More Reason for Discomfort

Old Aug 27, 2013, 4:52 pm
  #31  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
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.
chollie is online now  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 5:02 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,096
Originally Posted by chollie
So are you suggesting that the former head of TSA, Kip Hawley, is wrong when he says that the LGA restrictions are unnecessary .
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes. Really bad guys are out to get us, and those bad guys are not federal intelligence or law enforcement agents, but terrorists who are quite creative.
747FC is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 5:09 pm
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
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.
Two flights out of how many millions over the period? Just to put it in perspective, more planes have crashed & people died over that same time period due to aircraft structural failures or improper maintenance.

Risk assessment means actually assessing the risks and acting on the basis of the facts, not the irrational fear of what hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen. The fact that EU airlines aren't dropping out of the sky like flies puts paid to your theory that the "intelligence" services are protecting us from anything.
SeriouslyLost is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 5:16 pm
  #34  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by 747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes. Really bad guys [1] are out to get us, and those bad guys are not federal intelligence or law enforcement agents, but terrorists who are quite creative.
No, they're not. I used to (for a short time before quiting in disgust at what I saw people doing) work in the world of catching "bad guys" & there is no real threat. Professional security ala EU is all that's needed. Everything else in "American-style" security is for show & to bolster the American psycho-cultural need to feel important and victimized.

Last edited by essxjay; Aug 27, 2013 at 7:35 pm Reason: using UBB style sheets to obfuscate/bypass profanity rule
SeriouslyLost is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 5:52 pm
  #35  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by 747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes. Really bad guys are out to get us, and those bad guys are not federal intelligence or law enforcement agents, but terrorists who are quite creative.
Pilots kill more air passengers than terrorist so how do you force yourself to board a plane?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 5:58 pm
  #36  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by 747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes. Really bad guys are out to get us, and those bad guys are not federal intelligence or law enforcement agents, but terrorists who are quite creative.
So you are either saying you know more than the former head of TSA (LGA restrictions instituted on his watch), with all his inside knowledge or you really think that he would advocate anything that would compromise aviation security?

With all due respect, if it comes to genuine security assessments (very conservative), I will trust that the former head of TSA knows what he's talking about. If he says that the LGA restrictions need to go and that TSA has means of ensuring that liquids are safe, that's good enough for me.
chollie is online now  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 6:17 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,096
Originally Posted by chollie
So you are either saying you know more than the former head of TSA (LGA restrictions instituted on his watch),
No, I am not saying that. There are more voices than just his in this debate on the threats posed by terrorists, and the appropriate protective measures. I suspect many on this board would not blindly follow whatever the head or former head of any particular agency says, but would look at other sources of information in order to develop an informed opinion. My original post just pointed out that there actually were a few liquid explosives used to down/disable planes and kill people, which was not acknowledged by the poster I quoted.
747FC is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 6:26 pm
  #38  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by 747FC
No, I am not saying that. There are more voices than just his in this debate on the threats posed by terrorists, and the appropriate protective measures. I suspect many on this board would not blindly follow whatever the head or former head of any particular agency says, but would look at other sources of information in order to develop an informed opinion. My original post just pointed out that there actually were a few liquid explosives used to down/disable planes and kill people, which was not acknowledged by the poster I quoted.
I don't think anyone ever disputed that.

However, the safeguards currently available are very different today. I would assume that the man who was in charge when the LGA restrictions were put in place, who says they are no longer necessary because 1) there were always too many loopholes * and 2) TSA has (and has had for some time now, even before Hawley stepped down) the means to clear liquids at the checkpoint - I'm going to assume he has plenty of sources of information, including many sources available to few if any on this board.

* As has been pointed out, a dangerous liquid is no more or less dangerous if it is in a one-quart bottle or multiple 3-ounce containers (that can be easily combined after the checkpoint).

I (and others) admit that much of what we see at the airport is 'security theater', there are many threat areas that are completely ignored, and the fact that TSA routinely fails tests to find weapons and explosives is not reassuring. Nevertheless, I don't think Hawley (or any other TSA administrator) would suggest relaxing a checkpoint rule unless he/she was 110% positive beyond any doubt that doing so will not jeopardize aviation safety.
chollie is online now  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 6:37 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,096
Originally Posted by chollie
I (and others) admit that much of what we see at the airport is 'security theater', there are many threat areas that are completely ignored, and the fact that TSA routinely fails tests to find weapons and explosives is not reassuring.

Nevertheless, I don't think Hawley (or any other TSA administrator) would suggest relaxing a checkpoint rule unless he/she was 110% positive beyond any doubt that doing so will not jeopardize aviation safety.
I agree that there are other threat areas ignored, which supports concerns that not enough is being done to ensure safety. I believe that TSA administrators have not done enough to counter the threat from commercial cargo flying in passenger airplanes. I'm pretty sure that TSA isn't 110% sure that the cargo threat is not jeopardizing aviation safety. Nor do I believe that Homeland Security is 110% sure that cargo arriving in ships from overseas ports are safe.
747FC is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 6:45 pm
  #40  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by 747FC
I agree that there are other threat areas ignored, which supports concerns that not enough is being done to ensure safety. I believe that TSA administrators have not done enough to counter the threat from commercial cargo flying in passenger airplanes. I'm pretty sure that TSA isn't 110% sure that the cargo threat is not jeopardizing aviation safety. Nor do I believe that Homeland Security is 110% sure that cargo arriving in ships from overseas ports are safe.
Again, risk assessment: there is no real risk. Pilots and mechnics and random nature kill more people every year than all twerrista.

Look at the EU again: rational security (for the most part) and no planes falling out of the skies. You keep going on about threats but you're not pointing to any actual threat that exists in any meaningful (ie. can be rationally addressed) sense. You can't stop the lone nutter and there's essentially no reason to try unless you like security theatre and wasting everyone's time & money.
SeriouslyLost is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 7:53 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by 747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes. Really bad guys are out to get us, and those bad guys are not federal intelligence or law enforcement agents, but terrorists who are quite creative.
If you endorse the current liquid restrictions, what you are actually saying is that you'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids in a 16 ounce container onto the plane, but you're perfectly comfortable flying with people who bring 6 or 8 containers of 3 ounces each, full of unknown liquids onto a plane.

And you're comfortable with the fact that airside in the airport or on board, people could combine the content of those small containers in an empty container to have up to 24 ounces of unknown liquid. Each. And that multiple passengers could combine their 24 ounces of unknown liquids to have, well, as much unknown liquid as they want.

I know you're okay with that, because that's what the current rules allow. And you're impressed with the creativity of terrorists, so you know they've probably figured out how to pour liquid from a little bottle into a big bottle.

You're also okay with standing in stupidly long lines at the checkpoint in close proximity to a plastic garbage can in which the large containers of "unknown liquids" are dumped, where they could be mixing together to create poisonous fumes or explode on impact or who knows what. You're comfortable with that, because that's the result of the current confiscation of large liquids.

Wow.
RadioGirl is online now  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 10:24 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
If you endorse the current liquid restrictions, what you are actually saying is that you'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids in a 16 ounce container onto the plane, but you're perfectly comfortable flying with people who bring 6 or 8 containers of 3 ounces each, full of unknown liquids onto a plane.

And you're comfortable with the fact that airside in the airport or on board, people could combine the content of those small containers in an empty container to have up to 24 ounces of unknown liquid. Each. And that multiple passengers could combine their 24 ounces of unknown liquids to have, well, as much unknown liquid as they want.

I know you're okay with that, because that's what the current rules allow. And you're impressed with the creativity of terrorists, so you know they've probably figured out how to pour liquid from a little bottle into a big bottle.

You're also okay with standing in stupidly long lines at the checkpoint in close proximity to a plastic garbage can in which the large containers of "unknown liquids" are dumped, where they could be mixing together to create poisonous fumes or explode on impact or who knows what. You're comfortable with that, because that's the result of the current confiscation of large liquids.

Wow.
I usually agree with you, but this time you are underestimating the insidious nature of the "bad guys." (Quoted from up thread, not a phrase I would use otherwise.)

You see, they have developed a new explosive that remains safe as long as it is contained in little bottles. We have been told 100 ml but it is larger than that but SSI, so we are told 100 ml to keep it easy. Also in TSA world, 100ml=3 oz, so technical precision is not a big part of this process. I suspect that it has something to do with the number of molecules that are allowed to commingle and touch each other. Let's suppose for a moment that there are beaucoup molecules in 100 ml (3 oz in the US). In a liter (a few fewer in a quart, see technical precision, lack of) there would be beaucoup times ten molecules. This allows them to build a greater network with which to make good connections, sort of like LinkedIn. But, just like every other molecule, when they are finally mixed together they look at each other and say "Who are you and do I know you?" just like LinkedIn. Since they do not know each other, or have no way to make good money off of knowing each other, they do not build connections. It is actually quite brilliant. Keep the molecules separated though the CP, bombard them with some Xrays, and they will never build a connection.

Here is the problem. Well, its a problem for the "bad guys." (Same reference as above, I would never, ever call them that. I like the phrase "Foreign People of Nefarious Intent," but that is too darn hard to type.) Oh, the problem. They were almost successful creating an explosive that does not depend on "connections" so the LinkedIn model does not come into play. These molecules were encouraged to like each other, like FaceBook. They were happy to like molecules they did not even know and would not really like if they finally actually met them. They just wanted to build a huge group of "likes," like 100ml's x 10 worth of likes. Or a quart if you insist.

And therein lies the problem.

The molecules thought they liked all of the molecules they had never met, but when they finally met them, it happens they were actually quite repulsed by them. Sort of like when people meet people that "liked" them on FaceBook just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. When they mix the small bottles together, the molecules go to opposite side of the bottle because the other molecules are just not their type. They never mix, therefore never creating the combinations that are explosive in nature.

We were very fortunate. It was close. The "bad guys" (yeah, see reference) were very close to developing explosive molecules based on a My Space model, but they each wanted their own space and as such never combined, they just looked across the gap at each other being the narcissistic like molecular snots that they were (remember, it is MY SPACE) staying in their own space.

There was also the eHarmony molecule that would combine in consecutive pairs, most of which did not generate a spark, much less an explosion, and how much of a boom can two molecules make? A few rare cases were quite volatile but is was not the norm, and it was a self contained volatility. It is two molecules. Just two. Get over it. Nobody but you two molecules cares. Well, you may think it is a big deal, but for those of us observing there is a lot of pffft and not much boom.

Pffft does not bring down big planes.

Now you know. Glad I could help.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2013, 11:57 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,096
Should this thread be re-labeled "Silly Checkpoints and Borders Policy Rants?"

I learned 45 years ago in middle-school debate class to speak about issues and not to use ad-hominem arguments. It is quite a surprise that not everyone got this training.

One of you recently had your post censored because you violated FT rules and made disparaging comments against Americans. Others, rather than state arguments in support or against a position, make absolutely silly references. Some like to presume that one condition invariabile follows from an assertion. My introductory logic professor would roll in his grave.

Flyer Talk can be a wonderful forum for sharing experiences and guiding those in need. It can also be a forum where unfortunately, people show and uncomplimentary side of themselves. Pax vobiscum.
747FC is offline  
Old Aug 28, 2013, 12:32 am
  #44  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
I usually agree with you, but this time you are underestimating the insidious nature of the "bad guys." (Quoted from up thread, not a phrase I would use otherwise.)

You see, they have developed a new explosive that remains safe as long as it is contained in little bottles. We have been told 100 ml but it is larger than that but SSI, so we are told 100 ml to keep it easy. Also in TSA world, 100ml=3 oz, so technical precision is not a big part of this process. I suspect that it has something to do with the number of molecules that are allowed to commingle and touch each other. Let's suppose for a moment that there are beaucoup molecules in 100 ml (3 oz in the US). In a liter (a few fewer in a quart, see technical precision, lack of) there would be beaucoup times ten molecules. This allows them to build a greater network with which to make good connections, sort of like LinkedIn. But, just like every other molecule, when they are finally mixed together they look at each other and say "Who are you and do I know you?" just like LinkedIn. Since they do not know each other, or have no way to make good money off of knowing each other, they do not build connections. It is actually quite brilliant. Keep the molecules separated though the CP, bombard them with some Xrays, and they will never build a connection.

Here is the problem. Well, its a problem for the "bad guys." (Same reference as above, I would never, ever call them that. I like the phrase "Foreign People of Nefarious Intent," but that is too darn hard to type.) Oh, the problem. They were almost successful creating an explosive that does not depend on "connections" so the LinkedIn model does not come into play. These molecules were encouraged to like each other, like FaceBook. They were happy to like molecules they did not even know and would not really like if they finally actually met them. They just wanted to build a huge group of "likes," like 100ml's x 10 worth of likes. Or a quart if you insist.

And therein lies the problem.

The molecules thought they liked all of the molecules they had never met, but when they finally met them, it happens they were actually quite repulsed by them. Sort of like when people meet people that "liked" them on FaceBook just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. When they mix the small bottles together, the molecules go to opposite side of the bottle because the other molecules are just not their type. They never mix, therefore never creating the combinations that are explosive in nature.

We were very fortunate. It was close. The "bad guys" (yeah, see reference) were very close to developing explosive molecules based on a My Space model, but they each wanted their own space and as such never combined, they just looked across the gap at each other being the narcissistic like molecular snots that they were (remember, it is MY SPACE) staying in their own space.

There was also the eHarmony molecule that would combine in consecutive pairs, most of which did not generate a spark, much less an explosion, and how much of a boom can two molecules make? A few rare cases were quite volatile but is was not the norm, and it was a self contained volatility. It is two molecules. Just two. Get over it. Nobody but you two molecules cares. Well, you may think it is a big deal, but for those of us observing there is a lot of pffft and not much boom.

Pffft does not bring down big planes.

Now you know. Glad I could help.
^^
chollie is online now  
Old Aug 28, 2013, 1:33 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
I usually agree with you, but this time you are underestimating the insidious nature of the "bad guys." (Quoted from up thread, not a phrase I would use otherwise.)

You see, they have developed a new explosive that remains safe as long as it is contained in little bottles. ...

Now you know. Glad I could help.
I was outstanding in Physics but only so-so in Chemistry, so I appreciate the help. Please don't adjust your meds; this is more entertaining.
Originally Posted by 747FC
I learned 45 years ago in middle-school debate class to speak about issues and not to use ad-hominem arguments. It is quite a surprise that not everyone got this training.

One of you recently had your post censored because you violated FT rules and made disparaging comments against Americans. Others, rather than state arguments in support or against a position, make absolutely silly references. Some like to presume that one condition invariabile follows from an assertion. My introductory logic professor would roll in his grave.

Flyer Talk can be a wonderful forum for sharing experiences and guiding those in need. It can also be a forum where unfortunately, people show and uncomplimentary side of themselves. Pax vobiscum.
Okay, let's be serious and polite, then. You said:
Originally Posted by 747FC
... 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.
and
Originally Posted by 747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes.
So my questions are:
1) Are you comfortable with lots of different people - some of whom may be working together - bringing lots of little bottles of "unregulated liquids" on board the aircraft (that is, the status quo), but uncomfortable with people bringing larger bottles of unregulated liquids on board (the pre-2006 scenario)?

2) If you are, then why? Do you believe that it is too difficult, too time-consuming, too much trouble, physically impossible, [some other option] for people to combine the "unregulated" contents of small bottles into a larger bottle?

3) If you're not comfortable flying in a plane full of people all of whom may have lots of little bottles, then why do you believe that the "liquid ban is... one that... has kept other planes and people from going down"?

4) If you believe that the liquid ban - which confiscates large liquids from passengers at the checkpoint - has kept planes from being blown up, then do you believe that some of the large liquids which have been confiscated were dangerously explosive? If so, then are you comfortable with the possibility of having a TSA employee throw a bottle of dangerously explosive liquid into a regular trashcan 4 feet from where you're standing in line? Why?

5) Or do you believe that the liquids ban results in a Catch-22 scenario where the "bad guys" leave their explosives at home because they'll be confiscated, so the only liquids confiscated at the checkpoint are actual Pepsi and shampoo?

I'm willing to be serious; are you willing to answer these questions?
RadioGirl is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.