A liquids and gells hypthetical.

[AVC]

We know that we have to have our liquids (carry on) in our little baggies.

What's stopping a hundred terrorists, buying a hundred tickets on the same flight and pooling their liquid resources to assemble the "critical mass"?

 

[toowongman]

Nothing. But they'd probably attract attention putting it all together.

 

[simongr]

The co-ordination efforts would be enormous as well - small cells work better - having 100 people co-ordinated would be more likely to raise suspicion.

 

[Happy Trails]

Nothing. But they'd probably attract attention putting it all together.

Yes, a hundred people queueing for the dunny could be a bit of a giveaway.

 

[Archphoto]

I've often wondered similar, but more along the lines of the shoe bomber. If the tiny amount he had in his shoe was enough to explode a substantial hole in the side of the plane, I'd hate to think what a bag of several 100ml containers of a similar substance could do. . . . .

Or do the scanners used at the checkpoints detect such compounds, in a similar way the quarantine scanners detect foodstuffs etc?

 

[albatross710]

I've often wondered similar, but more along the lines of the shoe bomber. If the tiny amount he had in his shoe was enough to explode a substantial hole in the side of the plane, I'd hate to think what a bag of several 100ml containers of a similar substance could do. . . . .

Or do the scanners used at the checkpoints detect such compounds, in a similar way the quarantine scanners detect foodstuffs etc?

I don't think the current walk through scanners detect liquids. I have accidentally walked through with my liquids ready to declare in their bag in my pocket and wasn't detected.

 

[Archphoto]

I don't think the current walk through scanners detect liquids. I have accidentally walked through with my liquids ready to declare in their bag in my pocket and wasn't detected.

Was thinking of the actual scanners that your bags go through, rather than the walk-through ones; either way, if they don't operate in such a fashion, it seems to be a moot point and waste of time. Of course, maybe they do detect what the actual liquid is, and it is making travel safer. . . . . . ?

 

[equus]

Nothing. But they'd probably attract attention putting it all together.

For most airports, once through screening there is plenty of opportunity to aggregate in the sterile airside terminal. Doesn't even require all 100 to be in the same flight.

 

[meloz]

The bad guys would lose a large percentage of the work force. The bean counters considered it too costly.

Meloz

 

[medhead]

There are separate liquids scanners that are supposed to be entering the market.

I've been advised in a previous life that it requires much less than 100 liquids allowances to be effective. I'm not going to say how many other than 100 is way over.


Sent from the Throne