My take is that the plot was definitely real. Whether it would have actually worked is another matter. I think the suspects arrested certainly believed it would, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were the brains behind the operation. (e.g., "Here, Achmed, take these two bottles with you, mix them together 15 minutes into the flight, and we'll see you in heaven.")

I don't have any access to the official investigation on the plot, and I certainly don't believe any of you do. Still, it's fun to speculate.

I think there's a big difference between the theory of mixing two non-explosive liquids under non-laboratory conditions without reliable measuring tools and taking aboard pre-mixed liquid explosives. While the second scenario is more realistic than the first, it, too, has some problems. Liquid explosives tend to be unstable, or at least, not stable enough for all the jostling, bumping and shaking that involves taking a carry-on aboard an airplane not to mention the occasional roller coaster effect of mid-air turbulence. Still, I suppose it is theoretically possible. I'm just pointing out why the explosive of choice is C-4 and Semtex: you can literally shoot bullets into it, and it won't explode until triggered by a detonator or blasting cap. You can shape it into a ball and play catch with it: nothing will happen even if you drop it.

TATP, on the other hand, while an effective initiator as well as explosive charge, is highly unstable. It may be theoretically easier to obtain because it can be made from common ingredients; however, if it's too wet or too dry, it won't initiate/detonate, and even when it's within the correct parameters, it won't blow up when you want it to: TATP has blown up more bomb-makers than victims. None of this invalidates the plot; it only makes it that much more difficult to execute.

Seems to me that terrorists would err on the side of ease rather than sophistication. In other words, "Here, Achmed, go on the plane, wait 15 minutes, then pull this. Go with Allah." as opposed to, "Okay, Achmed, first make sure that you place it inside this styrofoam container after it has cooled down for exactly 10 minutes and the temperatures are between 15 and 32 degrees. Make sure that there's no condensation visible. And this is very important: you must give the chemicals exactly 42 minutes to mix properly. Also, be sure to wear gloves and a mask because you must be able to activate the device and we can't get there if you pass out during the mixing process....." Seems to me that the bad guys want expendable pawns to carry out these attacks rather than having their own bomb-making experts who may succeed in carrying out these plots---once! The whole idea is to find a plan that works and then execute as often as possible. Hard to do if the guy who figured it all out went down with the plane. And there's the compartmentation factor: if any of these individuals are captured, they won't know anything beyond their operational orders.

None of this makes the plot fake. The plot was definitely real. The people who planned it were definitely dangerous. Whether it would have worked as designed is anybody's guess; however, I tend to side with the skeptics that it would not have worked.

The question is not about the feasibility of the plot; the question is what to do about future attempts. Choices range from dismissing the entire plot as something that would not have worked anyway, so why change anything? to taking proactive steps, at least initially, to mitigate a very difficult-to-detect explosive. Did the US, UK and others go overboard with the liquids, gels and aerosols restrictions? You bet. However, as a first step, I have to agree with the measures. As a permanent step, I do not. I think a year is plenty of time to come up with measures that mitigate the threat and allow passengers to bring in larger quantities of liquids than currently permitted.

However, TSA is also part of a large bureaucracy, and bureaucracies work on the principle of path of least resistance. While there may be a lot of public resistance to the whole liquids restriction policy, there is little to no resistance on the administration of procedure. In other words, it's easier to just ban liquids over a certain size than it is to develop specific procedures that address the multitude of different scenarios ranging from breast milk to cough syrup to a bottle of Ozarka brand water. Not a good answer, but I think it's a realistic one. I'm not supporting or defending; I'm just pointing out why TSA probably won't ever change the fundamentals of the current liquids policy. It will make certain changes, such as the immediate changes made when flight crews pitched a fit over not being able to bring their 18 ounce-plus size cans of hairspray (applies to both male and female flight attendants) and weren't able to carry their Venti size cup of Starbucks through the WTMD. The plight of nursing mothers traveling with their stash of breast milk is another example of how TSA modified the policy but didn't abandon the basics of the liquids-gels-aerosol restrictions.

My two cents, FWIW.