Since The Baggie Act, and its nit-picking over "What constitutes a 'quart' etc." I am becoming convinced that this latest move has made things worse. However, it has finally prompted me to ask: What exactly are we supposed to believe will happen if a Jihadist (or more likely a non-religious mentally disturbed copycat, IMHO) were able to bring on a large tube of toothpaste/bottle of saline solution/etc.? Are we still on this mixing up onboard business? Is the full-sized tube of toothpaste really full of something to be ignited?

Much as I think there is no more "threat" than there was on August 9th, I'm not trying to be difficult or clever. I am truly attempting to understand what it is this is all trying to "prevent"?

My honest anwer is that the September 26 changes were a miserable attempt to backtrack on the infantile August 10 ban - one which has been shown to make zero logical sense from a variety of angles. Instead of admitting that the Chertoff/Hawley childish ban on liquids made absolutely no sense, they compounded their foolishness by adding some Sandra Day O'Connor-inspired intricacies to the prohibited items list.

Could terrorists use these new rules to smuggle aboard some binary explosive material? Sure. And Kang and Kodos might be the candidates in the 2008 Presidential election. Neither is likely enough (IMO) to spend much time worrying about. Might terrorists have smuggled aboard larger quantities of binary explosive material had the Aug 10 ban not been instituted at all? Sure they could. But an adult risk management model gives the same answer - it's like worrying that Kang and Kodos will impersonate our candidates for President.

I asked as mixing the stuff up onboard seems nearly impossible, needing highly controlled conditions. Do these government "experts" truly believe that is likely? Or, is there some idea that they will surreptitiously combine more than 3 oz of "fake gel deodorant" with more than 3 oz of "fake saline solution" at their seat so that the plane will explode? I am trying to determine what exactly the TSA wants me to envision happening and am having a tough time with it.

To be fair, Chertoff & co. did not institute the Great Liquid Ban; they merely and thoughtlessly followed the British lead. Then the Canadians followed the US, now the EU is following the rest.

We don't know the exact "threat" since specific details of the alleged plot have not been made public, particularly with regard to the actual explosives. PETN and TATP have been mentioned but not confirmed. Most non-emotional opinions on the likelihood of actually mixing/making a liquid-based bomb in flight give it a very low probability - virtually none at all.

Why is the liquid bad being prepetuatued ? Simply to prevent the loss of face which would result from admitting that all the authorities grossly overreacted.
Should come as no surprise.

Given that a typical 12-oz sized bottle of saline solution filled with nitroglycerine did not bring a plane down in 1994, I would think the terrorists would need significantly more liquid to accomplish their goals.

I also think that they would stand out like sore thumbs trying to bring several litres of liquid explosives onboard disguised as everyday items. Sure, they could have several people bring them through and combine them airside, but I don't see anything from stopping that now, either.

As that blowhard London cop Paul Stephenson told you, the scenario is "mass murder on an unimaginable scale." Now stop asking questions like whether the plot to which he was referring is even remotely feasible, and be

SCARED

like we want you to be!

MASS MURDER

UNIMAGINABLE SCALE

got it?

I agree. On August 10, I dismissed the liquid ban and the official explanations as either the rantings of a paranoid lunatic or a politician who'd been ordered to scare the bejeesus out of the 90% of the population for whom flying is an extraordinary event.

And the risk management side of me said "so what? Even if it's theoretically possible, such an explosive plot is highly improbable." I'm not smarter than Chertoff/Hawley and the poor hapless Brits (Lapdog Blair's Lapdogs), I'm just not a paranoid lunatic. And IMO, you've almost gotta be a paranoid lunatic to buy into the need to ban my water bottle and my child's chapstick on August 10 to keep the skies safe.

^ ^

You said it better than I did.

or should that be ?

The absolute worst case? You guys got it wrong. The worst case isn't that 10 people bent on seeing their maker gets to smuggle a few deciliters of some explosive onboard, mix it up successfully and blow some airplane out of the sky.

The worst case is what happens after they succeed. Yet again another layer of reactive security. Yet another round of detoriating civil rights and yet another round of searching for demons that noone sees, mostly because they are not there and yet another round of feeding frenzy by the press and yet another round governments and agencies running out of control of scaremongering.

Now, let's say that a fully loaded 744 does depart the skies somewhere and 300+ souls do depart their loved ones in a highly tragic matter, still, the 300 are the most high profiles that same day, but at the current running their numbers do not by far get close to the good few hundreds that will be killed the same day in "the war on terror", and those numbers are nowhere close to the good few thousands being killed by the lack of attention to the developing nations and run down societies that in the beginning of all this seems to be be the very breeding grounds for totalitarian regimes and current recruiting areas for fantatics.

If a third of the energy and money spent in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan had been used to peacefully coopt the neccesary regimes, and start managing and nurturing the nations mostly in north east africa and the middle east that needs it, then you'd had a lot more good will against the western world than we do today.

Instead we are far more likely to see the current western regimes run amok at the first and best chance at another turn at tightenting the screw. On their own people, their own nations and raking up yet more hatred and dissent in parts of the world that don't need it... *sigh*

I'll go back to my whisky and try not to bite on the next troll to come along here.

-A

You guys are barking up the wrong tree on two accounts. One is the explosive that they demonstrated to us is mixable with not much odor. The other is its sensitivity. So it can come in mixed already or it could be mixed on a plane and 14 oz is enough.

As before, you've omitted the details necessary for us to evaluate the strength of your claim. Without additional details, your claim is tantamount to saying "trust me, I know."

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._guidance.shtm

The Official Picture of the Approved Kwart Kip Zip Freedom Bag contains seven count em seven 3 ounce containers, showing that one pax can carry 21 oz of liquids. Legal per TSA Rules.

If, as you say, 14 oz is enough, then the 9/26 version of the 8/10 version of the 9/11 Rules is endangering the public and Kip Hawley is not only an idiot but must be fired immediately for endangering the public.

Which is it? Either 14 oz is safe or it is dangerous. Can't have it both ways.

related FYI

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/So...ring_0918.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/

okay then: "Trust me, I know."

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?

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.