Originally Posted by
Section 107
Well, lets see: the bombers were arrested while they were actively assembling the bombs, at that point in time they easily could have brought the bottles onto the plane, and they had already detonated such bombs in training. So what else was needed for the plan to be considered viable?
That the explosive material can be volatile and requires careful handling really doesn't mean the plan didn't have a reasonable chance of working. Because it has been demonstrated time and again just how effective it can be:
TATP was used by the 7/7 bombers to murder 52 and injure nearly 800. More recently, it was also used in the Paris 2015 bombings. And in the 2016 Brussels bombing to murder 32 people. And in the 2017 Brussels bombing. And to murder 23 in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. And it has been used in untold number of incidents around the world, such as to murder 15 in Surabaya, Indonesia.
To be fair, the delivery device and format of the explosive was different than in those attacks, but it is the same explosive and the device and format would have easily passed through security.
Viability <> probability. And reasonable <> highly probable. Viability is commonly defined as "capable of working successfully; feasible." Common synonyms are: workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable. Which is essentially what I gave as my definition. Your use of an alternative definition does not justify an ad hominem attack.
I don't doubt any of this. How do you reconcile all of this compelling information with Kip Hawley's assertion that there is no need for the LGA ban, and he came to that conclusion while he was still head of TSA. The only reason he didn't get rid of it is the same reason his successors haven't: too lazy to deal with the bureaucracy and the inevitable science-denying PeePants who still think 9-11 was a failure of airport screening.
I like to think that Kip Hawley had access to all of the best and most current information available, probably more than you either have or are at liberty to post here on this forum. Nevertheless, he said the ban was not needed and security would not be compromised.