So, in spite of their own admissions in court that they planned and were working to make the liquid bombs, the physical evidence recovered from their home, and the film and audio evidence of them actually constructing the devices and talking about the devices they are still only "so-called" bomb plotters? At what point would they reach the stage that you would refer to them as "actual" bomb plotters?

Your recall is partially correct. The conspirators in England were arrested sooner than UK security officials desired because US security forces wanted to arrest Rashid Rauf in Pakistan. Rauf helped recruit, plan, coordinate and train the bomb-makers. Arresting him would have resulted in the bombmakers being tipped off and abandoning the plot so all were wrapped up before word of Rauf's arrest could get back to the others in England.

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.

I dont. I havent read his book but my understanding is that he did not say the initial ban was not needed or that the continuing limitation on particular quantities of liquids was never needed but rather that technologies and procedures have been put into place that allow for the removal of the limitations. Its a fine but important distinction.

It's not just laziness that prevents desperately needed reforms. There is tremendous resistance by almost all the players in the security establishment to relaxing any restrictions - not just because they have a financial interest but also because it is the mindset. These guys live almost their entire lives never being completely relaxed and in a white zone. And it has been ever thus. Unfortunately, while we used to keep them at bay we have allowed 9/11 and subsequent events to push the pendulum to the other side; OBL continues winning....

So are you saying the video of Ali and Husain assembling the devices was what, a giant conspiracy against them and faked - like the lunar landings were faked? And all of the bomb making materials (the liters of peroxide and chemicals for concentrating the peroxide) found in the house and at the cache were planted by the government? And yet the defendants not only didn't deny the plot but all admitted to the bomb-making charges? Come on, even at trial the defense did not deny the video evidence and all admitted to the plot (although they did deny specifically targeting aircraft which the gubmint could not substantiate because the US prematurely had Rauf arrested). Even the resident of 1600 Penn wouldn't be so bold as to assert those alternative facts.

Yes, and this is possibly the biggest problem with TSA.

After Pan Am 103, we did not ban electronic radio/cassette players
After the successful and lethal test (liquid-based) bomb in the Bojinka plot, we did not ban Casio watches or toiletry bags let alone water.

I know some if not all of these bans were considered by security forces, but common sense prevailed, and no permanent bans were introduced. Those threat vectors remain viable, but the perpetrators were dealt with (somewhat) and society moved on.

Once TSA was created, common sense went out the door and every new threat "required" new, permanent, and traveler visible (to maintain the security theater) restrictions. (shoe carnival, war on water, NoS, genital grabs)

The first (and only that I know of) hint that sanity may have returned is that DHS Secretary John Kelly failed in his very strong 2017 drive to institute a total and probably permanent ban on laptop computers and other electronic devices in the cabin. I give major credit to the EU for standing up and (rightly) insisting that burning LiIon batteries in the cargo hold were a bigger threat than modified laptops which should be able to be detected with x-ray screening. People would have died within months if these things had been forced into the cargo hold. The only other option was a cabin and cargo ban, which would have essentially prohibited air transport of electronic devices that are part of our daily lives. That is absurd. I think even the idiots running DHS/TSA realized that such a thing might finally turn the public against them enough to threaten the continued existence/growth of their bureaucracy .

Maybe in 2006 there should have been a liquid ban for a few weeks, or even a few months, while they rooted out fellow travelers of the plotters. But 12 years and counting is absurd.

Any terrorists have moved far beyond liquid explosives while TSA is still stuck on focusing on them and shoe bombs.

Both plots were not only viable, they were successful.

Richard Reid may have thought he was going to blow up an airplane, but whoever set him up didn't expect him to. The same with the liquid bombers. If an airplane disappears over the ocean it can take years to figure out exactly why, if at all, which isn't terribly useful for terrorists. If some inept bomber gets caught doing something with a shoe, a small bottle of liquid, or something in his underwear, no matter how unlikely the chances of destroying a plane, the countries under "attack" inflict damage on themselves in the form of things like liquid bans and shoe removal, restrictions on freedoms, and increased use of resources to implement the bans/searches for fictional dangers. Some cheap shoes with a fuse sticking out have cost the US many billions of dollars.

It's essentially terrorism theater designed to set off our security theater, and it's been very successful.

I used to bring at least one 2 L bottle of seltzer on any transcon flight, and now I'm limited to a few cups, or maybe a few cans that the FAs hand out. And I have yet to see a US airport that sells seltzer airside - it's still water only. I want my seltzer back.

Their plan was for suicide bombers to assemble the devices in flight so it wouldn't have mattered if they'd blown themselves up "prematurely" because they were already in the air. Even if most had a "squib" explosion there were according to the investigation multiple flights targeted and all it takes is one.

Their plot was closer to "viable" than it was theoretical. While not a fan of the liquid restrictions I have zero sympathy for those who would put lives at risk so they can enjoy their favorite seltzer. Boo-hoo.

For the same reason that government requires shoe removal 17 years after one unsuccessful shoe bomb attempt.