Help, I might've been carrying a bomb!

[andrewfi]

OK, we all know that airport passenger security is theatre and not prevention. But although we kinda accept it, sometimes, something happens that pierces the curtain of plausibility.

Today, for the first time it happened to me, but the same thing happens to thousands of passengers every day.

What happened? I was carrying a bottle of coloured water in one of my bags. I had forgotten about it. My bag went through the scanner and it was pulled to one side.

A very polite lady explained to me that I had a bottle of liquid in my bag. At first I said no, but then I remembered. I am getting over a dose of manflu and I keep glugging at water to ease my tickly throat.

I fessed up. The bag was opened and the bottle of water mixed with Robinsons blackcurrant and apple squash was taken out and placed next to the several other bottles, almost like mine that had accumulated in the 20 minutes since the departure gates opened.

So, the reason for not taking bottles of liquid on board is because they might be bombs or chemical weapons.
All of us passengers and security people were standing by these potential bombs with nary a hair turned.

If there was any real concern about these bottles being bombs would it not be sensible to place these items in bomb proof containers?

Should I not have been taken away and interrogated, or at least held incommunicado until my water bottle was shown to be safe?

If after testing, my water was found to be safe, should I not have been reunited with it?

But no, every day, thousands of people will troop past bins and counters all holding potential bombs.

But the security staff, their bosses and we, the people who foot the bill, all know that this is a farce. If we didn't then as soon as that bottle came out my bag, I should've been surrounded by security and everybody else hit the deck.

Where is the easiest place to cause disruption to a modern airport? You know it.
When did it happen? Ever?

Why do we go along with this.

I promise to try to remember to not carry a potential bomb in future, but please, security services, try to keep the veil of plausibility drawn across the stage. If we're going to have to play your game please make it plausible!

[Manny]

In Chinese airports they take your bottle and stand it on a scanner thing that bleeps and they hand it you back. Many people have expensive looking reusable water bottles they take on the plane there too. I bet many a Chinese tourist has lost his expensive water bottle in Europe.

Leaving North Korea I had a normal water bottle, they just indicated I drink a little, I did and they wave you on.

In the UK I think its about money. Take your water off you and sell you a bottle for £3 on the other side of the gate.

[rosco]

That’s a fair point Andrew and one I had never considered.

Taking a potential bomb away from a passenger and then leaving it in a densely populated area in security, because it is no longer considered a risk, is madness.

Modern scanners are clearly useful in identifying hidden electronic devices and liquid, within baggage but to complete the circle, it would make sense to immediately dispose of the potential threat once identified.

Often swabs or machines with vacuums are used and I suspect it confirms that the liquid is harmless but none the less, against the rules.

That side, our government are great at identifying radicalised terrorists who walk among us, but do bugger all about it until they kill someone.

[Wiz]

In the UK I think its about money. Take your water off you and sell you a bottle for £3 on the other side of the gate.

Both you and Andrew are correct and it annoys me too, every time I travel.

On my latest Trip to Corfu, last July 25, at Gatwick between certain Medicine (tablets) I had also a sample size toothpaste, to avoid the limitation of 100g and guess what they stop me and took it and when I complaint ... I was told that small tube could have an item which explodes when mixed with a liquid .. like water...... So I offered to open it and put some on my mouth......and they Refused.  it was confiscated.

Well if they think I will buy a plastic bottle of water for £2 they can take a jump, as I know same bottle in Crece costs no more that 40 Pence.

When he took my toothpaste he just drop it inside a tray with various similar items.

I have stopped shopping at the airports........many years ago!

Well for the latest security measures we have to thank George Bush and the "war on Terror" together with Blair.

[andrewfi]

Here's the thing, and here no disrespect to the people doing the work is intended, we know that this is security theatre, that several very lucrative revenue streams now exist to serve the security theatre. Fortunes are being made from security play. It follows that all the visible staff are no more than poorly paid performers in that theatre.

This is not work for the brightest and best of our society. This is menial, pointless, repetitive make-work for people who would otherwise likely be testing the UK's social safety net.

It is unreasonable and unfair to expect these people to have any leeway, any authority to make a decision. Everything they do must be rules based and scripted.

That's why I am always polite and cooperative with them even as the cognitive dissonance bells are pealing inside my head.

My biggest problem with this theatre of lies is that the lies reduce the credibility of the government and security stakeholders. If I know that I am being lied to about the potential bombs arrayed in front of me then what other stories are lies as well?

One thing though, given the absolutely self evident systemic weakness in every British and European departure hall, I do whatever I can to avoid the waste bins before security and to move past the security checks as fast as I can.

I have no desire to be caught up with a bomb casually chucked into a waste bin by a traveler who has already left the country. That makes the daylight robbery of 'Fast Track Security' a slightly worthwhile form of insurance with the benefit of getting my to my lounge reservation significantly faster.

[andrewfi]

Rosco, the cynic in me suggests that one reason that every 'terror attack' seems to have been carried out by people already known to the security services is that our leaders know that in order that we continue to respond to the dog whistle of anti terrorist security there needs to be an occasional terror attack. The government must keep the fear up; make sure that our responses are well trained.

A while back, in respect of the USA, I recall reading a piece suggesting that every single USAian case of 'domestic terror' was not only carried out by people known to the requisite security and intelligence agencies but had, astoundingly, been aided by them either through encouragement, resource provision or networking. The piece carried plentiful supporting data but I've no idea where file is now.

In a case where an act of terror takes place as the result of provocation by state security or intelligence, can we really claim that the terrorist agency is anything other than the sponsoring government agency?

[Contrarian]

In Chinese airports they take your bottle and stand it on a scanner thing that bleeps and they hand it you back. Many people have expensive looking reusable water bottles they take on the plane there too. I bet many a Chinese tourist has lost his expensive water bottle in Europe.

Leaving North Korea I had a normal water bottle, they just indicated I drink a little, I did and they wave you on.

In the UK I think its about money. Take your water off you and sell you a bottle for £3 on the other side of the gate.

The “war on terror” is both a money making farce and was a way for Israel to demonize all of the Arab countries surrounding them.

Key players in the Bush Jr regime made millions and billions off of this farce and normies are inconvenienced.

When there is an actual terrorist as Rosco wrote they wait until it’s sometimes too late.

Government: create a problem using human anxiety and fear, then create an expensive cumbersome solution which keeps government employed.

[andrewfi]

Rereading these posts just now and paranoid me is wondering when KAPO or Special Branch will be in touch.

[msmoby]

What IS the point in testing a potential suicidal terrorist's willingness to drink a liquid substance for making a bomb ?


Hardly 'fool proof'.

Try flying from any to the UK via Turkey and one learns about security ..


You are checked at the first airport, than in transit then again your stuff is scanned at the gate.)


Those believing the 100ml of liquids is a 'con' need to ask themselves about the cost of disposal of the confiscated stuff...hardly a money spinner..

[Contrarian]

https://bollyn.com/the-profiteers-of-9-11-2


“unusually high number of "put" options, betting that the price of United Airlines (UAL) and American Airlines shares would fall, have revealed that Alex Brown Inc., an investment banking firm, purchased many of these option contracts. Alex Brown Inc. was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now the executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.  Krongard, 64, former head of Baltimore-based Alex Brown, America's oldest investment bank, joined the CIA three years ago as a counselor to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.  Krongard switched careers shortly after helping engineer the $2.5 billion merger of Alex”

[Contrarian]

Rereading these posts just now and paranoid me is wondering when KAPO or Special Branch will be in touch.

All my emails were hacked couple months ago...

[Manny]

What IS the point in testing a potential suicidal terrorist's willingness to drink a liquid substance for making a bomb ?

Hardly 'fool proof'.

If you are referring to my post about NK, there is no domestic terrorism by the Koreans. They use common sense on Air Koryo, risk profile is one (anything muzzie looking or with an oddball passport is picked out - but all visitors are vetted with a visa anyway before they come). The country isn't heaving with muzzies so no terrorism there. There isnt even any notable crime or litter, so combustible muzzies seem unlikely. Evidenced by the fact that planes generally suffer terrorism by muzzies or over muzzie countries.

[BillyB]

Ever since the invention of liquid explosives that can't be detected by metal detectors, we'll have to put up with the rules.

It sounds strange after confiscating liquids that they are left in the open instead of taken to bomb proof room but I guess the theory is that the liquid is separated from the person who can detonate it so it's safe in the open and if a terrorist wanted to bomb people in line, the terrorist would do so before he and his bags go through the detector machines or make an attempt to detonate the liquid right after his liquid was discovered.

The most important thing for the airline industry is to not have another plane go down due to terrorist activity. That will hurt their profit margin. Blow up a few people at the airport is acceptable. Blow up plane, not acceptable.

[andrewfi]

Billy, once again you show us the delights of your averageness! It's quite cute in a sort of way.

See how what you write makes sense to you, based as it is on your programming, without actually addressing the idea that this behaviour is allowing potential bombers to walk free every day. That nobody treats these potential bombs as what we have been told they are and how this tells us we are being lied to.

As we can see, there are alternatives that work, are clearly an effective policy and enable genuinely dangerous containers and their carriers to be identified.

Leaving 500ml bottles of TNT in a waste bin in a crowded departure hall is so foolhardy as to be indicative of the reality: no security bodies think such a thing is ever going to happen!

But yes Billy I understand where you're coming from and while your credulity is kinda cute it is also rather worrisome!

[Contrarian]

Billy, once again you show us the delights of your averageness! It's quite cute in a sort of way.

See how what you write makes sense to you, based as it is on your programming, without actually addressing the idea that this behaviour is allowing potential bombers to walk free every day. That nobody treats these potential bombs as what we have been told they are and how this tells us we are being lied to.

As we can see, there are alternatives that work, are clearly an effective policy and enable genuinely dangerous containers and their carriers to be identified.

Leaving 500ml bottles of TNT in a waste bin in a crowded departure hall is so foolhardy as to be indicative of the reality: no security bodies think such a thing is ever going to happen!

But yes Billy I understand where you're coming from and while your credulity is kinda cute it is also rather worrisome!

Due to cognitive issues Americans like Billy split reality.

For example when the media said Trump had no chance to win, fake media.

But 9/11? Real media.

[BillyB]

without actually addressing the idea that this behaviour is allowing potential bombers to walk free every day.

You are so smart Andrew for figuring this out. You should apply for the head security officer for all international airports.

There is a rule you can't bring bombs on the plane. There is also a rule you can't bring more than 100ml of liquid on the plane. When your liquid was confiscated because you broke the liquid rule, did it ever occur to you they allowed you to continue on your flight because they simply labeled you a violator of the innocent liquid rule? No, you assumed they labeled you a bomber and still allowed you to continue onto your flight which has you stumped. You're a confused individual.

[rosco]

What IS the point in testing a potential suicidal terrorist's willingness to drink a liquid substance for making a bomb ?


Hardly 'fool proof'.

Try flying from any to the UK via Turkey and one learns about security ..


You are checked at the first airport, than in transit then again your stuff is scanned at the gate.)


Those believing the 100ml of liquids is a 'con' need to ask themselves about the cost of disposal of the confiscated stuff...hardly a money spinner..

That’s not a Turkish thing, it happens in Amsterdam and many other airports around the world too. I think you’re just once again being a Moby on yet another thread.

 

[rosco]

What IS the point in testing a potential suicidal terrorist's willingness to drink a liquid substance for making a bomb ?

Hardly 'fool proof'.

If you are referring to my post about NK, there is no domestic terrorism by the Koreans. They use common sense on Air Koryo, risk profile is one (anything muzzie looking or with an oddball passport is picked out - but all visitors are vetted with a visa anyway before they come). The country isn't heaving with muzzies so no terrorism there. There isnt even any notable crime or litter, so combustible muzzies seem unlikely. Evidenced by the fact that planes generally suffer terrorism by muzzies or over muzzie countries.

Expect a reaction from our triggered troll. He’ll be back pointing out non Muslim terrorist events, to not prove anything related to nothing we’re talking about.

[rosco]

Billy, once again you show us the delights of your averageness! It's quite cute in a sort of way.

 

Think I just wet myself a little.

[andrewfi]

Billy, you're so precious!

The reason for not taking these liquids aboard a plane is that they might be a bomb. But no player in the security theatre ever treats these containers as if they were what they are supposed to be. There's no precautions whatsoever. That tells us only one thing about which we can be certain: whatever we are being protected from it isn't bombs, chemical weapons or bombs created from mixing random liquids together. If there was a non-negligible risk to public health and safety then there would be some real precautions taken.

[BillyB]

But no player in the security theatre ever treats these containers as if they were what they are supposed to be.

Bottled liquids are supposed to be what? Yes, security at airports treated your harmless bottled water as if it was harmless bottled water and let you go on your merry way. Your water ended up getting trashed in a trash bin, not a bomb proof room as you claim it should be.

You're upset your bottle water was taken and not given back to you. That inspired you to create a thread and ridicule airport security and show everybody you're smarter than them.

If after testing, my water was found to be safe, should I not have been reunited with it?

No, you don't get your water tested and get it back. You are not special. Airports and airlines don't have the means, money, and patience to do laboratory testing to verify the chemical make up of millions of liquids everybody tries to bring through the airport so they made a rule that simplifies things for everybody. No bottled liquid more than 100ml is allowed to pass through security. You broke the liquid rule but tell us you've been labeled a potential terrorist, was allowed to continue on to your flight and airport security is silly. Sadly, there are some people on this forum who believe your sob story.

[Contrarian]

A former CIA officer reveals the truth about how the USA creates enemies. I touched on this above. The government says there’s a problem that only they can solve. They don’t tell you that they created the problem.

[andrewfi]

Billy, you are amazing. The curious part of me wants to see inside your mind. The more sensible part can't really see the point.

I am amazed that you can see no incongruity here.
Let's try it, just for you, with easier words and ideas:

If the stuff that we are not allowed to take on planes is absolutely, positively, not dangerous why can we not take it on planes?

[rosco]

It’s all about rules Andrew.

Some people just like to be told what they can and can’t do, even if it makes no sense. I.e “No we can’t do that, we’ll get into trouble”.

[andrewfi]

Yes, Rosco, that's right. I agree.
But look here at the gymnastics undertaken to rationalise a really stupid set of rules because such a rationalisation is easier than questioning 'authority'.