Originally Posted by Bart

Friends,

As some of you may have read in today's news already, it appears that the liquid ban is going to be around for a while longer. The concern is over certain non-explosive chemicals which can be lethal when mixed with other substances. Each, by itself, would pass ETD scrutiny because the substance, by itself, is not explosive. Bottom line: we need a better mouse trap.

My personal view is that I can't believe that it's as easy as mixing a bottle of substance "x" with a bottle of substance "y" in the confines of an airplane lavatory and presto: enough explosive to blow an airplane out of the sky. Makes for a great storyline in an adventure thriller, but I'm not sure it's a realistic threat. Seems to me that if it was as easy as that, then the bad guys would have figured this out a long time ago.

What does make sense to me is the 75% solution. In other words, the explosive is 75% complete and all the bomber has to do is introduce component "y" to make it a real bomb. However, I would think that the 75% component would be detectable because it would have the same characteristics as an explosive minus a couple of elements. And we have plenty of ETD alarms (what some of you call "false positives") that may at least serve as a rational method of detection, or at least serve as the basis for additional scrutiny.

I'm not a chemist and can't speak with much authority on this. However, my experience in the Army tells me that the reason we worked with ready-made explosives is because they were stable until detonated. In other words, to work with any improvised explosive charge is to work with something that is unpredictable and unstable. There are too many ways it can detonate prematurely or accidentally, or not detonate at all. So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it is about this specific threat that prompted this general ban on all liquids, gels and lotions.

I don't know if there's a middle ground here. I don't know if, for instance, the real culprit is anything that contains peroxide, that it would be feasible to ban all items that contain elements of peroxide. I don't know if it would be equally as effective to ETD all liquids and gels, for example, and prohibit them only if they alarm the ETD even though we may have mitigated their alarms prior to 8/10. This may slow down the screening process to a snail's pace and the easier alternative may be to just ban everything that is liquid or gel.

One part that bothers me is the apparent lack of confidence the bozos up the chain have in the screening workforce. I've been a member of some pretty elite organizations and the backbone of our effectiveness was always training, training and more training. It is how we maintained our proficiency. While I mean no direct comparison between these units and TSA, I will say that TSA is one of the most training-intensive organizations I've seen. We really get trained from all angles ranging from classroom instruction to online computer courses to no-notice performance evaluations to no-notice pop quizzes to special briefings. My point here is that with all that training, for TSA to place a general ban is to say that the staff weenies don't have confidence that we can tell the difference between a tampered bottle of liquid and untampered one. Again, this goes back to my number one criticism of TSA, its lack of effective leadership.

For those of you who question my motives (thanks for the hate mail, you've been promptly deleted, ignored and reported): I come here primarily to share information that will hopefully make your next experience at the security checkpoint a little less frustrating or to at least shed some insider perspectives. I don't violate any SSI restrictions although some may argue that I pretty much step right up to the line. I refer to my military background from time to time because I am, indeed, an expert in certain areas, particularly in counter-terrorism, and can offer some additional insights from that perspective.