Passengers flying to the United States from the Netherlands will have to undergo body scans after a bid to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner from Amsterdam, the interior minister said Wednesday.
Guusje ter Horst told reporters that all available scanning machines at the city's Schiphol Airport would be put into use next month.
"It has been decided to use body scanners at Schiphol for all flights to the United States," she told a press conference.
"All 15 of the scanners currently available at Schiphol will be put into use within the next three weeks," once new software has been installed, the minister said.
This would "significantly improve passenger security as the machines can detect non-metal objects." Security at Schiphol is "good", she said.
Her announcement comes amid investigations into how a 23-year-old Nigerian was able to board a jet in Lagos bound for Amsterdam and then take a connecting flight to Detroit, while wearing underpants containing explosive chemicals.
Ter Horst said the investigation had so far failed to establish if Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had visited the Netherlands in the past.
The Dutch minister told reporters that the plot to blow up the plane over Detroit had been fairly professionally planned but that its execution was "amateurish".
"The preparation of the failed attack against passenger flight NW 253 Amsterdam-Detroit was fairly professional, but its execution was amateurish," ter Horst said.
"The explosive used is not easy to make and its production is not without risk," she added, quoting findings of the probe launched by Dutch authorities.
"The modus operandi and explosive are similar to earlier attacks," she said, without giving further details.
The attempt to blow up the Northwest airliner was foiled when a passenger leaped on Abdulmutallab as he struggled to detonate the explosives which had not been detected during a routine scan at the airport.
Body scans at airport security points are considered effective but privacy advocates oppose the machines because they scan beneath clothing to detect items that may be hidden from ordinary view.
Security experts believe, however, that the scanners could have detected the explosives that Abdulmutallab allegedly hid last week.
The Dutch government said after an initial scan, further checks would only be carried out if an anomaly was detected.
"This is a good alternative which respects privacy," ter Horst said, adding that the Netherlands did not need European parliament approval to use the system.
As Schiphol does not have enough scanners to screen all US-bound passengers, those not undergoing a body scan will be submitted to what she called a "deep search."
The 150,000-euro ($A240,572) scanning machines have so far only been used in random checks, said the country's national coordinator for counterterrorism, Erik Akerboom.
Airport spokeswoman Mirjam Snoerwang told AFP that only passengers on European flights were being screened if they agreed to the procedure.
Schiphol, the Netherlands' main airport, handles five million passengers to and from the United States a year, according to Snoerwang.
An al-Qaeda affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula claimed Monday it was behind the failed bombing and threatened new attacks on the West.
In an internet posting the group said a "technical fault" caused the plot's failure.

In this episode of 
Is downloading of copyrighted content theft? Should we reform the concepts of digital and intellectual property? Do new technologies like 



Recent Comments
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.
What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?
Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?
By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?
By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.
So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.
1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?
2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?
3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?
If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.
Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.
By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous,
You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.