I have, but it's been quite a while. The rationale? you could use the empty container to combine the bad liquids that someone else must be attempting to smuggle into the sterile area. :rolleyes:

Yes, I know you can get containers inside the sterile area; you could get nail clippers inside the sterile area, too, and steak knives and forks and other things that you can't bring through the checkpoint. Sometimes they just over-think this stuff waaaaay too much.

I agree its not like were living in 1900 with all the technology etc. I also think the airlines should allow the fist checked bag free of charge as well.

At least with the liquid ban being lifted I wouldn't mind taking my suitcase through security as the liquid ban prevents me from taking large bottles of shampoo vs small travel size bottles.

I would also like to keep my laptop in my bag as well. Makes no sense why one can keep their cellphones, IPads in their bags but laptops must be taken out can't the machine detect a legit laptop?

Also I want the TSA to repeal the shoes off belt off as well. Would really speed us through security.

The problem isn't the laptop; the problem is the eight other tons of crap most people (including me) keep in the bag with the laptop. Especially since a lot of that crap tends to be wires and cords and such, the X-ray profile of a bunch of wires atop a large rectangular block can be suspicious.

TSA has "officially" allowed laptops to go through the X-ray in a bag which only contains the laptop itself for some time now. I've even done it a few times.

Such security is for the good for all, after 911 security people are doing very well!

If you mean that those peddling "security" equipment, such as Michael Chertoff, you are correct. If you are talking about the people actually doing the security work such as TSA screeners, then you are wrong.

They're doing well financially - by all other metrics they are doing quite poorly by doing very disgusting, unnecessary, and un-American things to people. :td:

What about this story from The Economist? Is it realistic?

This line isn't:

Liquid explosives are a real threat.

That's a lie, plain and simple.

So is this:

"Regular business travellers are used to this"

Not completely. Nitroglycerine IS a definite threat, though its danger to modern commercial aviation is somewhat exaggerated due to its unstable nature and the difficulty involved in obtaining or manufacturing it. It has been used to successfully attack a commercial flight, though it did not destroy the aircraft and killed only one victim.

Of course, that was 1994, and there was no immediate, panicked rush to ban an entire state of matter from aircraft cabins in response, since 9/11 hadn't yet turned the entirety of the US into a bunch of whimpering cowards who fear their own water bottles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp...nes_Flight_434

But then a year later, Die Hard With a Vengeance was released, and the entire world was then let in on the Secret Science of Binary Liquid Explosives!

That liquid was actually stabilized by cotton, making it more of a solid than a liquid. In addition to being unstable, nitroglycerin is detected by ETD/ETP. The lies about being able to synthesize a liquid explosive from non-detectable precursors without laboratory conditions are just that: lies.