Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–839 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#831

Post by kebman »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #492
kebman wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a massive downvote waiting to happen, but I have more faith in 9/11 being a controlled demo. Not out of evil. Just to prevent New York turning into a giant domino show.

My theory is that terrorists hijacked two airliners full with jet fuel, and crashed them into each WTC tower, causing the structure to weaken from the heat and fail.

That tends to be the official narrative, but unsure if jet fuel burns that evenly. Though OTOH you're correct, it did start pancaking from the top, so there's that. Perhaps they were simply well-engineered skyscrapers? I guess we'll never know. Idk you're probably right.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#832

Post by flakeoil »

HWR_14 wrote: post #824
flakeoil wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not. Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, b…

> that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not. What a weird rule. In the US they do. Although some of that might go back to attempts made early in aviation to handle the import taxes of airplanes landing with a half full gas tank.

If you look into the details, in the US, aviation fuel is taxed very low and for international flights not taxed at all.

"Kerosene-based jet fuel used for commercial aviation (transporting persons or property for hire) is taxed at a reduced rate of 4.4 cents per gallon." [0] That is $0.044 per galon.

For cars the tax is between $0.31-$0.74 per gallon depending on state + federal tax of $0.184 so in total somewhere between $0.494-$0.924.

That means aviation fuel is taxed 1/10-1/20 of what car fuel is taxed. So in essence aviation fuel is barely taxed.

For international flights it is tax free: "The tax code provides statutory exemptions that result in zero or near-zero tax liability for specific fuel uses. Exemptions generally apply to fuel used in foreign international flights, military aircraft, governmental entities, farming, or by nonprofit educational organizations." [0]

[0] https://legalclarity.org/federal-jet-fuel-tax-rates-exemptio...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#833

Post by culopatin »

juggle-anyhow wrote: post #530
NL807 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These machines don't really detect what kind of materials stuff is composed of, much of that is just a crude classification based on density. True identification requires broadband x-rays emission with spectral analysis.

Water, not water is all you need.

Shampoo? Hand cream? Marinara?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#834

Post by pousada »

pixl97 wrote: post #749
pousada wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a realistic example? I’m having trouble following what’s happening in the US

100%. This pattern of government behavior is everywhere. One common one is the yellow sheet (form 4473) for buying a firearm in the US. Here is an example of a question > “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” No matter the state law, federal law says it's illegal. So, what happens. At some point you buy a gun in Colorad…

I see what you mean.

But is insulting the president evidence of being in a “terrorist organisation” ? I thought free speech was the one principle that is untouchable in the US

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#835

Post by humanpotato »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

Recently, I worked all day at an ammunition plant, then the next day got may hands swabbed by TSA. Nothing detected by the machine.

Makes you wonder.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#836

Post by lmm »

Havoc wrote: post #747
lmm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything a border official says is implicitly backed with the threat of, at a minimum, detention without trial and without basic humane treatment like access to drinking water. Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this).

>Heathrow has well publicised cases People attempting to enter illegally, not for failing to down drinks like it's a frat house...

Given that the border officer has discretion to refuse you entry, failing to down your drink can turn into attempting to enter illegally if they want it to.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#837

Post by codethief »

bleepblap wrote: post #598
codethief wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25,000? Interesting. Is there anywhere I can read up on this?

There are a lot of airports in the Us and 2.5 million passengers transit them daily.

Ohh, I thought by

> a) not at the prices people wanted to spend to get 25,000 of them

you were referring to the number of images being taken (per passenger / piece of luggage):

> spin an X-ray machine around and take a ton of pictures to recreate a 3d image

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#838

Post by aylmao »

butvacuum wrote: post #820
aylmao wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's room for both. You can have security checkpoints where they check your bag for liquids, and you should be allowed to fly with them once they confirm its innocuous. I'm no chemist, but I can't imagine it's hard to test if something is an explosive or just body cream. To pack a punch, I have to imagine explosives need very specific compounds in them.

1) its way harder than you'd expect as many compounds are safe in low concentrations and have other uses. Take TATP- triacetone-triperoxide. yes, the peroxide and acetone(nailpolish remover) in most people's bathrooms should never be mixed. 2) might want to look up how often firearms make it onboard in carry on bagage accidentally. This isn't the typical snarky use of that phrase- it's just so insanely common people…

Then we should limit peroxide and acetone, sure.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to forbid >100ml of acetone in flights, and allow people to bring in, say, a bottle of water or a can of orange juice. We can certainly test if something is acetone or orange juice.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#839

Post by RupertSalt »

SapporoChris wrote: post #351
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once at a security checkpoint to a museum in Shanghai, they saw my water bottle, and then told me to take it out and drink from it.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru. Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought…

Man, all this time I've been playing Nethack, wearing a Hawaiian shirt, snapping my expensive camera, and applying my credit card, without realizing my character class was actually Terrorist.

How come it's considered the weakest ever?

Post reply on HN