but we knew it somehow involved mixing together liquids to form an explosive compound.

That was one variant I heard. And as a chemist myself, I fully agree that would be highly implausible. But I had also heard that they were planning to bring the fully-synthesized explosive on board, along with an electronic device (like an iPod) as the ignition source. That's more plausible, but as the chemist in the link mentions, it would have an obvious chemical smell. So nail polish remover would have to be banned (I think it's banned anyway, being highly flammable), but soft drinks and hand cream would only need a simple smell test to detect.

Really, though, if the terrorists were at all clever, they'd smuggle the liquids on board in a sealed container that did not resemble anything that would normally contain liquid!

I understand your frustration with the whole process, Zach, but given the information obtained about this situation, what would be the appropriate response?

If the airlines/governments do nothing, and another plan is successful, the response will be "you had notice as of [date], and you did nothing to increase security." If the airlines/governments do what they're doing now, the response is "this is a huge waste of money/time" and "you're all idiots - none of the substances you suspect are capable of doing any real damage." It seems like a catch-22.

"you had notice as of [date], and you did nothing to increase security.

If they had notice, then they should stop the plot, not use it as a test of airport security.

The real question is, are the measures being taken at airports reasonable to prevent another 9/11 style attack and also prevent a plane from being otherwise damaged in midair (causing a uncontrolled crash).

The answer for the former is undoubtedly no, securing the cockpit doors and refusing entry even in the face of a passenger or flight attendant hostage situation is sufficient and reasonable to prevent another 9/11. If you cant take over the plane, you cant fly it into a building.

For the later, probably not, as Eric has already pointed out if you were going to blow up a plan you would conceal the explosive in some overlooked manner. Considering liquid explosives almost always have a strong odor (in fact I cant think of one that doesn’t) some sort of concealed explosive is much more likely. The resolution to that is a well designed chemical analyzer take passive measurements the same way a metal detector does.

Otherwise you have individuals who may or may not be well educated, let alone trained in their job enforcing rules created by people who have no clue about actual airport operations and risk vectors. Like we do right now.

Doing something to just do something is worse than doing nothing at all. It creates false perceptions and worse it causes churn that is costing people time and money. Shouldn’t that be something that “fiscally conservative” Republicans would be against?

"The resolution to that is a well designed chemical analyzer take passive measurements the same way a metal detector does."

Except we already have those - at least, we have them in Detroit-Metro Airport - and the concern seemed to be that the reason for the ban was because the items actually recovered from the plotters would not be detected by means already in place.

According to the CNN article, "A senior congressional source said it is believed the plotters planned to mix a British sports drink with a gel-like substance to make a potent explosive that could be ignited with an MP3 player or cell phone." ... "The sports drink could be combined with a peroxide-based paste to form a potent "explosive cocktail," if properly done, said a U.S. counterterrorism official."

I'm not a chemist, so I wouldn't be able to even begin to brainstorm about what they planned to use, but this was, apparently, a "test run" in which the plotters were carrying items that may have resembled what they were supposed to take along on the actual attacks.

"Doing something to just do something is worse than doing nothing at all. It creates false perceptions and worse it causes churn that is costing people time and money. Shouldn’t that be something that “fiscally conservative” Republicans would be against?"

I don't know about the characterization of these efforts as doing something just to do something, or that "fiscally conservative" Republicans should be against doing something instead of nothing. It just seems that the reaction to what is being done is whining about personal inconvenience than really caring about what happens to other people, and that's something I am against.

"better to give up our liberties than suffer an attack" -- Whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death!" ? America has fallen far from what it used to be.