Originally Posted by
747FC
There have been at least two "successful" cases in which liquid explosives are known to have brought down or seriously damaged commercial airliners, Korean Air 858 and Phillippine Air 434, being just two examples. There are several other known plots using liquid explosives that have been foiled. The liquid ban was not a "knee jerk reaction," but one that --while causing endless hassles to the traveling public-- has kept other planes and people from going down. My hat is off to the intelligence agencies that are least trying to find ways to cope with evolving threats.
So are you suggesting that the former head of TSA, Kip Hawley, is wrong when he says that the LGA restrictions are unnecessary and that TSA has the means (and did when he was in charge) to test and clear liquids at the checkpoint quickly, easily and reliably enough to get rid of the restriction?
I'm more inclined to trust Hawley, myself, because he's had a lot more access to classified intel and he knows exactly what TSA's limitations and abilities are in this regard, in far more detail than is publicly available.
The issue isn't whether unregulated liquids were used to cause damage at some time in the past. The issue is what measures TSA has to screen for them successfully at the checkpoint. Kip Hawley says they do and that the LGA restrictions are necessary and have been for several years now.