• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Liquid Bomb plot

PhantomWolf said:
As far as the airlines are conserned it is better and far, far easier to simply have a blanket ban, no liquids and gels, than to specifically identify what is safe and what is a potential threat. It has nothing to do with trying to scare people with tewrrorism, it has everything to do with trying to protect the companies bottom lines by preventing more lawsuits if something happens.
Click to expand...

In the USA airline security is handled by the TSA, a subdivision of the US Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.tsa.gov/
 
I remember reading some off-the-cuff remark a while back around the time of the liquids ban about the only way to make air travel secure would be to handcuff all the passengers into their seats once they'd been strip-searched and to send their bags along later once they'd been all hand-searched.

Airport security is merely a deterrent, always has been and probably always will be. I've inadvertently carried stuff I shouldn't onto planes both before and after 9/11. And there are only two or three airports (none of which were in my native UK) i've been through in recent years where i'd say the screening of passengers and hand luggage was thorough.
 
cludgie said:
And there are only two or three airports (none of which were in my native UK) i've been through in recent years where i'd say the screening of passengers and hand luggage was thorough.
Click to expand...

I've found the screening at Heathrow and Gatwick to be pretty thorough.

The variation in security in the US is interesting though. Sometimes you get pulled aside for trivial things, such as a belt buckle setting off the detector, and sometimes you go through without problem.

The biggest surprise to me came on a flight leaving las vegas (can't remember if it was an international or internal flight) where, at the gate and about to board, they said over the pa system that passengers needed to have photo ID available but that Nevada State law did not require the ID to be checked prior to boarding. I found this to be a very bizarre thing to state.

I well remember traveling to and from the states prior to 9-11. At that time, people who weren't actually flying (on an international flight) could come as far as the boarding gate with you, something which hadn't been allowed in the UK for many, many years.

I also recall traveling to Las Vegas in October of 2001, via Atlanta where I had the most pleasant greeting from an Immigration officer I have ever experienced, before or since. I guess they were just pleased that people were still flying.

With regard to some of the other comments on this thread, yes I agree that some of the measures in place have an air of CYA about them, but I don't really care. For the absolutely minimal inconvenience incurred by having to have your shoes x-rays or of having to pay extortionate prices for bottled water once in the secure area, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

Flying isn't like taking a coach trip. If someone goes bonkers on a flight you can't just pull over to the side of the road and wait for the police. We're all trapped while on those planes, and there's not an awful lot separating us from what's outside the plane at 30000 ft. If you have to switch off your Ipod or Laptop when taking off or landing, so be it. If the cabin crew refuse to serve you alcohol because they think you've had enough, tough titty. If you want to be treated with kid gloves and pampered, cough up for a first class ticket. Then you'll get your fast track security screening and all the soap and shampoo you can swallow.:D
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
As far as I'm aware the only people who ever claimed that Reid's bomb could have downed the plane he was on, even in theory, were prosecutors at his pre-trial hearing who did not substantiate their claim. I'd welcome anyone who can point me to an authoritative source saying that Reid had a realistic chance of downing that plane.
Click to expand...

I wasn't refuting that part of your claim, I was refuting your claim that a breached aircraft hull only equals a destroyed aircraft in movies. This is untrue.


Kevin_Lowe said:
...the destruction of Flight 103 was at least to some extent due to the explosion damaging the nearby flight control cables. It's not clear from what is presented there whether a similar puncture which did not damage those cables would have resulted in the aircraft breaking up.
Click to expand...

Based on the propagation of the break up I think it's pretty clear the aircraft would have been destroyed regardless of those flight control cables. The key cause of break up was the shock waves from the explosion being carried through the venting channels in the aircraft skin, reflecting back, and colliding with additional waves, rupturing the aircraft skin in multiple places and causing enormous fractures in the skin.

The movement caused by the disruption of the flight control cables was what caused the window band connection to fail (by this stage the window band was the only section of the fuselage holding the nose and rest of the aircraft together) and resulted in separation, however I think it's pretty obvious that even without that movement the window band would have failed in a matter of seconds anyway.

Hull breaches do not universally result in aircraft break up of course, but they can do, as Pan Am Flight 103, BOAC Flight 781, and China Airlines Flight 611 demonstrate. Thus it is not only something for movies.

I think the two cases of PA103 and AQ243 show the extreme examples of a larger aircraft (747) that was destroyed by a very small breach (22in) and a smaller aircraft (737) that was not destroyed by a very large breach (dozens of feet).
 
And I'm more than happy to travel on a plane with a 'minor' hull breach....just as I'm happy to travel on a bus that has a fuel leak or a ship that doesn't have any life rafts. It all makes life so much more interesting (twitch twitch)
 
Airliners are an obvious choice for terrorists, so I have no problem being a little inconvenienced whenever I travel on one.

The thing to remember about an airliner is that it puts a large number of people in an incredibly vulnerable environment. It doesn't take much to bring an aircraft down, and if the aircraft comes down from altitude it's pretty much a given that everyone on board is dead.

As air traffic increases and airports get busier and busier, it is only going to get easier and easier for terrorists to slip through the cracks. It's worth remembering that until recently there were very few security checks.

I have no problem being inconvenienced and adding an hour to my waiting time. I don't care if my luggage is scanned and my shoes are prodded. I don't care if my hair gel is confiscated, and if I have to buy a bottle of water at $5 a liter from inside the terminal.

It's worth it if it convinces terrorists that air travel is not a viable target.
 
uk_dave said:
With regard to some of the other comments on this thread, yes I agree that some of the measures in place have an air of CYA about them, but I don't really care. For the absolutely minimal inconvenience incurred by having to have your shoes x-rays or of having to pay extortionate prices for bottled water once in the secure area, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

But a minor inconvenience for you, times millions of commuters, equals a big logistical cost overall. And that's forgetting the whole "illusion of security" angle that comes with the CYA approach.

What Security measures does Kevin favor, if any?
Click to expand...
I don't know Kevin's opinion, but I'll give you mine: there's none. Or, more precisely, there's no security controls out there that could secure air travel against terrorism better than the the pre 9/11 situation. I actually do information security and risk analysis by trade, so although physical security isn't exactly my bread and butter, you can consider this opinion a professional one. And I'm far from being the only one to think that way in the industry.

9/11 happened because existing security controls failed for various reason, the most important being that nobody really took them seriously and that key players in the intelligence fields were more focused on their petty political battles and protecting their turf than on doing a good job. On September 12th, 2001, this of course all changed, and suddendly security was on the front page. The public as always asked for the quick solutions, and in order to appear to be doing something productive, the aviation industry had to come up with quick fixes in the form of nonsensical controls based on the latest terrorism tactics, which of course make no sense as a sensible security strategy since terrorists aren't morons and will adapt their tactics accordingly for a fraction of the control's cost. It's just baaaad risk analysis from the part of the government, but it sure sounds great for the ignorants.
 
ZouPrime said:
9/11 happened because existing security controls failed for various reason, the most important being that nobody really took them seriously and that key players in the intelligence fields were more focused on their petty political battles and protecting their turf than on doing a good job. On September 12th, 2001, this of course all changed, and suddendly security was on the front page. The public as always asked for the quick solutions, and in order to appear to be doing something productive, the aviation industry had to come up with quick fixes in the form of nonsensical controls based on the latest terrorism tactics, which of course make no sense as a sensible security strategy since terrorists aren't morons and will adapt their tactics accordingly for a fraction of the control's cost. It's just baaaad risk analysis from the part of the government, but it sure sounds great for the ignorants.
Click to expand...
well when you look at it how much different are the procedures? i can only think of 2 major difference, 1: i have to put my shoes through the xray machine and 2: the liquid thing

other than that, it seems like its the same pre-9/11 procedure (xray carryon, walk through metal detector, etc) but now they are actually making sure everyone goes through it, every bag is scanned, the security personnel are paying attention and are trained well enough to know what to look for, etc
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well when you look at it how much different are the procedures? i can only think of 2 major difference, 1: i have to put my shoes through the xray machine and 2: the liquid thing

other than that, it seems like its the same pre-9/11 procedure (xray carryon, walk through metal detector, etc) but now they are actually making sure everyone goes through it, every bag is scanned, the security personnel are paying attention and are trained well enough to know what to look for, etc
Click to expand...

They also are doing more spot checks as well.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And there are only planes in the US?
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge many places besides the USA have planes. Glad I could help you out with that.

Now I assume your implicit claim was something like "other nations have planes too, their security measures are just like those of the USA, their security measures are entirely at the discretion of the airline companies, and so I was right all along that the financial interests of the airline companies drive security measures". Because you hid behind a rhetorical question rather than coming out with a claim you might have to defend I don't know for sure that's what you meant but it seems a reasonable guess.

Was that what you were trying to say?
 
Last edited:
The only really significant airline security change that occurred as a direct result of 9/11 was that pilots and flight attendants are no longer trained to cooperate with hijackers - specifically pilots are trained to keep the cockpit door shut and not open it regardless of what the hijackers might do or threaten to do to passengers of flight attendants.

The other measures - such as confiscating liquids - are a result of other terrorist threats, not 9/11.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well when you look at it how much different are the procedures? i can only think of 2 major difference, 1: i have to put my shoes through the xray machine and 2: the liquid thing
Click to expand...

But just these two things have caused a lot of unecessary headaches for a lot of persons, while being completely inefective at doing anything.

Meanwhile, enterprising individuals selling airports custom machines designed to scan shoes, a costly idea aimed at mitigating an almost inexistant threat, and with limited results: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601269.html

And let's not forget the fiasco of the "no travel" blacklist that has stopped thousands and thousands of individuals from getting into planes since 2001.
 
gumboot said:
The other measures - such as confiscating liquids - are a result of other terrorist threats, not 9/11.
Click to expand...
The reason why the TSA has been adding new security controls tailored toward terrorist threats is because of 9/11. There were plenty of terrorism prior to 9/11, and the reaction back then wasn't as systematic as today.
 
ZouPrime said:
The reason why the TSA has been adding new security controls tailored toward terrorist threats is because of 9/11. There were plenty of terrorism prior to 9/11, and the reaction back then wasn't as systematic as today.
Click to expand...


I disagree... for example... the restriction on liquids was in direct response to the Atlantic Bombing Plot.

In the same way, the Bojinka Plot (in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef planned to detonate bombs in multiple airliners) resulted in airline security measures changing so that luggage would only be put on an aircraft if the owner of that luggage was on board.

Meanwhile the events on FedEx Flight 705 resulted in changes to rules governing jumpseat passengers.

The history of aviation is full of examples of threats to aviation resulting in changes to security measures.
 
ZouPrime said:
And let's not forget the fiasco of the "no travel" blacklist that has stopped thousands and thousands of individuals from getting into planes since 2001.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, roughly how many people have been prevented from travelling since 2001 due to the more rigorous enforcement of "no fly" lists? Not disputing, just asking.

Dave
 
Lets just say for a moment, a mujahid carries a bottle of vodka onto a plane, the baggage handler thinks because its vodka, that the man is not a devout muslim. When onboard the plane, the mujahid, mixes in an oxidiser turning the vodka into a bomb which detonates with just enough force to pierce the hull and depressurise it.

Improvised bombs are unfortunately very easy for terrorists to make.
 
ZouPrime said:
But just these two things have caused a lot of unecessary headaches for a lot of persons, while being completely inefective at doing anything.
Click to expand...
last time i was at the airport neither of these seemed to be causing headaches, the problem was how long everything took, and the bottleneck seemed to be putting multiple carryon items through the xray
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just out of interest, roughly how many people have been prevented from travelling since 2001 due to the more rigorous enforcement of "no fly" lists? Not disputing, just asking.

Dave
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no idea. In fact, I don't even know if this information is available. All I have are the multiple anectodic evidence, the most popular being what happened to Senator Kennedy last year when his named ended up on the no-fly list.

If you want to learn more about airport security and why the TSA approach is under heavy criticism by the security community, you can check up past issues of Bruce Schneier's blog at http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html. He dwelved over the topic many times over the last few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom