I'm all for safety, but isn't this a bit overboard? You can't bring a paperback book? They better have a lot of in flight magazines.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree it's extreme. I guess obviously someone thinks it is justified.
I for one would much rather any airline ranks security way, way over the convenience of travellers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow! That list is really something. The thing about liquids for babies having to be tasted by the passenger before being allowed onboard is kind of interesting.
I'm glad they allow medicines on board. But liquid meds are obviously a problem.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ummm... I would want a book, toys and books for my child, medicine for her ears if she had a cold, extra pacifiers, changes of clothes, soooo many other things that I would need on a trans-Atlantic flight...
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
You could take the medicine under that list, I think.
Not the books or toys though - which would make it a rough flight! I hadn't thought about parents with babies - I think it would impact them a lot more than most people. (And make it an actual *big* issue, as opposed to a bored adult issue).
The site says it is only a temporary measure.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm just so incredibly glad that I flew from London to Edinburgh and back last weekend, and not this week.
Still, if I were flying, I'd rather that they were more than careful. But travelling with small children would be absolutely impossible. People turning up this morning without checking TV or radio first have been in for a nasty shock.
It's going to cause huge disruption to US airports too, I should imagine, as they'll have to deal with the incoming flights which have passed through Heathrow, which is the busiest international airport in the world. Continental, United and American flights are all affected, apparently.
[ August 10, 2006, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I wouldn't be surprised to see Airports institute a permanent ban on hand-carried personal belongings (except for life-sustaining items - meds, etc.). I bet in today's atmosphere they could get away with it if they screened at terminal entrances and then allowed people to carry on only those things purchased at shops inside the terminal but after the screening stop. Then they could just tighten security on the vendors and people could go ahead and buy their books, magazines, sodas, diapers, baby formula, etc. there. If this were blanket policy I bet it would be a very short time before travelers simply changed the way they packed and budgeted a few dollars (and time) for pre-flight shopping. (At any rate, I bet the vendors would be ecstatic.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think this is a reasonable temporary measure (although I would be very unhappy if the flight I were taking to Israel at the end of the month were going through Heathrow, as I have several times in the past). I would have serious issues with it being a permanent or more widespread measure, though.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't it wonderful we're talking about how inconvinient all the new and temporary regulations are?
Isn't it wonderful that this topic is currently only 9 postings long?
Isn't it wonderful we're not talking about 1500 dead in 6 trans atlantic airplain explosions?
Pix
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yes. It really is.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
A banning of all hand luggage would not be good for those who want to bring computers with them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Isn't it wonderful we're talking about how inconvinient all the new and temporary regulations are?
Isn't it wonderful that this topic is currently only 9 postings long?
Isn't it wonderful we're not talking about 1500 dead in 6 trans atlantic airplain explosions?
Pix
Absolutely. I've been feeling happy about this every time I've heard a coworker complain about the inconvenience of the restrictions.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Agreed. I believe a well done and several thousand pats on the back are in order for the person/people who caught the plot.
Hmmm, in thinking about the first couple of chapters of Empire, I wonder if this is one of those attacks that makes us feel like we are protected, while there are countless more plots unexposed.
Edited to make it make sense.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Hear hear, Pixiest. Much as I'd grumble and complain about being required to shop in the airport if I wanted anything to eat/drink/do on the plane, I'd be willing to accept it if it truly will prevent another hijacking.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Oh God, what about laptops? How long is this going to be in effect? I have to bring my computer to England, and oh, God, if I can't bring my laptop to school I am not going to be able to function because oh God oh God oh no oh no oh no oh no....
Okay, so if I am flying INTO the UK in a few months, will I be able to take a laptop? Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Fyfe, You may have to put it in baggage, but you'll be able to take your laptop with you. I wonder if they are going to change baggage handling arrangements to deal with, for example, all the sensitive electronic equipment that people would normally keep with them.
I'm on the "very relieved" side here and I understand the need for restrictions on security and that they reacted quickly. That being said, this:
quote:Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger.
struck me as kinda funny.
(I'm inexpressively glad that this is an incident that it's possible to find humor in. Wouldn't be that way if this wasn't caught.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I applaud the desire to keep us all safe, but I wonder if this will make any significant difference in safety.
This reminds me of when you couldn't fly with finger nail clippers, because someone might hijack a plane by threatening to clip people's nails too short so that it really stung.
Get a couple bomb sniffing dogs and rotate the baggage checkers more frequently so they don't become distracted.
If I can't finish reading Treason in flight, then the terrorists have already won.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
On those overseas flights, don't you at least have those little screens you can flip open and watch any movie you want, play games, etc...?
And I've seen how they handle luggage. If they think I'm going to take my laptop and pack it with my rest of my stuff, only to have some guy on the tarmac hip toss it thirty feet through the air on to the trailer, you're seriously mistaken.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I applaud the desire to keep us all safe, but I wonder if this will make any significant difference in safety.
Agreed.
quote:This reminds me of when you couldn't fly with finger nail clippers, because someone might hijack a plane by threatening to clip people's nails too short so that it really stung.
Pretty sure you still can't.
quote:And I've seen how they handle luggage. If they think I'm going to take my laptop and pack it with my rest of my stuff, only to have some guy on the tarmac hip toss it thirty feet through the air on to the trailer, you're seriously mistaken.
So true. The time I flew on a teeny-tiny plane with no room for large carryons (which were gate-checked), I held onto my laptop.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm really glad that they caught the terrorists involved. Several planes blowing up over the Atlantic would be a huge catastrophe.
I don't think I'd want to spend several hours on a plane without, say, contact solution, a book, etc. And there is no way I'd ever pack a laptop, ever. If those restrictions ever happen on domestic flights, I might have to start driving back and forth between home and school or cut down on travelling altogether Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
They have nice padded strong cases that you can safely check a laptop in. I did it for a job I had a couple of years ago when I needed 3 computers to test things. Two of them I packed in these cases (the oldest, least expensive to replace) and the third I carried on. All three came through fine both ways. The cases are probably fairly expensive, but not compared to a trip to the UK.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Amira, stay safe, dear. I hope there are no anti-Islam hate crimes in the wake of this.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I certainly hope that such restrictions won't be made permanent. And what exactly do they expect to do about the fact that terrorists can just go ahead and detonate their bombs at the airport before they go into security? Stop letting people congregate in groups large enough to make attractive targets?
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Seems to me that they need to focus more on intelligence to find out who is a terrorist rather than killing air travel all together with the new rules that will be inforced after this. But then again it isn't a perfect world, geez, I'm glad I'm not flying anywhere anytime soon.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
B34N, these rules will come nowhere near killing air travel altogether.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm flying out of Detroit tomorrow night, but I'm still happy about the news. Better I be somewhat inconvenienced (I will not be bringing toothpaste, shampoo, or soap on my weekend trip) than a lot of people dead.
Since I have to cross the border to get to the airport, though, I'm making sure to leave a lot of time (like, ~6 hours when the airport is a 1.5 hour drive away) in case things are slow crossing as well.
Added: That reminds me, I need to pack. Like, now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Awww, c'mon Twinky. There's hours and hours left before you need to leave and how long will packing take, anyway? Mere minutes at most. You can get it done anytime, no worries!
*twirls mustache*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I am half-packed. I need to make sure to not mistakenly put toothpaste in with my toothbrush and electric razor when I'm finishing the job groggily tomorrow morning before work...
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: B34N, these rules will come nowhere near killing air travel altogether.
Yeah, i know I was kind of exagerating. But air travel just kind of got back to reasonable rates and people were just getting used to the new stuff. Terrorists suck! I do agree that is better to deal with the hassle than have anybody die. Just wish there was a way to snip in 'em in the bud before they even got close to the airport.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am deeply, deeply disappointed in Hatrack. For gosh sakes, my MOM had to be the one to tell me that new rules were already in effect in the U.S. as well!
Ok, this I have no problem with:
quote:Airport screening will become more intensive, too, says Scot Phelps, a professor of disaster management at Metropolitan College in New York. "I anticipate a move towards (Israeli airline) El-Al levels of security -- 100 percent bag scanning, more aggressive interviewing of passengers, and more physical searching of carry-on baggage," he says.
Annoying and inconvenient, but I believe it makes a difference. Similarly, while this:
quote:Even a beverage purchased past a security checkpoint must be consumed before you get on the plane, according to the TSA. You won't be allowed to board with it.
is rather annoying (I often buy a Starbucks coffee at the airport and have half left when I board), I can live with it.
But I really, really, REALLY hope this one is no longer this strict when I next fly (on the 19th):
quote:Additionally, on all U.S. flights, all liquids and gels must be checked in with your luggage. This includes all beverages, shampoo, suntan lotion, contact lens solutions, creams, toothpaste, hair gel and other items of similar consistency.
No eye drops or skin lotion? I need those! (The dry air on the plane effects both my eyes (especially since I wear contacts) and my skin.) And I'm pretty unhappy about not being able to carry a bottle of water, although I assume the airline will be providing some, so I'll deal with that.
But the eye drops and tiny bottle of skin lotion are a big issue for me. D.C. is close enough that I will probably just cope (assuming the restrictions are still in place in just over a week -- quite likely, I'd guess). But at the end of the month I am flying to Israel. That is just too long a flight to have neither eye drops or skin lotion.
Especially since I am not at all convinced that this is an effective way to deal with the situation. Explosive-trained dogs, yes. Hand-checking carryons? Ok. But limiting all liquids? Awfully inconvenient for something so easy to get around.
And I really hope I don't miss my flight to D.C. Three hours from the end of Shabbos to flight time was plenty before this; now I'm concerned about how long security will take. Although I should be able to get to the airport 1.5-2 hours before the flight. Even now, that should be enough, right?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
If I were flying out of England, I think I'd have a lot of fun marching proudly through security with nothing but a handful of tampons Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm glad we returned home this week. We'd have had to buy a new checkable suitcase to put all our carry-on junk in to get it home.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Kudos to the British intelligence agents who foiled this - it is such a wonderful thing that we can complain about potential inconveniences instead of mourning the death of hundreds, if not thousands.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Could you get prescription eye drops, Rivka?
I think the skin cream is un-get aroundable though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. What would the prescription be for -- the drops are not much more than isotonic saline.
I'll have to find out, though. It's an interesting thought.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Yeah, you can get script eye drops. I don't know if the doc will actually give them to you, they might be stronger than what you need, but you can get script eye drops for a lot things, should ask your optometrist (sp?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, I realize that there ARE prescription eyedrops. But AFAIK, they are all for conditions that I thankfully don't have. I don't want to start putting unneeded medications in my eyes -- just a little salt water!
Especially since a Google search indicates that most prescription eyedrops should not be used while wearing contacts. >_<
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
twinky -
Are you flying out of Detroit City airport? Or DTW (aka Metro Airport)
If it's City airport, ::shudders:: good luck.
If it's Detroit Metro (which is actually in Romulus) the wait probably won't be that bad at all. I know you always have to leave that big window to make sure, but that last few times I've been through there it wasn't that bad at all. The security is rather efficient.
I'm guessing you're in Canada right now if you're talking about crossing the border. I'd be more concerned about delays at the border than at the airport. Hope you don't hit any snags, good luck Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Rivka - maybe you could pack salt and an empty dropper and mix your own onboard.
Or maybe not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heh. Not sterile, and not easy to ensure that the solution ends up even close to an isotonic concentration.
I did think about it. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I was also thinking perhaps the cabin crew wouldn't be entirely thrilled to see someone mixing a liquid and a white substance mid-air.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Isn't saline more than just salt water though? I probably wrong bt I thought there was more to it, not much but could make a difference when you put it in your eyes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I was also thinking perhaps the cabin crew wouldn't be entirely thrilled to see someone mixing a liquid and a white substance mid-air.
That's what the restroom is for, neh?
quote:Originally posted by B34N: Isn't saline more than just salt water though? I probably wrong bt I thought there was more to it, not much but could make a difference when you put it in your eyes.
By definition, saline is salt water. Most commercially available kinds have various preservative and other additives, though.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
And lack the bacteria and other microoganisms that ordinary water has.
I've found that yawning causes my eyes to tear up a bit. That's generally how I keep my contacts lubricated. As for lotion, perhaps the soap onboard will be enough to keep your hands moist? What about a bar of moisturizer-type soap that you bring with you and rub on your hands? As long as it's damp and you rinse the excess off, it might just work.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:And lack the bacteria and other microoganisms that ordinary water has.
An unopened bottle of water should have very little in the way of microorganisms. (And in most states, the regulations on tap water are even stricter than those for bottled water.) But yes, mixing up saline and letting it sit around, then using it in your eyes would be an Extremely Poor Idea.
quote:I've found that yawning causes my eyes to tear up a bit. That's generally how I keep my contacts lubricated. As for lotion, perhaps the soap onboard will be enough to keep your hands moist? What about a bar of moisturizer-type soap that you bring with you and rub on your hands? As long as it's damp and you rinse the excess off, it might just work.
Yawning and blinking are sufficient unless my eyes are dry. On airplanes, with their moisture-sucking air cleaning units, they dry out pretty quickly. And I have yet to find a brand of moisturizer soap that I found useful. *sigh* Might be better than nothing, I guess.
Um, if those are like the ones I have, they're plain cotton gloves. (From the review, it looks like they are.) You put them on after you slather on lotion, and then you sleep in them. It helps a lot when the weather is dry.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I like Dove soap, but my skin doesn't dry out very easily. *shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mine didn't when I was your age either, kiddo. I used to wonder what my mom was talking about.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I've been watching the TV about this all night, especially since one of the planes coming from Heathrow was supposed to go to Boston. I'm glad that they discovered this plot though, it makes me feel good knowing that they're still working to detect and stop terrorism. While the new regulations are too bad, I would much rather grumble about them than have to worry because there was another bombing. It makes me feel safe.
That said, my opinion will probably change the moment I go to an airport. Getting home from DC should be interesting this year.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Think they'll let you through if you just soak some cotton balls in moisturizer?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
There were some I saw that are impregnated with gel.
Pretty pricey though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yikes. Yes, they are!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: twinky -
Are you flying out of Detroit City airport? Or DTW (aka Metro Airport)
If it's City airport, ::shudders:: good luck.
If it's Detroit Metro (which is actually in Romulus) the wait probably won't be that bad at all. I know you always have to leave that big window to make sure, but that last few times I've been through there it wasn't that bad at all. The security is rather efficient.
I'm guessing you're in Canada right now if you're talking about crossing the border. I'd be more concerned about delays at the border than at the airport. Hope you don't hit any snags, good luck
I'm flying out of DTW. I fly out of DTW for almost all of my air travel to points west of here (Sarnia, about 1.5 hours north of Detroit on the Canadian side of the border). I've never had a major holdup at DTW, but I've had holdups at the border on my way that nearly caused me to miss flights. So this time, I'm leaving work at 2:30 PM for a 9 PM flight (with a 20-minute stop for an oil change before heading to the border), and I haven't packed any liquids or gels (I have, however, packed my iPod). Hopefully between possible border holdups and possible airport holdups I'll still have time to read a bit more of Greg Bear's Eon at the airport. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
rivka, of course you don't want perscription eyedrops, but your doctor should be able to write you a prescription for regular eyedrops. If you have it written out on a prescriptions pad and signed by the doctor that you need to carry saline eyedrops with you due to an eye condition (dry eyes on planes is a condition, neh?) then you should be fine. Or, you know, you could wear your glasses. . . Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In PUBLIC?
I will have to call my ophthalmologist. I bet she'll be happy to do that. Thanks!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
*laughs* I feel your pain, rivka. Really, I do. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You're welcome.
We have people at work bring in prescriptions for different chairs all the time. Or a seat near a window, due to SAD. (Although if that one is not possible to accomodate we give them a full-spectrum light, instead.) Or trackballs or touchpads instead of mice, or split keyboards, or whatever. So I'm used to seeing prescriptions for things other than prescription medication.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Awww, c'mon Twinky. There's hours and hours left before you need to leave and how long will packing take, anyway? Mere minutes at most. You can get it done anytime, no worries!
*twirls mustache*
*giggling
Rakeesh, you're positively diabolical. I hair your snide whiplash!
----
I'm quite comfortable with obliging any of these sorts of restrictions for any length of time. If I can't abide by them, I just won't go.
(Part of me thinks that the very availability of travel leads to social pressures to travel, and -- being an introvert -- ready-made excuses are my cuppa. YMMV, of course, especially dependent on your own Hermit Factor.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Think they'll let you through if you just soak some cotton balls in moisturizer?
I completely missed this!
Hmm. I dunno. I'll have to think about how I could pack that so it WOULDN'T look like "suspicious blobs in a baggie" . . .
*sigh* I really wish they had followed one expert's suggestion and allowed containers holding less than one ounce. The eye drops are like .2 oz, and I think the hand lotion is .5 oz. I don't want BIG containers of the stuff!
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
rivka, how about slathering some lotion on, putting on the absorby-cotton gloves to lube them up, and then putting said gloves in your pockets? I bet you could tuck them in pockets or the waistband of your skirt without problems, especially if they have no metal parts to trip a sensor.
If you are searched and they are found, they really wouldn't be "liquids," and if you had to give them up, it wouldn't be a great financial loss.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a definite thought. And I have three or four pairs of the gloves, so the chance of losing one is not that big a deal.
(Although I'm almost tempted to go with a baggie of lotioned cotton balls, another full of salt, and when I get strip-searched for carrying suspicious items, blame y'all. )
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
You could also go with the "smear Vaseline 1/2 inch thick all over your arms and hands just before the security checkpoint, touch their nice shiny equipment, assume "Whaaaa????" expression" tactic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But that would be icky! And it would get all over my stuff too. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A small price to pay for the story you'd get to tell about it afterward.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, I can see it now.
Bedecked in baggies full of odd soggy white lumps and suspicious white crystals, and coated in a layer of Vaseline thick enough to ensure my hands would freeze instantly if immersed in liquid nitrogen, I get stopped by security.
"Ma'am, what do you think you're doing?"
"Well, I have these friends. Online, you know? And they said I should do this."
"And you're travelling where today?"
"Washington, D.C."
"I see. Come with me, please."
Will you all write me letters in jail?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
No. I don't think my parents would approve of me having a prison pen-pal. Sorry.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
at both of you.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:coated in a layer of Vaseline thick enough to ensure my hands would freeze instantly if immersed in liquid nitrogen
Wouldn't your hand freeze instantly if you dipped it, sans Vaseline, in liquid nitrogen?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. You don't read all the science-related threads around here after all, hmm? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: No. I don't think my parents would approve of me having a prison pen-pal. Sorry.
So you won't write me if I get detained at the border or airport tonight and wind up in a Jordanian prison at the behest of the U.S. government?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Nope. You don't read all the science-related threads around here after all, hmm?
I usually do, but somehow I must have missed this one. What's it called? Or better yet, link?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you stuck your hand in liquid nitrogen, wouldn't it "burn" you? By "freeze instantly," are you talking Demolition Man freezing where your hand instantly turns into a brittle chunk of ice?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cough*thesmilieisalink*cough*
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Not to get back on topic or anything, but if anyone wants to think good thoughts for me on Wednesday/Thursday, I'll be flying through London Gatwick.
Without my CD player. Without my books. Without my cookies.
Hey, but at least I'll have tampons.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, do you think they'll let me take about 80 pounds of water on board? If gasses are restricted as well, should I declare the N2/O2 mix I always carry in my suitcases?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Excuse me ma'am, but you could you please empty your lungs before boarding?
. . .
Oh no! He's got stomach acid. Evacuation Plan Delta!!!
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Back on a serious note--we're flying to Orlando tomorrow, and my mom's a diabetic. It shouldn't be a problem getting insulin on the plane--the trouble is that it has to be cold, and most cold-pack type things use gels or liquids. So, we're not quite sure what's going to happen.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Rivka, wouldn't it be easier to just wear your glasses for the fights?
I do wonder about medications. People should really carry on their meds in case their luggage gets lost. People with medical conditions, I mean. That's a lot of people carrying on suspicious little bottles. How are they going to check all that out? My mom has tons of Very Important eyedrops for her glaucoma. I suppose they could make her put a drop on her skin. She can't put a drop in her eye on their request, though, unless she's due for the medication. A drop on her tongue? Probably not a good idea. Seems like no matter how careful they are, unless they take hours with people, someone could sneak in something in prescription bottles.
And not letting kids play or eat is going to cause most flights to experience a lot of flight stress.
Posted by K_heron (Member # 8893) on :
How did they find out about the plot, anyway? I haven't heard them talk about that on the news.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
There was an agent in the organization, I heard. He was trusted by the group and was able to give tons of information to the authorities.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Insulin will be fine on the plane, the cabins are temp-controlled enough that it certainly won't go bad on the flight.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Right--I didn't notice that comment. Insulin doesn't have to be kept cold all the time. It lasts longer if it is stored in the fridge, but an air-conditioned trip is no problem. Don't even try taking along something to keep it cool. Waste of space and energy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by K_heron: How did they find out about the plot, anyway? I haven't heard them talk about that on the news.
On NPR this morning there was an interview in which it was mentioned that they discovered this plot as a result of investigations from the London bombings last summer. A neighbor of one of last summer's terrorists reported, when police were investigating those bombings, having seen suspicious activity. It turned out to have been related to the foiled attacks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Rivka, wouldn't it be easier to just wear your glasses for the fights?
Considering that I wear 30-day contacts specifically so I don't have to deal with taking the things out and putting 'em in all the time . . . and I was only partly joking about not liking to wear my glasses in public . . .
Not really.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I read this last night and it is really spooky. This was written pre-9/11:
quote:But while the FBI remains concerned about lone gunmen, the real action these days is with mass-murder terrorist actions. And once again, a contributing factor is the ready availability of destructive technology. In just the past decade, terrorists set off a car bomb in the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people, injuring thousands, and causing $500 million in damage. Timothy McVeigh blew up a car bomb outside the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed hundreds.
Kallstrom believes that it's entirely possible that a single terrorist attack will kill more than 10,000 people sometime within the next 30 years. "I am not going to predict it, but I think that it would be naive to say it isn't possible," he says. And if it happens, he says, there will be a tremendous backlash on the part of lawmakers and the public to pass draconian laws and institute a virtual police state to make sure that such an attack never happens again.
"Legislators and lawmakers generally don't react to things without a body count and the prediction of a body count--they don't want to hear about it. They want to see the body count. It is not good enough to feel the door and feel that it is warm; you have to have smoke coming from under the door. . . . As we move to this new millenium, the risk of this mentality is terrible." Instead of waiting for the body count and a resulting Congressional attack on civil liberties, says Kallstrom, the United States needs to start preparing now for the unthinkable.
After reading the chapter, I have no idea why terrorists target airplanes. It is like cat and mouse. They are trying their hardest to disrupt something we are trying our hardest to protect. But it clearly isn't our weakest vulnerability.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. I've been living in South Korea for the past year, and am going home in 2 weeks. I was going to bring an awful lot carry-on, including my laptop. Now what do I do? Stuff my laptop into a luggage case and pick up the pieces after my 24 hour flight? Bloody hell.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Airplanes are closed systems, and airborne. Even without using them as missiles, it is far easier (in terms of say, pounds of explosives) to take out an airplane (and every single passenger) than a train or large building. Also, in a building, it is too easy for people to get out, and security/cops to get in.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
hm.
I heard domestic flights were really bad too, so I showed up 3 hours early for a flight from SFO to SLC on Friday and there was no line at security...
[ August 13, 2006, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know it's like umbrellas, right?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Never mind that the Boeing 767 was escorted to Boston by fighter jets (what we used to call "air rage" has become a full-blown national emergency); the idea of hand cream and matches -- hand cream and matches -- becoming the focus of a TSA press conference, is clear evidence enough that our security hysteria has become unmanageable.
quote:It's difficult to tell how long the new prohibitions will last, or to what scope they might be expanded, but the rumblings are ominous. According to officials at TSA, the ban on liquids and gels is set to last indefinitely. Rumors have surfaced that laptop computers and other electronic devices could soon be restricted as well. Is airport security about to experience another, even more powerful paradigm shift than we saw in the aftermath of Sept. 11, resulting in even greater hassle than we're already used to? It's disheartening to think so, but certainly the stars are lining up that way.
quote:The X-ray machine and metal detector are what they are: a serviceable final line of defense, chiefly helpful for keeping obvious weapons -- a handgun, for example -- away from commercial aircraft. They are not, and we should not expect them to be, front-line anti-terror tools.
quote:The safety vs. convenience tradeoff makes for an effective sound bite, but in truth it's a slippery slope that traps us in an unwinnable shell game: In the aftermath of Sept. 11 our focus on was sharp objects, until a renegade Brit named Richard Reid wore his explosive sneakers past guards at Charles de Gaulle. Now it's sharp objects, sneakers and liquids too. With Bojinka in mind, shouldn't we also outlaw light bulbs, cotton balls, batteries and watches, since those were critical elements in Ramzi Yousef's microbombs? Some would say yes. Some are saying yes. Where to draw the line?
Reasoned thinking isn't good enough for a segment of the populace obsessed with safety and the specter of terrorists. We expect that every flicker of our color-coded alert will be met with more and more layers of protection -- even when that protection drives us crazy, and even when it serves no useful purpose. We are following this path deeper and deeper into absurdity.
quote:In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The article also goes onto to discuss US pressure applied to the UK to make immediate arrests.
One question - if they were really so worried about this 'threat' of dangerous liquids, why were the officials just dumping liquids into large open plastic containers right there in public? Surely the limited options a terrorist would have to discreetly arm & detonate a bomb while on a plane indicates fairly simple proceedures for doing so? Such as, mixing two materials or exposing a particular material to water or air. So if there really was an imminent threat, with security staff fully informed of the problem, why the casual method of 'disposal'?
Here's an interesting take on some of the possibilities:
Without taking this as the be-all and end-all of chemistry and bomb-making, this article talks about ways in which explosive/flammable materials could be prepared for avoiding screening and why the current restrictions are utterly ridiculous given what we've been told about the supposed bomb materials so far.
Although no doubt some on this forum would use this as proof that the current restrictions don't go far enough.
Personally I think we're all crazy. I think we're crazy to think that any of this makes us 'safe', crazy that we don't object with all our might to the massive interference in our lives and the obvious scare-mongering perpetuated by our respective governments.
I'm not saying there's no threat, that there's no terrorists, that there's no danger. But I don't believe our governments are being honest with us. I believe they are using these events as further excuses to extend control over our lives and invade our privacy.
And I think we're crazy if we keep letting the wool be pulled over our eyes by our respective goverments.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Airport security isn't security, it is airport theatrics. If a terrorist wanted to kill lots of people, all they have to do is blow themselves up in the line waiting to get through security!
This guy explains it so well:
"We can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?" - Bruce Schneier
"We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes." - Bruce Schneier
Click on his name to read the articles, which go into so much more depth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Troubador: they could even use the 'large vat' approach to security to detonate a fairly big bomb: have a sequence of terrorists go through, each with a relatively small amount of a liquid that's explosive when combined with a small amount of another liquid, resulting in a large amount of that in the vat. Then have one terrorist go in with the detonating liquid.
And if someone just wanted to be disruptive there are various high school-level ways to make the airport stink, significantly delaying traffic. Or they could toss some cesium in a dissolving enclosure into the vat (quick and easy bomb). Repeat at lots of airports to create maximum disruption.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at both of you.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)