[Fairview]

I knew when they said that sanitary products and diapers could not be boxed that women were involved.

And I hope the TSA has not forgotten it, but products in bottles are not the only things that contain gel media. Diapers and some tampons contain absorbent gels, too. Also, a diaper that appears to be urine-soaked can contain enough other liquid to be used for an explosion.<

I do not know how security staff could deal with this. They can't tear apart every baby's diaper and test the gel inside, and surely aren't going to open every stinky wet diaper.

[nina0113]

I do not know how security staff could deal with this.

The airlines are going to have to supply diapers in boarding areas & on the planes. Contact lens drops too.

[Fudd Fan]

surely aren't going to open every stinky wet diaper

But a suspicious "wet" diaper --if it held explosive gel or liquid-- wouldn't be stinky.

[TomGuy]

but products in bottles are not the only things that contain gel media

Also, what would prohibit them from using plastic ziplock baggies and taping them to their bodies?

There are many ways they could slip the materials aboard.

[holden]

and surely [TSA employees] aren't going to open every stinky wet diaper

Let's just say they needn't be checking the ones being worn by 80 year-old great-grandmas.

BTW, the "unimaginable scale" item can really only mean one thing, unlike the "over the Atlantic" comment we've been hearing in the media.

That is, they {begin rank speculation here} must've intended to detonate above densely populated areas, either on take-off-and-climb or upon approach-to-landing. The greater fuel at the flights' start makes that phase a tempting guess, though they wouldn't have been able to get more than a couple of planes into to the air that way, suggesting the approach-to-landing phase, i.e., over populated US areas, is more likely what they had in mind. Even then, after two would've lit up, only landing phases over relatively unpopulated areas (by any aircraft) would've been allowed by the authorities.

Another possibility along the unimaginable scale could've involved the militarily-forced downing of (apparently) commandeered, threatening flights.{/speculation}

HF

[AFPhys]

Good catch... diapers certainly COULD be a problem.

[Sender]

I do not know how security staff could deal with this.

Truthfully there is no way we can absolutely be sure that millions of passengers cannot slip some innocuous package onboard. It is inevitable.

What we should do is as the Israelis do; look for terrorists, not for weapons. Look for nervous, sweating, shifty people. They are about to die, they may be showing some stress. Look for empty eyes. Look for cash tickets bought in numbers. And yes, look for Muslims. Even the 'lily-white' converts. When in doubt, pull passengers aside and interview them. We should have El Al train the TSA.

[Celtic Conservative]

I do not know how security staff could deal with this. They can't tear apart every baby's diaper and test the gel inside, and surely aren't going to open every stinky wet diaper...

No, but what they can do is provide 1 fresh diaper for every infant flying and make the parent/caregiver change them in the presence of security staff. This has been standard practice in prisons for many years.

CC