I also agree the liquids rule is a farce, but clearly those who put it in place believe there's a reason behind it.
I agree that the UK-US liquid scare from August 10, 2006, is a farce as well. I voted for Pres Bush but it was obvious at the time that Bush and Blair needed a "wag the dog" diversion to keep their populations in constant fear of the always-present terrorists and to demonstrate that they were on the ball and doing something about all those terrorists. IMO, that's the reason behind it.
If it was revealed that the security arrangements are not only a PITA but totally bypassable by anyone who seriously wants to get liquids on-board, the airport authorities would need to either swap to a system like at LHR which can't be easily circumvented, or admit there's no risk anyway and abolish the whole thing.
Abolish the whole thing? Yeah, that's gonna happen now that the UK and the US have basically imposed this 100ml crap on the entire world. They acted like the future of the planet depended on the 100ml/one liter bag requirement and the confiscation of billions of dollars worth of water and duty free products.
I must admit, after watching the recent programme on BBC (I think) and seeing the explosion they simulated with a couple of litres of the right liquid, whilst I don't necessarily agree with the 100ml rule, it doesn't seem quite as ridiculous as it did before.
The merchants of fear have made inroads at your house.
Resist before thay make the big sale.
If it only takes a couple litres of the right liquids, then why haven't the terrorists who hate us blown airplanes out of the sky by combining their 100ml bottles onboard? Half a dozen co-conspirators could each bring about 10 100ml bottles (that's what I can put in my one litre bag) plus their larger contact lens solution (I've never had a security person do anything with mine). So each terrorist could bring a liter and a half onboard. Large, empty bottles are routinely ignored here in the USA by the TSA, as long as they're empty.
So if it's not as ridiculous as it did before, ask yourself "why haven't they done it already?" Why have no airplanes been blown up with liquids? Does anyone really think the only terrorists capable of carrying it out were arrested two years ago?
And why didn't any terrorists do it prior to August 10, 2006? It's not new chemistry. It doesn't involve anything recently invented.
It's nothing more than a modern-day boogeyman that scares even otherwise reasonable adults. You summed it up perfectly when you used the word "farce."
And please don't take offense at this, but do you really think you're the only person who has noticed this "loophole?" Don'tcha think the security "experts" at AMS (and the similar airports) already know? Not merely observant passengers, but the people who spend their entire working days designing, maintaining and improving the security protocols - I'll bet money they already know. And probably, so do tens of thousands of other observant passengers.
