Why we can’t carry liquids freely on-board commercial flights

by Charlie Leocha on February 18, 2009

Few decisions have irritated the air traveling public more than the mandate to limit the carrying of liquids on airplanes instituted in late 2006. Complaints have raged since then, coming from passengers and pundits alike. The opening of the terrorist trial yesterday in London is sobering.

According to Reuters, here are some of the allegations outlined by lead prosecutor Peter Wright at Woolwich Crown Court in east London.

– A memory stick owned by one of the suspects held detailed information about seven flights from London Heathrow’s Terminal 3 to U.S. and Canadian cities, most of them between August and October 2006.

These were United Airlines services to San Francisco, Chicago and Washington; Air Canada flights to Montreal and Toronto; and American Airlines flights to New York and Chicago.

– There were also conversations suggesting that there may have been up to 18 suicide bombers operating from different terminals, Wright told the court.

– A diary taken from one of the suspects, Abdullah Ahmad Ali, contained what the prosecution said was a blueprint for the plot.

The bombs would have been made from liquid explosives based on hydrogen peroxide mixed with an organic component such as tang, a substance used to make soft drinks.

These were to be smuggled on board the planes in 500 ml bottles of Lucozade or Oasis drinks. The explosive mixture would have been injected into the bottles through the base, so the drinks would appear to be unopened.

The bombs would have been set off using a homemade detonator, a chemical called hexamethylene triperoxide diamine available from household and commercial ingredients, Wright said. This would have been hidden in hollowed-out batteries and fired by a power source such as a disposable camera.

The bombers would carry another open soft drink of a different flavor to fool security, the prosecution said.

The blueprint also suggested the men should carry condoms and a pornographic magazine to convince authorities they were not “radicalized Islamists.”

To say the least, this kind of detail about the bomb plot is harrowing. All of a sudden, the hassle of packing small bottles of shampoo and tubes of toothpaste into quart-sized plastic bags according to TSA rules doesn’t seem so outrageous.

The details mentioned above had not been released until the start of this court case. The very enormity and total lack of any concern for victims is blood-chilling. These are the deviously brilliant but heartless, uncivilized and fanatical terrorists that our government and we are facing.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: liquids, terrorists, TSA

  • John

    Charlie,
    Thank you. After years of listening to bloggers complain about the policy (including contributors to this site), its nice to see someone defend the TSA policy especially since its based on a real plot and not something dreamed up in a meeting.

  • Hapgood

    So now that the secret details have at last emerged, there is possibly some justification for the TSA’s War On Liquids. But that still doesn’t excuse the often bone-headed way the TSA has waged that war at airport checkpoints.

  • MarkieA

    What’s missing from this recitation is whether this “bomb concoction” would have worked. I’m no expert, but I thought that there were plenty of folks who have stated that whatever their plan, it would not have worked. On the other hand, if this plan would have worked, then what we have is the prosecution providing future terrorists with a nice little “how-to” set of instructions. Shame on him! And shame on anyone who propagates this knowledge.

  • Frank

    On February 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm Hapgood said So now that the secret details have at last emerged, there is possibly some justification for the TSA’s War On Liquids. But that still doesn’t excuse the often bone-headed way the TSA has waged that war at airport checkpoints.
    ===================================================

    One should NEVER apologize for………………………SAFETY.

  • JulieK

    A few months ago a British television program (portions aired in Canada) built a bomb based on the terrists plans and placed it on an decommisioned aircraft. The resulting explosion made a refrigerator size whole is the side of the aircraft. The experts believed that it would have lead to the loss of the aircraft and everyone on board. I think that a little inconveniece is worth it. As was stated on the program, the terrorists have probably moved on to something else.

  • Skip

    I still don’t buy it. While I don’t doubt the details of this plot, I am still fighting that stupid and arbitrary liquids policy.

    First it was no guns. Logical. Then no knives–also logical. But then 9/11 happened, and the names of terrorists were put on No-Fly lists, and hundreds of people whose names even sorta matched the names of actual terrorists were kept off flights. The TSA made the list secret, and also made it almost impossible to get one’s name removed. The presumption of innocence was gone. We had to prove we weren’t terrorists before we were allowed to fly. Idiotic

    Then Richard Reid tried to smuggle aboard a bomb in his shoe, so now EVERYBODY has to remove their shoes. Idiotic.

    Then these bozos tried to smuggle on the makings of a bomb, disguised as harmless liquids. Ingenious, but it failed and they were caught. But now EVERYBODY has to surrender their coffee and drinks and shampoos and lotions and whatnot, assuming they are in containers larger than 3 ounces. Idiotic.

    The TSA is saying that hey tried it once and they will try it again. Has any of these policies caught a single copycat terrorist? What has actually wound up happening is that every single day there are thousands and thousands and thousands of false positives. So many people are inconvenienced and scrutinized and hassled, under the guise of “We are fighting terrorism!” Asinine.

    Baloney, says I. We are not fighting terrorism by keeping a nursing mother from bringing aboard bottles of pumped baby milk, or body-searching US Senators and decorated war heroes. We are not fighting terrorists by removing our shoes and coats. We are not fighting terrorism by keeping the TSA budget so low that their agents are paid minimum wage and poorly trained so that they can’t even do their jobs. And we are not fighting terrorism by selling us a tin of Shinola labeled “Support Our Efforts To Fight Terrorism! that actually supports fascism. We’re being encouraged to relinquish our civil rights, one by one, and we’re doing it while waving banners and calling ourselves Patriotic.

    Folks, it ain’t working. A security system that fails as often as the current system, and defended as strongly as thje TSA defends this one, is worse than useless. If the objective is to catch terrorists and make flying safer, we are doing it entirely wrong. I don’t buy it, I never did, and I don’t support it.

  • turtletrot1

    Why don’t the airlines just add 50¢ a ticket and provide water. Surely the bulk quantity they buy in that fee would more than cover the cost of the bottles and make a little profit. Yes, bottles, just hand out bottles. Skip the cups (more cost saving here).
    Most of us have now gotten wise to taking along an empty water bottle and filling it after security and before boarding at a drinking fountain!
    If the formula cited works why was it cited for all to read ?

  • Hapgood

    @Frank: One should NEVER apologize for………………………SAFETY.

    The bone-headed experiences I have had with screeners “interpreting” the rules about liquids did nothing for safety, but only caused me absolutely needless frustration and expense. As other comments here have noted, we can no longer unquestioningly accept the TSA’s assertions that every stupid rule and mindless implementation that causes us hassle will somehow keep us safe.

    I am willing to accept some inconvenience and sacrifice if I have reason to believe that it provides effective….. SAFETY. But every report I’ve read about undercover testing and audits of airport screening indicates that it’s ineffective. And I have had more than my share of hassles and confiscations that are purely arbitrary and pointless. The TSA should indeed never apologize for….. SAFETY. But they need to convince us that what they do actually provides….. SAFETY rather than mere STUPIDITY.

    Perhaps you have unquestioning faith and trust in the TSA. I know of no reason for any such faith or trust.

  • The man who notices things

    H2O2 and Tang? If this stuff was this powerful why ban liquids? Just ban POWDERS. Tang? You must be kidding me. The stuff they gave the astronauts could have been used as rocket fuel?

    The next thing they are gonna ban is soda and mentos.

    The ‘detail’ in the bomb plot is the explosives, porn and other non-Islamist materials are a joke – part of the plot perhaps – but not relevant to what can be used to detonate and explosive. The ‘plot’ was misdirection and had NOTHING to do with liquids. Yep, right, terrorists never defile women or use them to grind out their own lust, so condoms makes them immediately innocent. Sure. If they thought that they deserve to be caught. The only thing that really keeps us safe is the keystone kops way that most islamic terrorists plan things. Most of their bombs blow them up first. 9/11 and the London subway bombings were decent planing by intelligent guys who have since been caught.

    What this report seems to prove is:

    There are no binary explosives – meaning 2 chemicals you can mix together in flight to create a bomb, which is what the press and government implied when the arrest was made.

    The screeners do not attention to batteries. Now that they have banned most types of batteries not in a device, the risk of this plot is gone.

    Liquids really are not the problem.

    What stops a terrorist from attaching a rubber bladder to their body, making them look fat, filled with flammable liquids and using a match to ignite it in flight? There is no way to extinguish 5 gallons of gasoline ignited in an aircraft cabin at 35k over the pond.

  • Frank

    On February 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pm Skip said:
    Then Richard Reid tried to smuggle aboard a bomb in his shoe, so now EVERYBODY has to remove their shoes. Idiotic.
    =======================================================

    Actually, skip, you have that wrong. Richard Reid successfully boarded the flight with EXPLOSIVES in his shoe. He attempted to detonate that bomb, but failed. A flight attendant smelled the matches and coordinated his capture, inflight.
    What’s IDIOTIC is……. if we let another Al-Qaeda operative try that act of terror again.

  • Frank

    Then these bozos tried to smuggle on the makings of a bomb, disguised as harmless liquids. Ingenious, but it failed and they were caught. But now EVERYBODY has to surrender their coffee and drinks and shampoos and lotions and whatnot, assuming they are in containers larger than 3 ounces. Idiotic.
    =============================================================

    The BRITISH caught these guys. Big difference. They have DECADES of experience dealing with terrorists. We took their lead in banning liquids over 3 ounces. Have THEY (Britain) lifted the liquid ban yet? Have we learned how to examine liquids during the screening process? NO!

  • Frank

    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm Hapgood said

    The bone-headed experiences I have had with screeners “interpreting” the rules about liquids did nothing for safety, but only caused me absolutely needless frustration and expense.
    ==================================================

    That’s a general statement. How so?

  • Ed Ferrell

    This is what I call the 3-sided fence. The whole thing is about fencing in three sides of the back yard and leaving the 4th open.

    I, too, think the Richard Reid reaction is absurd. At least on the issue of a shoe bomb. On the other hand, most (men’s) shoes other than trainers have a metal shank in them that gives them strength. Could every metal shank be made into a knife? Maybe. Unlikely. Maybe.

    And what of the BIC pens that I’m allowed to carry without restriction? And I hesitate to write this lest I suddenly show up on a no-fly list. Why can’t I simply take a roll of Scotch tape and tape 3 BICs together to make a mighty weapon. (Not to mention the wine-bottle-over-the-head idea.)

    Or the last time I flew Biz Class in the US: they gave me a regular metal knife while, when I fly biz class from Europe to the US, they give me plastic — for security reasons. Wasn’t it US domestic flights that were high-jacked? Yet these are the ones where they give out weapons freely in the guise of dinner service.

    And why don’t we ever hear of any hijackers being caught in the security lines?

    It goes back to the 3-sides fence rule: once we make a (VERY) big deal out of preventing one thing then clever people only find a different way to get in, so the fence is a deterrent only temporarily at best.

    Maybe we should just all fly naked and dehydrated.

  • Frank

    Or the last time I flew Biz Class in the US: they gave me a regular metal knife while, when I fly biz class from Europe to the US, they give me plastic — for security reasons. Wasn’t it US domestic flights that were high-jacked? Yet these are the ones where they give out weapons freely in the guise of dinner service.
    =======================================================

    Could YOU hijack a plane with a first class metal knife?

    NO!

  • Abc

    It is simply untrue that these chemicals could explode.

  • Sean

    Wow they should have used this first. This makes the first hijackers that used box cutters seem like third world terrorists. This is simply a hoax put on by the airlines to get bags checked and sell liquor.

  • Sean

    Wow they should have used this first. This makes the first hijackers that used box cutters seem like third world terrorists. This is simply a hoax put on by the airlines to get bags checked and sell liquor.

Previous post:

Next post: