Liquid Bomb plot

[gumboot]

Even if he had breached the hull of the plane that only equals a destroyed plane in movies. In reality the plane would have made it down just fine even if the shoe bomb had gone off, although there would certainly have been injuries or deaths as a result of the explosion.

Tell that to the passengers of Pan Am Flight 103.

PA103 was destroyed by a 1lb bomb that made a 20inch hole in the fuselage.

The reality is a hull breach is an excellent way to destroy an airliner, it's a matter of how big a breach, and more importantly where on the hull.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Tell that to the passengers of Pan Am Flight 103.

PA103 was destroyed by a 1lb bomb that made a 20inch hole in the fuselage.

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.

According to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

...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.

In any case, while I can't get the relevant page to load I think I recall Reid's bomb was less than half the size of the Lockerbie bomb and possibly not ideally designed either.

Yeah, terrorism is just heeelarrius.

When there are thousands of more dangerous things they could be doing with their time, yeah, I'll laugh at a guy who hides explosives in his shoes then gets beaten up as he unsuccessfully tries to set them off with matches. That's some thing Wile E. Coyote would do if he was a terrorist.

People who take the threat of terrorism too seriously are a far greater threat to my happiness and liberty than the terrorists are.

 

[uk_dave]

So? Terrorists are dumb. Do you want to be on a flight at 30000 ft above the north atlantic while a dumb terrorist attempts to do something stupid? I don't.

Are the authorities to allow a small amount of explosives on to a plane so long as, on it's own, said amount of explosives might not be able to bring down the plane? Who is going to make that judgment?
Just like knives under a certain length were once allowed on to US flights. That never resulted in any problems now, did it? Oh wait......

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So? Terrorists are dumb. Do you want to be on a flight at 30000 ft above the north atlantic while a dumb terrorist attempts to do something stupid? I don't.

All else being equal, of course I wouldn't. All else being equal, absolutely anything that any government can do to make the lives of homicidal nutbags more difficult is something I fully support.

Where it gets interesting is when all else isn't equal, such as when programmes that are allegedly intended to make the lives of homicidal nutbags more difficult make everyone else's lives more difficult. When that happens we have to weigh up the real costs against the plausible benefits, and in the case of the current US mania for confiscating liquids I think the plausible benefits verge on zero.

"Security theatre", useless measures that serve only to present the illusion that the government is doing something useful, can't be justified by any sensible cost/benefit analysis.

Are the authorities to allow a small amount of explosives on to a plane so long as, on it's own, said amount of explosives might not be able to bring down the plane? Who is going to make that judgment?

Yes. Me.

If you think about it absolutely any solid object, including the human body, can in theory contain explosives. Plus apparently any liquid now also counts. Are we going to make it illegal to carry anything with non-zero volume, including ourselves, on board a plane? If not, then we just allowed small amounts of explosives on to a plane.

There is no sane alternative to allowing small amounts of explosive on a plane, if that's how you choose to look at it. Unless we all strip naked, have our orifices probed and then go through an MRI machine to make sure we haven't had an appendix-shaped blob of plastic explosive surgically inserted then there will be ways to get small amounts of explosive on to a plane.

Past a certain point you just have to say "Screw it, I'm not going to live in fear of the boogyman, I'll take my chances and hope the police catch the loonies before they blow me up".

Just like knives under a certain length were once allowed on to US flights. That never resulted in any problems now, did it? Oh wait......

What do you think the odds of that trick working again this century are?

 

[gtc]

A whole lot of words, none of which even attempts to justify why you find people who take terrorism seriously funny.

 

[WildCat]

Plus apparently any liquid now also counts.

Uhhh, no. You are allowed to bring liquids and gels on a plane - just so long as each container is 3 oz. or less and all of them together can fit in a 1 qt. clear plastic bag.

Source.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A whole lot of words, none of which even attempts to justify why you find people who take terrorism seriously funny.

I'd phrase it a little differently. I find people who take terrorism too seriously funny.

I also find a guy trying to blow up a plane by lighting a fuse sticking out of his shoe, and failing to get it lit, who then gets beat down by the passengers and tied up with objects found around the plane, goddamn hilarious. I mean, would you believe it if you saw it in a movie? The only way to top it would be if someone walked on to a plane with a sputtering bomb sticking out of their turban like in the infamous Danish cartoons.

(On a more serious note, Reid is an excellent example of why terrorism paranoia has gone too far. There was an attempted terrorist act on a plane, it was thwarted by aggressive passenger action, the perpetrator was found guilty by a civilian court in full public view, and the guy is never going to be bothering anyone again. There was and is no need for airport security theatre, waterboarding, secret military courts or any of the rest of the ridiculous/dangerous/evil tomfoolery allegedly instituted to protect us from terrorists).

 

[gtc]

OK I accept that. I also think that laughing at terrorists can take some of the wind out of their sails.

 

[scissorhands]

There was and is no need for airport security theatre, waterboarding, secret military courts or any of the rest of the ridiculous/dangerous/evil tomfoolery allegedly instituted to protect us from terrorists).

Because future terrorists are clearly going to be as inept as Reid was?

 

[uk_dave]

(On a more serious note, Reid is an excellent example of why terrorism paranoia has gone too far. There was an attempted terrorist act on a plane, it was thwarted by aggressive passenger action, the perpetrator was found guilty by a civilian court in full public view, and the guy is never going to be bothering anyone again. There was and is no need for airport security theatre, waterboarding, secret military courts or any of the rest of the ridiculous/dangerous/evil tomfoolery allegedly instituted to protect us from terrorists).

On a recent flight from heathrow to LAX, both going out and returning, I had the entire four seats of my row to myself. Wanna take a chance?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

On a recent flight from heathrow to LAX, both going out and returning, I had the entire four seats of my row to myself. Wanna take a chance?

Yes. That's exactly what I want to do. I want to take a chance, because in my opinion the current airline security regime is misdirected and not worth the hassle for the "security" it provides. I'll live with the miniscule chance that a terrorist decides to blow up a mostly-empty plane because hey, four seats, now's the time.

Yes, even knowing that I or someone I care for could be on that plane. Do you know why? Because I'm a rational human being, not a scared sheep, I know that the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial, and I know that it's not worth living my life in fear of the boogyman.

Because future terrorists are clearly going to be as inept as Reid was?

How many major attacks have successfully been carried out by airline passengers since 9/11? Looks to me like a combination of competent police work on the ground and aggressive passenger action when needed in the air have been shown to be sufficient. At least to a degree of certainty that I'm comfortable with anyway.

If you want to stick your head under the covers because of a one-in-a-hundred-million chance that the nasty terrorists will come for you, feel free.

 

[scissorhands]

I know that the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial, and I know that it's not worth living my life in fear of the boogyman.

Good for you, maybe the airlines should save themselves a lot of time and inconvenience by stripping security back to a bare minimum, as the chances of any individual passenger dying due to a terrorist action is highly remote.

 

[Par]

If you want to stick your head under the covers because of a one-in-a-hundred-million chance that the nasty terrorists will come for you, feel free.

So, either we agree with you about the unnecessary nature of aspects of airport security, or we are merely “scared sheep” who live our lives “in fear of the boogyman” and we need to “stick [our] head under the covers” to avoid a “one-in-a-hundred-million chance” – a “miniscule chance” – “that the nasty terrorists will come for [us]”.

Blimey.

Well, there are two things one could say about that. For one thing, it’s slightly patronising and makes good use of some fairly prejudicial language. More importantly however, is the fact that it’s also a false dichotomy.

Personally speaking, I happily conform to airport security procedures, and fear simply doesn’t come into it. While I understand that “the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial”, I also spare a thought for people I don’t know. If, by enduring the extremely minor aggravation of having to remove my shoes for less than a minute and having to place a few containers into a plastic bag, I can help render all aircraft – as opposed to merely those on which my loved ones or I travel – even a little safer, then maybe I don’t mind doing so.

 

[ZouPrime]

Airport security controls are based on CYA rationale, not on real risk analysis of threats and vulnerabilities versus the cost of implementing these controls.

In other words, airport security confiscates liquids because if they didn't and someone would put a bomb on a plane, they could be accused of negligence. If someone put a bomb on a plane using a method that hasn't been as mediatised, security could always argue they didn't know about it. It has nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything do to about making people think they are safe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Good for you, maybe the airlines should save themselves a lot of time and inconvenience by stripping security back to a bare minimum, as the chances of any individual passenger dying due to a terrorist action is highly remote.

You sure showed that straw man.

Personally speaking, I happily conform to airport security procedures, and fear simply doesn’t come into it. While I understand that “the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial”, I also spare a thought for people I don’t know. If, by enduring the extremely minor aggravation of having to remove my shoes for less than a minute and having to place a few containers into a plastic bag, I can help render all aircraft – as opposed to merely those on which my loved ones or I travel – even a little safer, then maybe I don’t mind doing so.

You aren't having your hair gel and your knitting needles confiscated because there is any real risk that the hair gel is nitroglycerine or the knitting needle will be used to take over the plane. It's security theatre. You aren't making anyone safer by complying.

 

[scissorhands]

It's security theatre. You aren't making anyone safer by complying.

Thats not something that you would be qualified to know, is it?
Unless you have inside knowledge about what strategies have been ruled out by terrorist organisations?
Given that Al Queda has something of a penchant for hijacking and blowing up airliners, it would be somewhat lax of the security services to ignore the possibilities outlined in the OP.
Unless you have information otherwise, then I think Im prepared to go through the minor issue of handing over personal belongings and being searched before boarding a plane.
If it is such a hassle to you, then maybe you shouldnt be flying at all.
There are alternative modes of transport available.

 

[Par]

So, either we agree with you about the unnecessary nature of aspects of airport security, or we are merely “scared sheep” who live our lives “in fear of the boogyman” and we need to “stick [our] head under the covers” to avoid a “one-in-a-hundred-million chance” – a “miniscule chance” – “that the nasty terrorists will come for [us]”.

[That is] a false dichotomy.

Personally speaking, I happily conform to airport security procedures, and fear simply doesn’t come into it. While I understand that “the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial”, I also spare a thought for people I don’t know. If, by enduring the extremely minor aggravation of having to remove my shoes for less than a minute and having to place a few containers into a plastic bag, I can help render all aircraft – as opposed to merely those on which my loved ones or I travel – even a little safer, then maybe I don’t mind doing so.

You aren't having your hair gel and your knitting needles confiscated because there is any real risk that the hair gel is nitroglycerine or the knitting needle will be used to take over the plane. It's security theatre. You aren't making anyone safer by complying.

With respect, that wasn’t the argument with which I was taking issue. You were suggesting that people who happily comply with certain aspects of airport security must be contemptibly pathetic and snivelling individuals who are motivated by an utterly nebulous and vanishingly unlikely threat to their own safety. However, as I pointed out, that is simply not the case – strictly statistical factors notwithstanding, there exist considerably more honourable, altruistic and broadly Kantian motivations than those you give credit for.

In short, I was addressing that specific issue – one which is neutral to the overarching question of whether such measures actually make anyone any safer. When it comes to that question, however, I have to initially agree with Scissorhands in thinking that your abject dismissal of these measures seems somewhat premature.

 

[dudalb]

I suggest that Kevin take a trip to New York, go inside a Fire Station, and then talk about how silly beleiving terrorism is a threat is.
We can debate about how effective individual security measures are. To just say it is all nonsense is both silly and dangerous.

 

[WildCat]

Yes. That's exactly what I want to do. I want to take a chance, because in my opinion the current airline security regime is misdirected and not worth the hassle for the "security" it provides. I'll live with the miniscule chance that a terrorist decides to blow up a mostly-empty plane because hey, four seats, now's the time.

Yes, even knowing that I or someone I care for could be on that plane. Do you know why? Because I'm a rational human being, not a scared sheep, I know that the odds of anyone I know ever dying in a terrorist attack are trivial, and I know that it's not worth living my life in fear of the boogyman.



How many major attacks have successfully been carried out by airline passengers since 9/11? Looks to me like a combination of competent police work on the ground and aggressive passenger action when needed in the air have been shown to be sufficient. At least to a degree of certainty that I'm comfortable with anyway.

If you want to stick your head under the covers because of a one-in-a-hundred-million chance that the nasty terrorists will come for you, feel free.

You know, much the same argument could be made regarding semi-automatic "assault" rifles. My odds of getting killed by one are minicscule, and there are many other ways to kill someone other than with a semi-automatic rifle. So why have an outright ban on them?

Kevin, are you still strongly in favor of gun control? Serious question, since that's a 3 year old thread and you're certainly entitled to change your mind.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thats not something that you would be qualified to know, is it?
Unless you have inside knowledge about what strategies have been ruled out by terrorist organisations?

It's not inside knowledge that professional chemists have said that the idea of downing a plane by smuggling precursor chemicals on board disguised as safe liquids, and then combining them to make a bomb, is ridiculously impractical.

Some idiot is probably about to chime in with "But shouldn't we make sure we're safe from every possible conceivable terrorist plot, even the stupid ones which could never work?". Maybe we should (I think not but you're entitled to your own opinion), but we're not doing that. As has been previously pointed out we're just engaging in security theatre, making a show of defending against whatever threat has been in the media, and ignoring more serious potential threats.

With respect, that wasn’t the argument with which I was taking issue. You were suggesting that people who happily comply with certain aspects of airport security must be contemptibly pathetic and snivelling individuals who are motivated by an utterly nebulous and vanishingly unlikely threat to their own safety. However, as I pointed out, that is simply not the case – strictly statistical factors notwithstanding, there exist considerably more honourable, altruistic and broadly Kantian motivations than those you give credit for.

In short, I was addressing that specific issue – one which is neutral to the overarching question of whether such measures actually make anyone any safer. When it comes to that question, however, I have to initially agree with Scissorhands in thinking that your abject dismissal of these measures seems somewhat premature.

The Kantian motivation is defensible as long as you are still under the false impression that security theatre is real security, or that the threat of a liquid bomb being assembled on a plane is a real threat. Once it's been explained to you that it's not, you're out of defenses for the liquids ban based on Kantian pure reason.

I suggest that Kevin take a trip to New York, go inside a Fire Station, and then talk about how silly beleiving terrorism is a threat is.
We can debate about how effective individual security measures are. To just say it is all nonsense is both silly and dangerous.

Wow, you sure showed that straw man.

You know, much the same argument could be made regarding semi-automatic "assault" rifles. My odds of getting killed by one are minicscule, and there are many other ways to kill someone other than with a semi-automatic rifle. So why have an outright ban on them?

Kevin, are you still strongly in favor of gun control? Serious question, since that's a 3 year old thread and you're certainly entitled to change your mind.

In the USA guns kill 30 000 people per year, give or take, and injure another 60 000, give or take. Some of those would have died anyway, some wouldn't, but there's a five figure death toll. Even if you limit the discussion to accidental deaths it's still around 1500/year.

Even pretending 9/11 was the start of the universe, and mindlessly averaging from there, terrorism only kills 500 or so people per year in the USA, and that's being as favourable with the numbers as anyone could ask for. The reality is that 9/11 was a one-off and terrorism now kills approximately zero people per year in the USA.

So even if you bend over backwards to exonerate guns, they're still at least three times as important a social problem as terrorism, given current levels of effort to make the public safe from each. If you take a saner approach to the figures you'd say that terrorism is a problem under control, and guns are a problem which is currently killing people.

I don't want to get into a full-blown gun thread, so I'll just say that some people think that an armed population is going to scare a modern government, or that guns are a human right, or that guns don't really facilitate killing at all, or that guns save thousands of lives by acting as a deterrent. I think those arguments don't hold up but you're welcome to think otherwise as far as I'm concerned for the purposes of this thread.