No liquids on airplanes (NON POLICITAL THREAD)

My sister travels a lot on business with vials and needles because she gives herself a daily shot of some drug or other that helps keep her MS in check. This is definitely going to be hard for her.

Is this a permanent thing, btw? It's so terribly inconvenient (and without much of a benefit IMO)--I prefer to pack things like shampoo, lotion, etc. in my carry-on so it won't bust open in my checked bag. The shoe thing is "optional" at most/all airports now, right?

Maria has a really good point--if they wanted to, couldn't people claim whatever harmful liquid was just medicine, or are we going to put everybody with a baby/liquid meds through the Nth degree? This is absurd.

(so, er, yeah, what Maria said)

i've heard nothing about a ban on liquids/"gels" before the gate, and can't imagine anyone suggesting same, as they can't be used there for their intended purpose - blowing up an airplane (preferably in the middle of an ocean).

and the whole point of the liquid/"gel" ban is to prevent someone from using them to put together an explosive device onboard a plane. if you were going to do something before the gate, you would just use, you know, a bomb.

Donut, you bring up the subject of bathrooms - does the TSA secure cleaning supplies? Because mixing a bit of bleach with a bit of ammonia (just a little Comet and Windex) releases an unhealthy amount of chloramine gas. Or a little bleach with a dab of phosphate based cleaner for chlorine gas.

You don't have to blow up a plane to kill everyone on it.

This is my favorite paragraph of all time right at this moment.

Snakes, people!

I thought it was not just about killing people on the plane, but blowing it up spectacularly, preferably over a major urban area, for maximum TV newsworthiness.

In that case it's REALLY odd they targeted trans-atlantic flights...I wonder what the goal was.

xpost

I'm glad my boredom + my lack of sleep made someone amused.

Maybe they'll be scrutinizing anything in a vitamin-ey/medicinal looking jar now, but one could easily carry powdered bleach or ammonia or other hazardous stuff into plastic jars through TSA. All you need is water from the airplane bathroom, and...

How awesome would it be if the FAA and Dept of Homeland Security held a press conference to clarify their position on fudge and cotton candy?

don't forget cheez whiz

I can't find something saying so clearly at the moment, but my assumption (and I believe I've heard) is that the intent was to blow planes up over the ocean consistent with the 1996 'Bojinka' plot.

or maybe milk, milk, lemonade

Erm, the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie on was a transatlantic flight. OK, Lockerbie ain't a major conurbation, but ten or so minutes later and that wreckage would have been all over Glasgow. Transatlantic flights = greater chance that the victim would be British or American, as mentioned already.

(xxpost, oh, I would've thought blowing planes up where people could see - and record - the event and aftermath would be more effective in terms of coverage and immediate infiltration to international psyches. The images of the World Trade Centre are far more instantly accessible to the world than the Pentagon or the Pittsburgh planes, not to mention Madrid, London, Bali etc, because we were watching when it happened and have seen it so many times since.)

Marlon Brando, right? Sucked.

Also, one of the byproducts of bleach/ammonia is hydrazine, which burns on contact with air and explodes on contact with rust. The lower explosive limit is 2900 ppm, so you'd have to mix a couple liters up to generate enough.

OMG THEY HAD A PLOT NAMED "BOJINKA"?!?!?

My friend just called from Newark Airport where chaos reigns. People are panicking about having to trash their expensive cosmetics. Everybody was told to throw out lipsticks and lip balms and then ten minutes later the same security guy came back around and said no, it's okay, lipstick is off the list, you can go fish them back out of the trash.

BUT WHAT ABOUT LIPGLOSS?!?!

Man, the TSA guys are going to have the biggest headaches for the next couple of days. "Is liquid foundation okay?" "No." How about powder?" "...Yes." "How about liquid-to-powder?" *head explodes*

exploit -> patch -> exploit -> patch -> exploit -> patch -> ...

Nobody can think of everything (to be 100% safe, you would have to stop starting up your computer/stop using planes), the thing is to patch/fix/avoid/forbid what they think of, preferably before someone uses it in the wild/on a plane/in a train/whatever.

http://guardians.net/hawass/valley_of_the_mummies/pic26.jpg

9/11-level death toll and the idea of being helplessly stranded over the atlantic isn't enough? I'd imagine it's also much easier to pull off the plot mid-flight when you're further from air traffic control, the seat-belt sign is off, people are busy serving food/sleeping/movie-watching/etc., and it seems far more normal to futz with carry-ons, go to the bathroom, etc.

You're never really far from air traffic control, btw.

Time to start shipping everything ahead :( Just as I'm getting back into 75% travel mode, too.

Mehhhhh in a couple weeks I have to fly basically everything i have up to Boston with me. At least I was already planning on getting shampoo there!

That's what's been implemented in the UK today. No idea how long this will last though, whether it's just the authorities being seen to be doing something to allay fears (see, e.g. cursory shoe-checks, which I've had done twice since the shoe-bomber threat - I've flown maybe about 30 times since then, see no sharp objects through hand-luggage x-rays. I've had stuff confiscated at the x-ray point, then gone through to the lounge and bought, ooh, glass bottles that could hurt a bit if you smashed one, a wee kit to repair my specs that included a mini-screwdriver, etc etc)

xx-post, yeah, maybe, but come on, you telling me plane crashes mid-atlantic v plane crashes over central London is equivalent in terms of an iconic(for want of a better word) TV image for our times?

ailsa, gabby is just bored and toying with arguments to see if he can make them work i think

A bomb located in the forward cargo hold had exploded while the plane was in mid-flight at 31,000 ft.

Unless I missed some subtle detail, nothing indicates this was an inside operation that could, hence, be analagous to an unpreventable similar air tragedy today.

Yeah, I don't hold too much trust on the underpaid/outsourced security teams at airport gates in general, either, but one would hope that technology has improved since 1985 to detect potential bombs in checked luggage. Otherwise, I'd assume this would have happened again, since.

Then again, I'm not an expert on the spectrum of airport security, so I'll just defer to anyone here who is.

Gabbneb, did you not watch a plane flying into a building live on national television? If you're going for the unprecedented wow of mass murder, I'd have thought you'd want it to be remembered. Synonymous with you and what you stand for. Bombings in Bali etc aren't getting the Oliver Stone treatment just yet. Hitting NYC with the world watching = brilliant PR exercise.

(xpost - wasn't the Air India baggage checked in to a separate flight from its owner? That's not allowed these days)

Well, if people are willing to sacrifice themselves along with the deed, these days, such a regulation wouldn't matter today, in context.. (unless the potential criminal cracked under pressure for whatever reason and alarmed security at the last moment.)

Are you seriously worried about people seeing a suicide airplane bomber on TV and then going "hey, that looks cool - I'm gonna do that!"

I'm talking about the difference between KSM and ailsa

No no no--exact opposite! I am just wondering whether or not creating such images is really a major goal.

Also, do they search hair? You could totally hide wmd in my mates dreads.

Ten planes going down = big deal, yes. Four planes went down on 11th September 2001. The second one into the WTC is the one that most people saw. The Pentagon one hasn't even had the feature film treatment yet! In terms of reaching a previously-politically-unaware audience, shock and, erm, awe, tactics seem to work. Wouldn't you capitalise on that?

So how would you get around this? You'd need the people that were in charge of the check in luggage to be in on it too. Its not like anyone can just walk into the underbelly of the airport, switch bags around, and bounce.

How do we even know the 9/11 plotters intended for us to see a plane crash into a building on tv? 17 minutes between the two impacts - not very strong evidence to me (and was it supposed to be that long?). I would think the goal is even closer simultaneity, to prevent someone from stopping the attack.

The jets that fly routes over oceans are big. Jets that fly domestically typically aren't. Same reason the 9/11 hijackers chose flights that were flying across the US rather than picking a ComAir DC-9 or something. It makes more noise if you kill 450 people on a 747 than if you kill 120 flying Manchester to Paris on RyanAir.

OTM.

(xxpost, yeah, my brother has been checking in flights today that would kill 15 people and a couple of sheep. They are still going through the new rules laid down by the DoT in light of today's events, but I can't imagine that's posing the sort of threat that we're dealing with right now. I mean, they'd kill folk, sure, but it's not as, well, BIG AND SCARY AND TERRORISING)

If terrorists wanted to strike at the heartland of America and really enforce that "IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE", there would be a bunch of truck bombings at Walmarts and rocket attacks on random high schools. The goal isn't insurgency however, its to scare Americans in getting the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs. If there was a Beslan in this country, they know everyone would go apeshit and Iran would be a glow in the dark parking lot.

My point was: I'm guessing the passenger-on-flight-with-one's-luggage regulation was to prevent people from dropping luggage bombs on other planes and leaving unscathed, yet as we've clearly seen, some people are willing to sacrifice themselves to do these deeds now, so such a regulation wouldn't necessary be 100% preventative.

Planes that fly NYC/Philly/Boston/Newark to LA or SF nonstop are big planes. Much bigger than the Southwest 737 that's flying Hartford to Detroit. Think about it; You have a big long flight, which means you're gonna burn a ton of gas. Might as well have a bigass plane that carries lots of people, right?

Yeah, but there's been a bunch of other steps taken. Its not like they closed that loophole but forgot to bother checking the luggage going on all the planes. In the 21 years since, a significant amount of work has been done in order to find explosives in luggage. It shouldn't be surprising. I mean, look at what happened to airline stocks today. They all did horrible, and there wasn't even actually an accident or bombing. Airlines pour money into this because a single bomb going off on anyone's plane, especially with virtually all the major American carriers being ear bankrupcy, would finish most of them off financially.

Big planes fly long routes. Small planes fly short routes. LA/NY is a long route, therefore requiring big planes. The 9/11 plan needed big planes, so they picked routes with big planes (cross country non-stops). Trust me, if they could have done the same thing with a turboprop leaving from Wilkes-Barre, they would have, simply because they would have had an even easier time going through security.

A Boeing 767 (the plane in question) is a large wide body jet that holds upwards of 375 passengers. Its a really big plane. Its just that it was probably losing money that day.

What part of my posts aren't you reading? I have no idea what the intention was, I don't even know that they intended the second WTC plane to be caught on international news. I know what they intended, but what has happened is that 9/11 = WTC for many people. If there had been live media coverage of something at the Pentagon when the plane crashed there, or [pick any permutation of events] had happened, then maybe the WTC second plane would be different. Now, looking back (somewhat fortuitously for Al Qaeda, maybe), they happened to make something happen that is indelibly linked with them in the way that four mangled tube trains and a nightclub in Bali isn't. And if you want the world to know stuff, you hit them visibly and shockingly, with maximum impact so they don't forget it.

Well, I am and I'm not. I agree that the comparison is off, but its gonna be really, really tough to sneak a bomb into an airplane (though the strategy employed here was probably the best chance at it). If you can't get liquids on a plane, they check your shoes for C-4, and all the baggage gets scanned, you're gonna have a hell of a time getting a bomb on a plane, short of implanting it in you.

Alan: You could get liquids on a plane two days ago. This'll all blow over in a few days - I flew a couple of weeks post 9/11 and it was batshit security mental. Since then, shoes checked about twice... oh, hell, I'll just cut and paste my earlier post shall I?

That's what's been implemented in the UK today. No idea how long this will last though, whether it's just the authorities being seen to be doing something to allay fears (see, e.g. cursory shoe-checks, which I've had done twice since the shoe-bomber threat - I've flown maybe about 30 times since then, see no sharp objects through hand-luggage x-rays. I've had stuff confiscated at the x-ray point, then gone through to the lounge and bought, ooh, glass bottles that could hurt a bit if you smashed one, a wee kit to repair my specs that included a mini-screwdriver, etc etc)

Take control of the plane, you don't *need* a bomb. You're tootling around the skies with huge amounts of flammable fuel and the means to impact it somewhere. This threat involved liquids. Stop people getting liquids on planes and they'll think of something else if they're determined enough to do this.

creating a certain image, yes, but not necessarily one caught on tv. flight 175, the 2nd to hit the tower, took off 16 minutes late (almost exactly the amount of time between the first and second impact). flight 77, after taking off 10 minutes late, hit the pentagon 35 minutes later. flight 93, after taking off 40 minutes late, crashes 40-45 minutes later. from this, I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that the WTC flights were intended to crash within minutes of each other if not simultaneously, and to think the same of the DC flights, about a half hour later, 450 miles away. maybe they all stuck to preset timing, despite the delays, except the flight 93 hijackers, who "put it down" on schedule, but off target.

if you want the world to know stuff, you hit them visibly and shockingly, with maximum impact so they don't forget it.

but with 9/11 they thought they'd have maximum impact even without tv.

I actually have a totally different experience. I've had my shoes checked at every airport I've been at in the US in the last 5 years. I'm pretty sure its actually federal law now that they're put through metal detectors before commercial flights. The liquids thing will blow over though, I agree. You'll just see a lot more bags torn apart when people have bottles of anything on with them.

xx-post, yeah, maybe, but come on, you telling me plane crashes mid-atlantic v plane crashes over central London is equivalent in terms of an iconic(for want of a better word) TV image for our times?

No no no--exact opposite! I am just wondering whether or not creating such images is really a major goal.

-- Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr...), August 10th, 2006 5:00 PM. (scarymonsterrr) (later) (link)

please stop yelling at me. ;_;

Alan, I'm not in the US. And, in case it has escaped your notice, today's events originated in the UK. Most of the flights I have taken have been between the UK and Spain (two recipients of the suicide bombing treatment). Your federal laws may protect you, but the rest of the world has yet to catch up.

(xpost due to poxyfuling)

I would imagine most modern, western airports, particularly ones in Spain and the UK (where terrorist activity is nothing new) would have similar measures. Not necessarily checking shoes, but definitely so for scanning baggage. I haven't been to Europe since 2002, but I pretty distinctly remember the wide array of checks I went through at Heathrow and boarding the Eurostar train.

And obviously I was making it up about the glass bottles and mini-screwdriver and things. I mean you haven't been here for 4 years, so you're obviously more of an expert than I am. My baggage was scanned just fine. Doesn't mean I couldn't have fashioned a crude weapon out of stuff on sale in the lounges available to me after that.

Actually UK baggage isn't hand searched like US baggage, it;s only scanned and sniffer dogged (oh totally bad verbification there). Carry on luggage hasn't been systematically checked for explosives like checked in luggage, guess that's why they went for this. Also internal European flights don't all pass through similarly modern airports to Heathrow, Ryanair and EasyJet and co use small provincial airports a lot, twould be easier to get on a flight in Riga or Crete and hit Heathrow/Stanstead. That said when I passed throught he Spanish Rail system there was a lot of scanning, x-ray wise and sniffer dogs.

US baggage is rarely handsearched, unless there's a reason. As for smaller airports in Europe possibly being open to such, well, there's small airports in the US which are probably easy to bust too. I remember Athens airport once being on the State Department list as being potentially unsafe alongside El Dorado in Bogota, but I haven't seen that list in probably 10 years.

(jaq, haha, very funny. if only terrorists had stuff other than, well, terrorism on their minds)

"Yo, bitch totally got sniffer-dogged"

I've only had it happen once, when I flew out of Hartford bound for Seattle. I've gotten my carryon hand searched a bunch of times though, which I routinely blame on the fact that I have facial hair.

Do musicians find their kit messsed up by the TSA when touring I wonder?

that's OK, I am just being dull and one-track-minded on this thread because it seems overpopulated with idiots (not you) who don't get that airline travel is always fraught with potential for bad stuff to happen even without major news stories pointing it out to them and concentrating on one specific thing and going "look! people have thought of something and eradicated it, you get to feel safe now!" whilst ignoring the other stuff that's there too.

There's a billion ways to die. Making a thread about how someone might hijack an airliner with a ballpoint pen doesn't get us very far, nor does it particularly make for thought provoking conversation. Fuck, if a terrorist really wants to ruin shit, he and his buddies can try to open an emergency hatch at altitude rather than try and sneak a bomb through a ridiculously complex system of checks and balances.

When I flew across country to spend Xmas with my mother and siblings in 2001, she gave us all swiss army knives and art supplies (exactos and other sharp tools) as gifts. We had to mail them. This Xmas if I go, I imagine she'll give us homemade jellies and wines. I fear the day you can't mail liquids and gels.

How did you wait so long to first fly???

Oh, pardon me. I do apologise for derailing a thread about airline security by talking about airline security. Your point is pretty much my point. If you want to cause an air-crash, you can probab;y do so one way or another, and knee-jerk reactions to a recent whisper about how someone may be planning to do it, doesn't eradicate the whole threat, it just makes people like feel something is being done. It doesn't make *me* feel any safer. I thought I was making a valid contribution to the thread, and the only reason I laboured the point for so long was because people were being all nit-picky and contrary about it.

Legal execution is 1 in 62,468

You're more likely to die from flying than:
accidental electrocution, alcohol poisoning, hot weather, hornet/wasp/bee sting, lightning, earhquake, flood, fireworks discharge

that's from the National Saftey Council in the august National Geographic

Strictly speaking, the idea of making white women throw away their water bottles, medicines, perfumes and such is nonsensical. From a security standpoint it achieves nothing other than aggravation.

and/or fear, minor poll bump, yeah.

You could tell people were panicking as they were ripping out Sudoku pages of papers and putting them in their pocket-sized wallets.

that's from the National Saftey Council in the august National Geographic

Yeah, but do flying deaths in those statistics include general aviation (small plane) accidents. Because the majority of flying deaths are from crashes involving little single-engine planes and not from larger passenger planes used by commercial airlines.

You mean like crashing a Piper Super Cub, Super Cub? I imagine it does include light aircraft, and probably ballooning, gliders, helicopters and space shuttles too! I wonder if there are statistics for commercial aviation incidents chance of death? I'm sure they're somewhere.
Of course statistic like those paint a very blank picture. The average US Citizen doesn't rrrealllyy have a 1 in 62,468 chance of being legally executed either.

HOLY SHIT. IM NEVER GETTING ON AN INTERSTATE AGAIN.

i was stopped at LAX in 1997 and told to drink from the coke i was holding. i couldn't comprehend it at the time and hestitated, then they yelled at me 'MA'AM PLEASE SIP AND SWALLOW YOUR BEVERAGE'.

i only found out yesterday there had been a terrorist plot to blow up a flight between LA and sydney with liquid explosive in 1995. considering thats the kind of flight i was getting on, it finally made sense.

it drives me crazy when people wait to ask if they need to take their shoes off. hey, guess what. people in this endless line have planes to catch. JUST TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF.

HOLY SHIT. IM NEVER GETTING ON AN INTERSTATE AGAIN.

Who said that statistic was exclusive to interstates?

http://cache.defamer.com/assets/resources/2006/08/liquids-on-a-plane.jpg

-- Rotgutt (Rotgut...) (webmail), Today 4:15 PM. (Rotgutt) (later)

bullshit

Useless to argue with the reasoning of airport security/screeners, people required to have so little qualification or ability, it's not even clear they have all graduated from high school.

It's like saying "Tip for al qaeda: en list mentalist white old man dressing up as a vicar to do your dirty deeds and they'll never be searched."

whatevs, britain

thats only because you go faster on interstates

But still no news of concrete evidence of what materials and methods the alleged terrorists in custody had. Where are the liquid bomb parts?

i have had my hair explored.

also they have new x-ray things they're testing out, 14hrs before all this shit kicked off i was flying out of heathrow and got "randomly selected" (uhh... ok...) to have it tried out on me. you go between two screens and put your heels/toes on markers on the floor and hold your arms up with elbows bent, then turn around and do it facing the other way. they said something about it not penetrating skin so i guess it can find stuff hidden in hair/down t-shirts/etc.