water on plane = bad, knives on plane = good

brandon_flowers · 06-03-2013 01:59PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/plane-bomb-plot-drink-bottle

There is a documentary also. This is the reason the 100ml ban is in place.

rubadub · 06-03-2013 02:01PM

hardCopy wrote: »

You can still bring 10 x 100ml bottles of water. These can still be combined to make a litre of explosive water.

A few months into this ludicrous system I had suncream in a large bottle that I was about to throw out. So I got a load of the bags, free at the time, and filled 5 or 6 with my suncream. It was actually the first time the inspector person had seen it done, she looked very suspiciously at them at first, and then commented on it being a good idea when I told her.

BizzyC wrote: »

Liquid = possible explosive capable of bringing down plane
Knife = sharp object capable of killing, but not capable of taking down plane

I agree though, it's ridiculous when you take into account that they're not actually stopping you from bringing in explosive materials, as long as they're individually 100ml or less..

You can bring on semi solid explosives no bother still, just watch out for the extra charges if you go over the weight limit.

humbert wrote: »

Throwing liquids in the bin is safe because there has yet to be a terrorist plot to blow up an airport bin.

This is the stupid situation, they wait till it happens rather than try and think of them before hand. They take the shoes off now, I wondered if some terrorist (male or female) hid it in a bra would they all have to be removed from now, going through the gate. Or would they go "oh no, thats a bit personal, shoes are the limit, we'll just have to risk the bra bombers"

I never understood what is so special about planes, if I wanted to blow up a bomb and kill lots of people there are far easier places.

seamus · 06-03-2013 02:03PM

Lapin wrote: »

I think its an organised measure by the airports

It's really a piece of Security Theatre, as mentioned above.

It creates minimal or zero benefit in actually combatting terrorism but the service users feel safer. Air transport in particular loves to use it because people naturally feel vulnerable flying in a plane, so rigid security measures result in a big payoff when it comes to encouraging people to fly.

But in the US, where being terrified of everything is the cultural lynchpin, it's used everywhere, from scanners at the entrances to schools and museums to the old "duck and cover" advice for a nuclear blast.

Not to say that we're immune to it. Monitored alarms are another piece of security theatre. You pay good money to make yourself feel safer when in reality you're not.

Lapin · 06-03-2013 02:10PM

seamus wrote: »

It's really a piece of Security Theatre, as mentioned above.

It creates minimal or zero benefit in actually combatting terrorism but the service users feel safer. Air transport in particular loves to use it because people naturally feel vulnerable flying in a plane, so rigid security measures result in a big payoff when it comes to encouraging people to fly.

But in the US, where being terrified of everything is the cultural lynchpin, it's used everywhere, from scanners at the entrances to schools and museums to the old "duck and cover" advice for a nuclear blast.

Not to say that we're immune to it. Monitored alarms are another piece of security theatre. You pay good money to make yourself feel safer when in reality you're not.

Thats my point. Its got little to do with actually improving security and more to do with increasing revenue for airports and airlines under the guise of making people feel secure.

I've got nothing against any business making a profit but I find the use of 'security' to do so as cynical.

rubadub · 06-03-2013 02:26PM

Lapin wrote: »

increasing revenue for airports and airlines under the guise of making people feel secure.

I wonder if any airport and/or airline has thought of exposing this nonsense. The delays caused by this crap certainly put me off flying. If an airline made their airport declared they had a sensible security policy it could be a real selling point. Get in and on the plane in no time, just like other modes of preticketed transport, like trains or coaches. They would have a higher turnover of passengers too so could afford to offer cheaper services.

I remember in the US we got a coach between 2 states, since though the plane was supposedly faster with all the unavoidable delays it would have been around the same time.

Lando Griffin · 06-03-2013 02:27PM

You could still buy a bottle of whiskey or other highly flammable liquids in the Duty Free and bring it on the plane.
How is this rendered safe?
By inserting it into a zippy bag.
I suppose if Islamic terrorists were to be seen bying spirits it might raise suspicion.
Anyway it might have a negitave effect on Duty free sales and jobs.

humbert · 06-03-2013 02:38PM

rubadub wrote: »

This is the stupid situation, they wait till it happens rather than try and think of them before hand. They take the shoes off now, I wondered if some terrorist (male or female) hid it in a bra would they all have to be removed from now, going through the gate. Or would they go "oh no, thats a bit personal, shoes are the limit, we'll just have to risk the bra bombers"

I never understood what is so special about planes, if I wanted to blow up a bomb and kill lots of people there are far easier places.

I'm still waiting in horror for the first terrorist to hide a bomb as a suppository. Then we're all buggered...

MadsL · 07-03-2013 06:03PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think there was an outbreak of Islamis terrorism in Paris in the 90s where they detonated bombs in bins. Not sure if it was at an airport though (although at CDG, no one would notice - that airport is chaotic enough at the best of times).

That would be the IRA they got that idea from, London in the 80s.

Here's a nice write upabout the absolute hokum about mixing two liquids in the sky.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

brummytom · 07-03-2013 06:11PM

I was on holiday with some friends last July, and coming home, I was amazed I was allowed through security with two lighters (a zippo-style, and a normal electric one), but a friend wasn't allowed to take through a still-sealed bottle of whiskey he'd bought as a present for his dad.

Why are lighters ok and fcuking liquid isn't?

Manic Moran · 07-03-2013 06:15PM

hardCopy wrote: »

I know that's their logic, but it's complete bollix.

So as long as they dump the red liquid in one bin and the clear liquid in another bin, we're grand.

How is it any less dangerous to allow 5 guys bring 4 x 100mls each onto the plane and make up a big batch in the bathroom sink?

All of these measures are tokenism so that people 'feel' safer on a plane. There are plenty of other things on a plane sharp enough to replace a box-cutter without allowing knives.

The significant thing there is the 'five guys.' The trick is identifying the people, not what they're carrying. Everyone with a lick of sense knows that the security line will only stop the utterly incompetent individual, and that identifying a lone actor is also pretty darn hard. The checkpoint is a tool, a funnel, a distraction. Next time you go through a security checkpoint in the US, don't look at the guys in the uniforms running your gear through the X-ray machine at the checkpoint. Keep an eye out for the folks who are keeping an eye on the passengers, both in the line and before you get to the line. Some are easy to spot. Others, you have to know who you're looking for.

Small knives aren't a problem. I strongly doubt any US airplane is likely to be successfully hijacked by a group of people with box cutters any time in the future.

allibastor · 07-03-2013 06:16PM

seamus wrote: »

I've always been tempted to blow this liquid regulation out of the water (pun intended) by showing how you could make a bomb in mid-air with some kind of powdered chemical, a tupperware and a regulation litre of water.

Of course then I'd be banned from most international flights...

you dont need a litre of water to make anything liek that, you can make some very nasty stuff and have it brought along in the plane quiet easily.

Thermite for example can be failry easily gotten through. many types of nalpalm etc.

MadsL · 07-03-2013 06:17PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Small knives aren't a problem. I strongly doubt any US airplane is likely to be successfully hijacked by a group of people with box cutters any time in the future.

Because of locked cabins?

MadsL · 07-03-2013 06:21PM

allibastor wrote: »

you dont need a litre of water to make anything liek that, you can make some very nasty stuff and have it brought along in the plane quiet easily.

Thermite for example can be failry easily gotten through. many types of nalpalm etc.

Thermite? You think a sufficient quantity of iron oxide will go undetected through X-ray scanners??

Napalm? Where are you going to get the petrol from?

mickgotsick · 07-03-2013 06:33PM

Where To wrote: »

I take my big offensive weapon onto a plane all the time.

Your wife?

Manic Moran · 07-03-2013 08:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

Because of locked cabins?

No, because the passengers will have little interest in being part of a warhead of a guided missile.

Frogeye · 07-03-2013 09:03PM

the whole liquids thing is ridiculous. But didn't the liquid bomb originate in the emerald isle?

http://www.rte.ie/tv/scannal/aerlingushijack.html

And that richard reed thing, the shoe bomber.... trying to set off plastic explosives in his shoe with a match..... others might correct me here but i always thought plastic explosive needed some electrical source of detonation....with that in mind, it seems odd that a terrorist who can get his hands on plastic explosive, hide it in his shoe and get it past security would be so stupid as to try to set it off with a match?

And while i'm ranting... anyone else notice how in cork airport , besides taking out your lap top, you are required to open it and show it to the security person? I've been in 30+ countries and god knows how many airports and only in cork have I seen this....

Stinicker · 07-03-2013 09:06PM

You can still take as much liquids as you want on a plane you just have to buy them after clearing Security.

Dwork · 07-03-2013 09:12PM

Yes indeed, confiscate my shampoo, search my shoes, belts off(wtf is that all about??) then let me pop through and into duty free, clutching my zippo. Duty free is fine on airplanes...as are lighters....because we all know Vodka won't burn under any circumstances, nor will cognac, err..hold on..you don't reckon these dumb rules are just that, dumb rules? I'm waiting for someone to douse a cabin in Smirnoff, flick on a zippo, and fcuk up the duty-free business model altogether. I've also seen what chocolate did to my neighbours wife and trust me, that stuff made her explode. It took a while, but jasus she blew up altogether.

james142 · 07-03-2013 09:39PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

Come to think of it, the last few flights I've been on, I didn't get my nuts. You might be right.

I got my nuts on my last Aer Lingus flight 2 weeks ago

HTML5! · 07-03-2013 09:43PM

Only a matter of time before some lunatic tries it on a plane.

Cienciano · 07-03-2013 11:18PM

brandon_flowers wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/plane-bomb-plot-drink-bottle

There is a documentary also. This is the reason the 100ml ban is in place.

The reason is to keep the media and public happy and pretend they're doing something. Anyone can carry a lump of this up their arse.
Or get a mate working in a job an airport. He brings it in, meet him past security.

allibastor · 08-03-2013 09:10AM

MadsL wrote: »

Thermite? You think a sufficient quantity of iron oxide will go undetected through X-ray scanners??

Napalm? Where are you going to get the petrol from?

you can make a nalpalm solution and hide it in your shoes or some ****. and you dont need enough Iron oxide to bring down the plane, just open up a cabin door lets say, or someother means.

and they are not the only thing you can do either.

MadsL · 09-03-2013 03:18AM

allibastor wrote: »

you can make a nalpalm solution and hide it in your shoes or some ****.

Wut?

and you dont need enough Iron oxide to bring down the plane, just open up a cabin door lets say, or someother means.

How do you get that on the plane? And who will stand around as you attach something to the cabin door and light it.

and they are not the only thing you can do either.

The scary 'other' things whooo!

Scruffles · 09-03-2013 09:56AM

I got my nuts on my last Aer Lingus flight 2 weeks ago

well woud bloody well hope were able to get those onto a plane,cant imagine tumors bigger than the passenger door.

Grayson · 09-03-2013 10:10AM

delta36 wrote: »

So knife is ok, but razor blades aren't? Don't quite get that.

me neither. My Gilette razor is dangerous, but a 5.5 cm blade is ok?

And guys, as for the fluids, they were never a danger really. It takes ages and ages to make the stuff that they're checking for. And the ingreedients stink. making someone open the top of a bottle and sniffing it is enough of a check.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

EDIT: Just saw MadsL posted that link earlier.

Grayson · 09-03-2013 10:24AM

allibastor wrote: »

Thermite for example can be failry easily gotten through. many types of nalpalm etc.

If i remember correctly, Thermite can only be burnt by igniting with a very high temperature. So, technically, you'd also need something to act as a detonator (although not technically a detonator since thermite can't explode).

And really, the detonator that you'd be using would be dangerous in it's own right. And probably harder to smuggle than the thermite.

water on plane = bad, knives on plane = good

Comments