A sense of proportion, please
So. No shampoo in carry-on luggage anymore. I feel safer already.
madwriter posted the most sensible analysis I've seen so far of the alleged terrorist scheme to blow up airplanes with liquids. Keeping in mind my limited knowledge of chemistry (college Chem I and II and geochemistry), the guy's analysis seems sound. It's long, and IMO worth every minute reading it.
On the implausibility of the explosives plot
Then, lets consider books and magazines. Sure, they look innocent, but are they? For 150 years, chemists have known that if you take something with high cellulose content -- cotton, or paper, or lots of other things -- and you nitrate it (usually with a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids), you get nitrocellulose, which looks vaguely like the original material you nitrated but which goes BOOM nicely. Nitrocellulose is the base of lots of explosives and propellants, including, I believe, modern "smokeless" gunpowder. It is dangerous stuff to work with, but you're a terrorist, so why not. Make a bunch of nitrocellulose paper, print books on it, and take 'em on board. The irony of taking out an airplane with a Tom Clancy novel should make the effort worthwhile.
So, naturally, we have to get rid of books and magazines on board. That's probably for the best, as people who read are dangerous.
This excerpt sums up my thoughts on the matter nicely.At some point, we're going to have to accept that there is a difference between real security and Potemkin security (or Security Theater as Bruce Schneier likes to call it), and a difference between realistic threats and uninteresting threats. I'm happy that the police caught these folks even if their plot seems very sketchy, but could we please have some sense of proportion?
madwriter posted the most sensible analysis I've seen so far of the alleged terrorist scheme to blow up airplanes with liquids. Keeping in mind my limited knowledge of chemistry (college Chem I and II and geochemistry), the guy's analysis seems sound. It's long, and IMO worth every minute reading it.
On the implausibility of the explosives plot
Then, lets consider books and magazines. Sure, they look innocent, but are they? For 150 years, chemists have known that if you take something with high cellulose content -- cotton, or paper, or lots of other things -- and you nitrate it (usually with a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids), you get nitrocellulose, which looks vaguely like the original material you nitrated but which goes BOOM nicely. Nitrocellulose is the base of lots of explosives and propellants, including, I believe, modern "smokeless" gunpowder. It is dangerous stuff to work with, but you're a terrorist, so why not. Make a bunch of nitrocellulose paper, print books on it, and take 'em on board. The irony of taking out an airplane with a Tom Clancy novel should make the effort worthwhile.
So, naturally, we have to get rid of books and magazines on board. That's probably for the best, as people who read are dangerous.
This excerpt sums up my thoughts on the matter nicely.At some point, we're going to have to accept that there is a difference between real security and Potemkin security (or Security Theater as Bruce Schneier likes to call it), and a difference between realistic threats and uninteresting threats. I'm happy that the police caught these folks even if their plot seems very sketchy, but could we please have some sense of proportion?