Please explain Worst Case Scenario
Sep 29, 2006 | 4:14 pm
#16
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: RSW
Programs: HHonors - Diamond; IHG - Diamond; Marriott Bonvoy - Platinum
Posts: 14,287
I believe Mr. Chertoff made a point of announcing, simoultaneous to the London Hijinks: There are NO KNOWN DOMESTIC THREATS [plots]. It seemed to me at the time as a whipsaw effect trying to scare and re-assure us at the same press conference.
Getting back on topic ... if 14 oz is enough, and they were hell bent on this, and it were that possible ... ummmm ... wouldn't they have used the Rx route already?
I have another question that confuses me. If the X Ray machine is "helpful enough" to screen liquids well enough for the 3 oz items (viscosity or whatever it is they see
) why cannot factory sealed containers of water, saline solution, etc. be considered as safe as the Baggie'd goods?
Getting back on topic ... if 14 oz is enough, and they were hell bent on this, and it were that possible ... ummmm ... wouldn't they have used the Rx route already?
I have another question that confuses me. If the X Ray machine is "helpful enough" to screen liquids well enough for the 3 oz items (viscosity or whatever it is they see
) why cannot factory sealed containers of water, saline solution, etc. be considered as safe as the Baggie'd goods?
Sep 29, 2006 | 4:25 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Gargoyle
And are we supposed to assume the puffer machines and swab system could not detect those chemicals? And what about the liquid sensing machines which the Japanese are using?
Shouldn't the TSA be in the forefront of helping develop and implement new technology, instead of being resistent and negative about it?
Shouldn't the TSA be in the forefront of helping develop and implement new technology, instead of being resistent and negative about it?
Sep 29, 2006 | 4:28 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by RQueen
Just out of curiosity and because I'm new here, has anyone mentioned Ramzi Yousef and Bojinka? IMO, these names might shed a small amount of light on the isssues regarding liquids.
Maybe...maybe not....
Maybe...maybe not....
Sep 29, 2006 | 4:39 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
The real worst case scenario
A plot is uncovered to use explosives inserted into body cavities and/or woven into fabric (both possible, and of equal or more credibility than the "liquid bomb" threat).
In response, regardless of the credibility of the threat, all passengers are required to check all personal possessions including watches and eyeglasses, fly wearing only TSA provided hospital-style gowns, and be subjected to a full body x-ray prior to boarding. The only exceptions are muslim women who are allowed to fly in religious garb, because, after all, we can't be seen as discriminating against muslims.
The airlines, of course, "wholeheartedly support the measures" because "safety is our number one priority." We are reminded by TSA that they are not discriminating/profiling, since all passengers are being treated equally (like crap), and we are reminded that "there is no right to fly" and "if you don't like it, you can walk/swim."
In response, regardless of the credibility of the threat, all passengers are required to check all personal possessions including watches and eyeglasses, fly wearing only TSA provided hospital-style gowns, and be subjected to a full body x-ray prior to boarding. The only exceptions are muslim women who are allowed to fly in religious garb, because, after all, we can't be seen as discriminating against muslims.
The airlines, of course, "wholeheartedly support the measures" because "safety is our number one priority." We are reminded by TSA that they are not discriminating/profiling, since all passengers are being treated equally (like crap), and we are reminded that "there is no right to fly" and "if you don't like it, you can walk/swim."
Sep 29, 2006 | 6:27 pm
#21
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6
Are empty containers allowed? Then your theory fails again! Just bring an empty container of the appropriate size, and ingredients in the smaller containers
Originally Posted by eyecue
To this I would have to say: As I have said in the past, the ban went overboard. Too many James bond movies I think. Anyway, the picture shows toothpaste, an aerosol, lip gloss etc. These are not credible. In order for the person to make something that is a credible threat, the contents would have to contain two different chemicals that need to me mixed in relatively exact amount or you get a lean or rich mixture. You have to have a container that would hold the mixture too. So perhaps the ban is wrong in some areas, Containers should be banned that could hold that amount.
Sep 29, 2006 | 7:25 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by vvslavavv
Are empty containers allowed? Then your theory fails again! Just bring an empty container of the appropriate size, and ingredients in the smaller containers
Sep 30, 2006 | 10:34 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by eyecue
...the explosive that they demonstrated to us...
I'm no explosives expert, but I tend to take the word of those who are over some secret unpublished and likely umm... distorted demonstration.