do have a company that works at our international airports, I believe its a french company but i might be mistaken . I have had the priveledge of watching this work and it is absolutely amazing. It is very very delicate though in the sense that every single search is conducted precisely the same. everything comes down to the dog basically. 

basically there is a machine that takes airsamples from a sealed container. the air sample passes through a pure filte. that is then removed (special methods to prevent ANY contamination). this filter is then placed by the instructor in a a holder in a search room. this holder is stainless steel and mounted to the wall. there are seven such holders. in the remaining 6 holders, other filters are used that have been 'made' by drawing scent from known negative containers. these dummy filters are also considered 'fresh' so they have no contaminants in what so ever other than the random smells of the containers they were taken from. The instructor randomly places the filter taken from the actual airport cargo container. So basically in this room is 7 wall mounted brackets, each containing a filter that has a sample of air from cargo containers. 6 of the filters are confirmed negatives (since they were made off site from controlled containers so that the dog is not presented with complete blank/scentless filters) and then 1 filter that could possibly contain explosives since it is taken from an actual unknown container. Again only the instructor knows where he has placed this filter. 

Once he has positioned them, he will call the handler and dog in using a 2 way radio and turn and face away from the dog and handler i.e. look at the wall in one corner of the room that contains a mirror. this allows him to observe the dog without directly looking at him/her. the handler also stands dead still in the opposite corner of the room and next to him is a small piece of carpeting that the dog is made to sit on. once the dog is calmly sitting on the mat, he/she is clipped off lead and commanded to search at which point the handler remains dead still in his corner while the dog checks each wall mounting. if the filters are all negative for explosive traces, the dog has to return to the mat and sit still on it. if the dog sits at the filter that was taken from the unknown cargo container, there is a possibility that the filter contains explosive. for either of those 2 behaviours (either the dog returning to the mat and indicating negative or sitting at the filter taken from the actual unknown cargo container that might posses explosive) the instructor uses a clicker to 'click' and the handler rewards the dog with a ball. he is then taken out the room. 

The instructor then discards of all seven filters places a 2nd filter that was taken from the cargo container and randomly in the wall brackets along with 6 new 'self made' filters and bring in another dog to repeat the process. this means that each cargo container is checked twice by 2 seperate dogs in exactly the same way. at all times, only the instructor hides and knows where the actual filter is i.e. the handler NEVER knows. when the dog is brought into the room there is only the instructor, the dog and handler (I watched this through one way glass in a specially devised room next to the building) present. This is all to ensure that every search is as similar as possible. they push anti contamination measures to the extreme due to the minute amounts the dogs indicate on. 

These are not ordinary explosive dogs and they can only indicate on minute particles since they work purely at a molecular level of substances. the amounts are so small that you cant comprehend it even.

with ever live run (i.e. where the dog is doing a search where a filter from an actual airport cargo container is taken) the dog will conduct 2 searches, one with that filter present amongst 6 'self made filters' and another search where there is one positive 'self made filter' amongst 6 negative 'self made filters'. the handler again never knows which is which so as to have zero influence on the dogs behaviour. 

I hope this sheds a little more light on this subject. again this method was introduced from europe by what i understand and the dogs are all european imports, mainly malinois. if only a company like this could shape up our police dogs.=D>

again the actual method of imprinting the dogs was not told to me since apparently its a trade secret and not available to anyone other than the senior instructors of the company:???:

hope this helps...I found watching it, extremely entertaining and inspiring


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Thanks for all the info! He did mention Britain, south Africa and France as the first to do this! So the experiments started in the 80's and I'm sure it took a while to get put in place after the experimental phase. He talked a lot about the info you just gave and it was way more than i could take in at one time!


Jehane Michael Le Grange said:


> check out www.mechemdemining.com...they have used the technique in south africa for a long time now. I remember the first experimental tests being done as far back as the early 80's.
> 
> These are not your average detection dogs though. there is alot behind it and their training. They are literally trained on a single particle principle. Unfortunately I dont have much more information. We do have a company that works at our international airports, I believe its a french company but i might be mistaken . I have had the priveledge of watching this work and it is absolutely amazing. It is very very delicate though in the sense that every single search is conducted precisely the same. everything comes down to the dog basically.
> 
> ...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

The rooms looked like a lab with metal container with a arm attached to the wall, where the filter is placed. Above every arm spaced out about 8 feet apart was a ball dropper attached to the ceiling. Appeared like a very clean and sterile environment(professional)! He did also talk about the initial steps!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

All the dogs were labs and he is one of two handlers! This companies purpose was to make the filters better.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> That was among the first advancements in technology. It's pretty old stuff, technology wise. I first saw it demonstrated in the 70's. they used a dust buster.
> DFrost


If only there was a vacuum that could detect Internet BS!
Sometimes I guess it's better to pretend you know than to actually be honest and say you don't! :shrug

Comparing this technology to your cop buddy dust busting a bag of dope was not what we were talking about!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Comparing this technology to your cop buddy dust busting a bag of dope was not what we were talking about!




Actually, it was focused on explosives. We didn't, to my knowledge, conduct any studies with the "dust buster" on drugs. 

I do agree with you on the BS, it certainly comes in all forms. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> A friend of mine is working for a research company who is finding new ways to search containers, and better the current ways. Thye vaccum the air out of the container through a cigarette filter(much bigger) and experimental filters for explosives. Then bring the filters in for the dog to sniff. He said the dogs are spot on and can even pick up detonation cord. The facility/lab was really cool looking! Anybody hear of this or maybe it's old news?


I responded by saying: "That was among the first advancements in technology. It's pretty old stuff, technology wise. I first saw it demonstrated in the 70's. they used a dust buster.


Then you asked: So they did these container searches in the 70's David? The exact way I described? 

If your description is as you posted; "Thye vaccum the air out of the container through a cigarette filter(much bigger) and experimental filters for explosives. Then bring the filters in for the dog to sniff."

Basically, yes. Only they confirmed the dog's responses with GCM testing. I've also done some research at a place called Land Warfare Laboratory and another place called Southwest Research Institute, that I'm sure you wouldn't believe as well.

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Jehane Michael Le Grange said:


> check out www.mechemdemining.com...they have used the technique in south africa for a long time now. I remember the first experimental tests being done as far back as the early 80's.
> 
> These are not your average detection dogs though. there is alot behind it and their training. They are literally trained on a single particle principle.


That was very interesting to read. Thank you.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Actually, it was focused on explosives. We didn't, to my knowledge, conduct any studies with the "dust buster" on drugs.
> 
> I do agree with you on the BS, it certainly comes in all forms.
> 
> DFrost


Officer Cletis "dust busting" some black powder that spilled while reloading doesn't count either!
I would have figured you wrote the manual even though you couldn't understand that the dog could smell the traces of just the det cord in these experiments!

Your BS has a form of it's own mixed with a condescending attitude.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Officer Cletis "dust busting" some black powder that spilled while reloading doesn't count either!
> I would have figured you wrote the manual even though you couldn't understand that the dog could smell the traces of just the det cord in these experiments!
> 
> Your BS has a form of it's own mixed with a condescending attitude.


No sir, it was a number of different explosives and compounds, but black powder wasn't among them. I think you misunderstand, I know for a fact that dogs can smell traces of det cord. Which I'm sure you know come in different strengths you know, grains per foot and all that, and different explosive compounds. Don't know where you understood me to say that I didn't understand a dog could smell traces. At any rate, the BS you perceive isn't there, it's just your lack of knowledge on the subject has put you at a disadvantage. The condescending attitude ... well, what can I say, guilty. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Maybe you should give yourself a infraction point for being so condescending! Or you can just threaten and bully me like you did last time through PM's. You were one of those cops, I can tell!

You were a state trooper right? I can see why you're so acute to explosives LOL and why you lack the simple concepts of Experimentation and how they are run LMAO

Funny how now you can see how det cord can be present without the bomb for experiments


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Maybe you should give yourself a infraction point for being so condescending! Or you can just threaten and bully me like you did last time through PM's. You were one of those cops, I can tell!
> 
> You were a state trooper right? I can see why you're so acute to explosives LOL and why you lack the simple concepts of Experimentation and how they are run LMAO
> 
> Funny how now you can see how det cord can be present without the bomb for experiments


I worked in a laboratory doing nothing but research with dogs. Another life ago I know. Det cord is an explosive and can be used as a bomb. I've always known that. In your haste to make me the condecending know it all, you've really failed to read what I've posted. That's ok. Reread the post I made. you've misread it, perhaps it won't look for foreign to you. Other than that, ok, you're right, I have no experience with explosives or explosives detection. You're the winner. Please keep passing on the stories from your friend and tell us how it's done. I'll just be a spectator. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

No, you keep telling us how you were there at the first stages of this procedure with dust buster in hand. HaHaHAHAHAHA!
I never did claim to know it all like yourself. Some people appreciated me passing onwhat little info I had but not you, you were so far more advanced. Yeah thanks for never sharing "WHAT LITTLE YOU KNEW"!


David Frost said:


> I worked in a laboratory doing nothing but research with dogs. Another life ago I know. Det cord is an explosive and can be used as a bomb. I've always known that. In your haste to make me the condecending know it all, you've really failed to read what I've posted. That's ok. Reread the post I made. you've misread it, perhaps it won't look for foreign to you. Other than that, ok, you're right, I have no experience with explosives or explosives detection. You're the winner. Please keep passing on the stories from your friend and tell us how it's done. I'll just be a spectator.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I have seen a prototype unit that is/was being tested here in the Chicago area...the dog wears a mask/muzzle, the handler has a backpack unit with some kind of crazy vacuum unit in it that has a wand on a hose...the handler puts the wand where he wants it, and the air is sucked in at very high rate, and then is filtered down to a level that can be fed through a tube into the dogs mask/muzzle...

sounds different than what you are talking about but it was cool and supposedly worked great.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> If only there was a vacuum that could detect Internet BS!
> Sometimes I guess it's better to pretend you know than to actually be honest and say you don't! :shrug
> 
> Comparing this technology to your cop buddy dust busting a bag of dope was not what we were talking about!


 
I wasn't going to comment, but what the hell, this is actually old stuff, the actual application is what may seem new to some or most. The odor and how to manipulate the tools to get a desired result. This was being conducted here in the US with alot of agencies doing testing with it, it has progessed considerably, but has been used in europe as well. The box car thing is all that is new here. 

Kind of like bed bug, cell phone etc, nothing different about the detection dog at all, its the application its used in or for.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

The cargo containers were really a big part of the WOW, that's genius! Understood that the detection process is the same, now the only thing in question is who was holding the dirt devel back in the 70's who got the ball rolling   I'd bet it was in Tennessee 


Jody Butler;/ said:


> The box car thing is all that is new here.
> 
> Kind of like bed bug, cell phone etc, nothing different about the detection dog at all, its the application its used in or for.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Understood that the detection process is the same, now the only thing in question is who was holding the dirt devel back in the 70's who got the ball rolling


PM Sent


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I have seen a prototype unit that is/was being tested here in the Chicago area...the dog wears a mask/muzzle, the handler has a backpack unit with some kind of crazy vacuum unit in it that has a wand on a hose...the handler puts the wand where he wants it, and the air is sucked in at very high rate, and then is filtered down to a level that can be fed through a tube into the dogs mask/muzzle...
> 
> sounds different than what you are talking about but it was cool and supposedly worked great.


Pretty cool Joby!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Jody Butler said:


> I wasn't going to comment, but what the hell, this is actually old stuff, the actual application is what may seem new to some or most. The odor and how to manipulate the tools to get a desired result. This was being conducted here in the US with alot of agencies doing testing with it, it has progessed considerably, but has been used in europe as well. The box car thing is all that is new here.
> 
> Kind of like bed bug, cell phone etc, nothing different about the detection dog at all, its the application its used in or for.


Actually really good to hear it from an explosives expert who served in the special forces, instead of from someone who said he was doing it 10 years before it was experimented with/started in other countries! David was only 10 to 15 years ahead of it's arrival in the states LMAO! And God knows how many years off when it came to actually applying it to Cargo containers, the whole point of the thread. Imagination and story telling are great gifts!


----------



## Michael Santana (Dec 31, 2007)

I would imagine that the dog will probably be spending a lot of time proofing off of clean filters and other distractors?


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Thanks for all the info! He did mention Britain, south Africa and France as the first to do this! So the experiments started in the 80's and I'm sure it took a while to get put in place after the experimental phase. He talked a lot about the info you just gave and it was way more than i could take in at one time!


These rooms sound like the ones used in the Netherlands. Anyone have any firsthand experience with those that could compare the two methods? 

Here's a link to the STU-100 (Scent Transfer Unit) that might interest someone:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/bigT/

Ang


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

the dutch are no longer in the scent discriminating game.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

will fernandez said:


> the dutch are no longer in the scent discriminating game.


Still sounds like the same type of room, and it would be interesting to know if anyone on here has any first hand experience to be able to compare the two methods.

Ang


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> the dutch are no longer in the scent discriminating game.


 Why? Just curious.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Isn't the Border Patrol using a scent vacuum for vehicle searches, so the dogs can remain inside in the air conditioning and not get overheated working outside?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Isn't the Border Patrol using a scent vacuum for vehicle searches, so the dogs can remain inside in the air conditioning and not get overheated working outside?


Really?


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I don't know but he did say some people didn't think it was even possible for the dog to detect det cord. I have no idea.
> 
> He also talked about there being two different smell to TNT and one of the smells dissipated after a few hours so if the dog was trained on the one smell it would never find bombs that were there for a day or two.
> 
> He was also training dogs for Iraq in Kuwait a while back. He also talked about problems with the bombs being in places for days in high heat etc etc. I can't remember it all but it was very interesting!


Tell your friend that he is talking out of his backside


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I'm talking about det cord in a huge container and the whole process. Not just detecting det cord in a Dutch box or some other training scenario!
> Smelling the det cord in a container and packaged in something else, with air being vacuumed into a filter I assume is quite a feat.


Not for a properly trained dog


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Timothy Stacy said:


> No, you keep telling us how you were there at the first stages of this procedure with dust buster in hand. HaHaHAHAHAHA!
> I never did claim to know it all like yourself. Some people appreciated me passing onwhat little info I had but not you, you were so far more advanced. Yeah thanks for never sharing "WHAT LITTLE YOU KNEW"!


Fella, looking at this from the outside, the only person I see here with an attitude is you

In any case this is OLD OLD news. These systems are in service and have been in service at ports and airports for at least 20 years. And before you make a comment I have been involved on training dogs for vapour odor detection systems and have also operated a dog for it. 


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Brian Dascalu said:


> Not for a properly trained dog
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


](*,) You are a clever guy and that is a interesting fact!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Brian Dascalu said:


> Fella, looking at this from the outside, the only person I see here with an attitude is you
> 
> In any case this is OLD OLD news. These system are in service and have been in service at ports and airports for at least 20 years
> 
> ...


Glad you can read the thread! Did you know David invented the technology? Well, perfected it!


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Glad you can read the thread! Did you know David invented the technology? Well, perfected it!


Why would I jump on that bandwagon ? He hasn't said anything about the methodology that isn't true 


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Brian Dascalu said:


> He hasn't said anything about the methodology that isn't true
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk


Oh perfect, we have somebody with experience with the system! How long have you done testing with it or is it a daily job using it? or maybe your a salesman?
Are you saying this patriotic friend of mine was lying and the pics I viewed were fake?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Somebody PM'd me the website, thanks anyway!

http://www.sl-prokeys.com/wffcw/vl_banned.htm


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Stacy, you look like a dick here.

Recap:

You asked in your op if anyone had seen this before and if it was old news...

People said they had seen it before..but that doesn't mean that improvements have not been made.

You broken telephoned some info from your friend that showed that you did not understand the subject matter that well, you admitted that you were explaining it wrong.

You then decided to pick on Frost a little. Maybe you have some legit beefs with him, but sorry he does know a little more about the subject of explosives and detection than you do. Maybe he is not up on the most current stuff, he didn't claim to be. Keep your beef with him about things you are more current about, like ob, or maybe even bitework, at least you have first hand knowledge there.

Then you did some more sandbagging...

ALL the people that posted on this thread have more experience with explosives and detection than you do, so why are you acting like such a know it all? 

Tell your friend to come on here and talk about his work, it sounds very interesting, I would like to hear more about it, from the person that is doing it, so there is no broken telephone stuff to cause conflict.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Know it all Jennifer, far from! I admitted I didn't know much about it and one mans new news is old to others and then David got condescending toward me and insulted somebody he doesn't know just to try and put himself on a pedestal.,As of lately Brian came on after Howard(his????) came on another thread. Seems like many answers were hard to come by but thanks for clearing the air Jennifer!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Stacy, you look like a dick here.
> 
> 
> Tell your friend to come on here and talk about his work, it sounds very interesting, I would like to hear more about it, from the person that is doing it, so there is no broken telephone stuff to cause conflict.


I really don't give two fuks if you think I'm a dick!

And why tell my friend to come on? The thread was about the process and not one person but the fella from South Africa gave any info about it. Talk about off topic, I never asked about the history of dust busting and how it related here. I asked about the process and if this process of vacuuming air out of a "cargo container" was new! Instead I got a history lesson by somebody wanting to self promote.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

This thread was doomed several posts back.


----------

