Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:09, 21 August 2006

Latest revision as of 16:27, 11 August 2025

(372 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}

{{talkheader}}

{{On this day|date1=2010-08-10|oldid1=378124116|date2=2012-08-09|oldid2=506477258|date3=2015-08-09|oldid3=674957918|date4=2016-08-09|oldid4=733658955|date5=2020-08-09|oldid5=971887521|date6=2025-08-09|oldid6=1304753393}}

{{Calm talk}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->

{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low}}

<div class="infobox" style="width: 315px">

{{WikiProject Aviation }}

<div style="text-align: center">[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />

{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}}

[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|'''Archives''']]

}}

</div>

{{merged-from|Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot|23 May 2018}}

----

{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=365|index=/Archive index}}

# [[Talk:August 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 1|August 10 2006 &ndash; August 16 2006]]

{{User:MiszaBot/config

# <!--[[Talk:August 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 2|August 2006]]-->

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

#

|maxarchivesize = 100K

</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

|counter = 3

==Staged==

|minthreadsleft = 4

More news: [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/170806probing.htm UK police probing alleged bomb plot release one] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

|algo = old(365d)

: Surely that's old news. The 24th was released ages ago. (By the way, who knows anything about him/her?) [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

|archive = Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive %(counter)d

:in total two people have now been arrested and released, 25 arrested all together last I saw. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

== Merger proposal ==

==Reliable sources==

Are self-published web sites such as infowars.com and prisonplanet.com considered [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]? These are essentially blogs of one person who can write whatever junk he feels like...

The [[Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot| Timeline article]] is a good example of what I would call the WP 'breaking news syndrome', by which I mean it successfully covers everything which came out while the story was 'front page news', but not subsequent developments.

The "Skeptics respond to the arrests" section also mentions [[The Register]]'s research into producing TATP in a plane lavatory. I could add "The production of TATP in a lavatory is an invention of the Internet and has not been suggested by credible sources. Therefore The Register's chemistry speculation has little connection to reality" &mdash; but I don't have a newspaper quote for that. So the misleading implication must remain in the article as is? Is there some way to mention that a source has invented some fact when there is no other source saying they invented it? [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 08:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Any meaningful timeline would start at least 6 months before the arrest, ''(the beginning of surveillance)'', and would involve subjects such as the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan, what prompted that arrest and what the consequences were to the UK operation. Also the three trials and sentencing, none of which are covered.

:No not in the slightest bit of reliability at infowars or their like.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A considerable amount of detail in timeline is credited to unnamed sources, many US, ''(ie distant from the actual investigation)'' and much is 'early speculation'. Many details have since been discredited, or at least not substantiated, in court or elsewhere. There is general admission that in the initial response, there was a great deal of 'talking up' ''(number of planes, state of readiness, number of 'martyr tapes', etc.)''. Also, a great deal of detail has since emerged about, for example, the role of the US, ''(aided by Pakistan)'', in 'forcing the UK's hand' and about also about how UK initially became suspicious and concluded airlines were the probable targets ''(which they found difficult to prove in court, even though they were able to prove some kind of conspiracy).'' Whilst initial claims are part of the story, a timeline which fails to indicate which claims were later substantiated and which not, is not doing the reader a service.

:It's all relative, isn't it? I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones, but you've got to give that in the last few years he's proven much more reliable than the intelligence of unnamed Western countries. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose a merger with the present article, since info in the 'timeline' is either unreliable or duplicated with either this, or the [[2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction|security reaction]] article. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 12:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

::Alex Jones is white supremasist who has become the darling of the Left and Muslim's with his critiques of Bush and the Bildaburg group. As i say he blaims "Banking Interests" for the problems of the world, and we know who he means by those two words. He his border-line mentally ill with his pranoid delusions, the problem is he has just enough real facts to make his (and his readers) delusions hang together. This man believes America is a ZOG (Zionist occupied Government) but now he is famous with the left as a good guy he does not talk about that, America is just controled by "Banking Interests". Do some research pre 9/11 you'll find i'm right.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 20:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The timeline still contains a great deal of 'breaking news syndrome', ie initial speculation which was never confirmed ''(and in many cases later contradicted, such as a 'tipoff' alertng UK police and them mounting an infiltration exercise, actually it was a massive surveillance exercise and not a tipoff, but suspicious movements to and from Pakistan by the UK ringleader which initiated that surveillance)''. A lot of this info is of the "unnamed US/UK sources said" kind.

::: Well, at least he's not killing innocent people. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The role of US intelligence in 'forcing the hand' of the UK police by encouraging the Pakistan arrests ''(which UK police were adamantly opposed to until after UK operatives had been arrested and evidence secured)'' is 'glossed over' and no 'go now' message from Pakistan has ever been confirmed by UK police, though they were afraid that a 'fallback' plan might exist and had arranged to arrest the suspects once they were seen finding out about flights in an internet cafe. These planned, coordinated arrests had to be brought forward to an impromptu 'arrest them all' overnight unarmed operation when UK police heard of the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan - UK police were pretty bloody angry at the 'betrayal of confidence', exposing UK and UK police to unnec danger and lack of coordination shown by the US. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

::::Yes it does make a change from all those people/groups the left support such as Saddam, Hezbollah, Hamas, Mugabi etc.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

==Oplan Bojinka==

Has anyone found any mention of [[Oplan Bojinka]] in connection to this? Its basically the same plot with minor tweaks, it was said Oplan Bojinka transformed into the Sept 11 attacks. I would be interested in adding a comparrison however I have not seen any sources draw such a connection. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue">^{<b>|sockpuppets|</b>}</font>'']] 12:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

==Target America, Terror in the sky, [http://www.youtube.com==

I thought Youtube links are frowned on but could an editor/admin with more experience say if this is true.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[YouTube]] is sufficiently noteable to have an article. I see the article discusses a change of view by CBS, who have decided they like being quoted on it. So it rather depends what the nature of the particular content is, I would think. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified 4 external links on [[2006 transatlantic aircraft plot]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=786172646 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

==did i say so, or did i say so?==

*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wg3NwDrg?url=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-10T070221Z_01_L10215465_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-10T070221Z_01_L10215465_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml

So, is it an official hoax [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPloNEasfUQ now], or do we still need to wait? No, let me gues, you want them to admit that they have nothing? Oh, then i wont hold my breath...

*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wg3vG5yS?url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9970.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9970.asp

*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jiFxc4E0?url=http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/9-25_updated_passenger_guidance.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/9-25_updated_passenger_guidance.shtm

*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5whHx6CvS?url=http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178302006 to http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178302006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This is just a mind games for Pearl Harbor 3. Anyway, is the information i linked to included in the article? HOw about [http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/180806bombings.htm this]? Oh, [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806Asset.htm this one] was good. And in case you are searching for more imediate motives for the false flag, see [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806fingerprinted.htm this]--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

:Here is something that supports the official view: [http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806tapes.htm] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

:To save everyone some time: the "official hoax" youtube video is a news report which mentions the alleged plotters didn't have airline tickets (sold at your local friendly travel agent's), some didn't have passports (is that British passports since most of them have dual nationality? Also 10 planes, 24 alleged plotters, do the math), and the explosive components hadn't been assembled into bombs yet. British police wanted to wait for some of those things to happen so that there would be more obvious evidence, US authorities wanted to arrest earlier to reduce risk. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Is 2nd para of the "Terrorist Plot" section misleading? ==

{{cquote|Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP, triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. '''Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive'''.

It is unclear what exactly would be constructed on the plane and from what starting ingredients.

Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes this would be very difficult, particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. '''The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours.'''

''<small>'During the trial of the conspirators, the prosecution stated that each bomber would board a plane with the "necessary ingredients and equipment". They would then construct the devices mid-flight and detonate them. The hydrogen peroxide would be placed in 500 ml plastic bottles of the Oasis and Lucozade soft drinks. A sugary drink powder, Tang, would be mixed with the hydrogen peroxide to colour it to resemble a normal soft drink.'</small>

Some 250g (9oz) of solid TATP would be needed for a substantial explosion, but Mr Murray said if the individual had never made the explosive before '''he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane'''. Another theory is that pre-made explosives would have been hidden in the false bottom of plastic drinks bottles to foil hand luggage checks. [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_questions.htm the Guardian]}}

''

The sentence order of that second paragraph is very confusing. At first, it seems to imply: that the plotters would walk through security and onto the plane carrying pure hydrogen peroxide, packets of Tang and untampered bottles of fizzy drink such as Lucozade; that they would then ("mid-flight") proceed to "inject" peroxide mixed with Tang into the fizzy drink bottles; and construct the rest of the bomb.

Still waiting to hear that it was all bogus hatemongering against Muslism... --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All of this seems very unlikely. I don't know any details for bomb-making, nor have I seen court details of this alleged plot beyond what I read here — so I haven't dared to publish a re-edit of that second paragraph. But surely they would have mixed up their explosive liquids and injected them into soft drink bottles in their home lab before coming to the airport? This latter interpretation seems implied later in the same paragraph: ' thereby allowing the device to resemble a normal, unopened drink bottle when screened by airport security.' So then, what were they constructing on the plane?

:So: some have ''speculated'' that the liquids would have been mixed on the plane. This is hard to do. So it probable that ''the speculation is incorrect''. The mixing would probably have been done beforehand. Do you have a point? Other than showing that the Internet speculation about mixing stuff on board is probably false?

:That is a good reference, thanks! Now if "chem lab in plane loo" speculation surfaces in the article again we have a source saying it probably isn't true. This is exactly what this talk page is for: maintaining the article. Thanks again! [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::[[The Guardian]] is not "internet speculation", its as a [[WP:RS]] as it will ever get. As for refuting your claims, see Sandpipers comment below. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::No, the newspaper is not internet speculation. It is ''reporting on internet speculation'' and saying the speculation is probably false. Do you see the words "This has led to speculation" in the article? [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is in the sequence of sentences - which implies that the mixing and injecting would "then" take place, ie. after boarding.

[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/140806babymilk.htm Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Baby Milk?]. As if WHITE Baby milk could ever be... anything else than white baby milk... but considering that the mission was hatemongering, it all makes sense... --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From the above Guardian article:

{{cquote|Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?

'''It seems unlikely.''' The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, <big>'''after'''</big> the arrest of what Mr Reid said were <big>'''''ALL'''''</big> the "main suspects".

My suggested alteration would be as follows:

Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were unnecessary. Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for anyone else those individuals were peripheral to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is debatable.

''<small>'During trial of the conspirators, the process was outlined for disguising an explosive liquid as refreshment: a sugary drink powder, Tang, could be mixed with hydrogen peroxide — colouring it to resemble a normal soft drink — and injected into 500 ml plastic bottles of Oasis and Lucozade soft drinks with a syringe; the bottle's cap need not be removed and the hole could be resealed, thereby allowing the device to resemble a normal, unopened drink bottle when screened by airport security.

The security services allege that this was a very specific, well-planned plot, which took nearly a year to put together. It seems unfeasible that others were planning to do the same thing in the same way.}}

'''Hydrogen peroxide is widely available for use as hair bleach and, along with the other ingredients, can become explosive if mixed to a specific strength. The use of liquid explosives with dissolved powder is similar to the composition used in the 21 July 2005 London bombings, using hydrogen peroxide and chapati flour, activated by a detonator. The prosecution stated that each bomber could thus board a plane with the "necessary ingredients and equipment". They would then construct finished explosive devices mid-flight and detonate them.'</small>''

At least, THAT is mainstream. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:well I am a little bemused. If anyone is now suggesting that these liquids might be mixed before boarding the plane, then this is hardly a liquid bomb scare. Was the idea that someone was going to ask for all the ice for the in-flight drinks and then disappear with their bag to the loo for hours (takes time to get to the US), or that someone was similarly going to disappear into the loo at Heathrow for hours, then take the finished product onto the plane? Hmm. Likely we are not going to get anywhere fast here with regard to article writing, but strikes me that someone definitely does have some more explaining to do about exactly how they thought this plot was going to be carried out. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me.

::In pure form [[TATP]] is a crystal. It readily dissolves into a liquid, for example the very dangerous compound [[dihydrogen monoxide]]. Such a liquid is still explosive. It is also less sensitive to going off accidentally, instead requiring a detonator (cell phones and MP3 players have been mentioned.) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::So the story has now changed from "they were going to mix it on the plane" to "they had already mixed it"? Do you have any [[WP:RS]] for that, or is that [[WP:OR]]?--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Have I got this right?

::::I haven't seen a reliable source claim that mixing on the plane was going to happen. Some editorial speculation, Internet rumors, [[The Register]] following those rumors, and the like. Do you have any reliable sources mentioning that the police were saying lavatory chemistry was being planned? I don't think the story has changed, the story never was what you say it was.

::::Incidentally, in addition to "TATP readily dissolves in water": when TATP is produced using regular processes it is automatically dissolved in water. It needs to be specifically dried to make it a solid crystal. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ah, so now it is no liquid explosive anymore, but a dried crystal? As for "a reliable source claim that mixing on the plane was going to happen", did you miss the Guardian article that started this section? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Are you familiar with the concept of a [[solution]]? Sugar is a crystal. Put it in water and you get sugar water which is a liquid. You can try this at home. And The Guardian does ''not'' claim lavatory chemistry was going to happen, it reports on a claim that was going to happen and then debunks the claim. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::TATP, triacetone triperoxide, is not known to be definately the explosive, in fact i have heard other reports that the explosive was to be hidden at the bottom of a drinks bottle as opposed to a liquid explosive.We don't know because no-one outside of this case and conspiracy nutters '''STFU and get a LIFE'''[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[WP:PA]]. And then why were they afraid of baby milk? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I read the "STFU" remark as his own remark to himself to stop rambling and go do something productive. A joke! By "baby milk" do you mean the prisonplanet.com stuff? If you ever happen to try the sugar+water=solution experiment you can also try sugar+milk=MYSTERY. Milk is mostly water. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If so, let's update that section.

This was interesting:

{{cquote|...Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. '''The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive'''. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to '''kill you, but probably no one else'''.

[[User:Eric Colvin|Eric Colvin]] ([[User talk:Eric Colvin|talk]]) 09:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

After a few hours - '''assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities''' - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. '''Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two'''.

== Update needed ==

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. '''But you must make enough of it to crash the plane''', and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode''', it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows'''. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

The lead states that, as of 2025, passengers are still not allowed to carry liquids in containers larger than 100 ml in their hand luggage in the UK and most other countries. This needs to be updated. Some airports, in the UK and elsewhere, are installing equipment for screening larger containers, and are therefore removing this restriction.

We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us...[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/]}}

I don't have enough information at hand to re-word the relevant text. Could somebody else fix it - with a suitable citation, of course. For now, I have simply added an "update inline" template.

--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the relevant sentence should be moved from the lead to somewhere in the body of the article. [[User:Mike Marchmont|Mike Marchmont]] ([[User talk:Mike Marchmont|talk]]) 16:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

:'''it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows''' thats all it needs at high altitude.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::''"We asked University of Rhode Island Chemistry Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, who has actual, practical experience with TATP, if this is a reasonable assumption, and she tolds us that merely dumping the precursors together would create "a violent reaction," but not a detonation. To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as [[Aloha Airlines]] [[Flight 243]] neatly illustrates), it's necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care.''" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/page2.html]'' --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::Also note that the quote refers to an explosive mixed in lavatory conditions. I think we have now pretty well established that the speculation of lavatory chemistry has been well debunked, and that the explosives were to be mixed beforehand on the ground. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::::[[csmonitor]] does not agree: ''"The immediate security concern is containers of liquids and gels - '''which officials suspected''' might be used to hold substances more insidious than water, contact lens fluid, suntan lotion, or baby formula and which a terrorist '''could mix on board''' to create a powerful explosive. As a precautionary measure, the US Department of Homeland Security Thursday barred passengers from carrying most liquids into the cabins of commercial carriers."'' [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0811/p01s03-usgn.html] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

: I have now fixed all this. I have modified the wording in the lead, and added some up-to-date info in the body of the article under "Security repercussions". [[User:Mike Marchmont|Mike Marchmont]] ([[User talk:Mike Marchmont|talk]]) 16:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

:''[[Homeland Security]] chief [[Michael Chertoff]] said during a press conference that they'd planned to board with "liquid-explosive <big>'''[[ingredients]]'''</big> and detonating devices disguised as beverages, electronic devices, and other common objects."'' [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/page2.html] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::Seems like someone hadn't at that date researched the production of TATP as well as we have here. We have you to thank for all those references that let us be more informed on the subject than the person who wrote that! (Well, maybe he was thinking of another explosive, let's give him the benefit of doubt). Fortunately the Wikipedia article we are discussing here already mentions the problems of the mixing speculation and that if TATP indeed is the explosive it probably needs to be mixed beforehand. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Clarification about the announcement between BA and BAA ==

''"By now you'll be asking why these jihadist wannabes didn't conspire simply to bring TATP onto planes, colored with a bit of vegetable dye, and disguised as, say, a powdered fruit-flavored drink. The reason is that they would be afraid of failing: '''TATP is notoriously sensitive and unstable'''. Mainstream journalists like to tell us that terrorists like to call it "the mother of Satan." (Whether this reputation is deserved, or is a consequence of homebrewing by unqualified hacks, remains open to debate.)''"[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/page2.html]--[[User:Striver|Striver]]

:Yup, the instability is why it is easiest transported in solution form. The more water you add to it the less volatile it becomes. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In [[2006 transatlantic aircraft plot#Controversy over the alert|section 7.2 (Controversy over the alert)]], the first two paragraphs begin as such:

==Section break==

Anti-Muslim fearmongering, stating it would be MIXED, and also garbeling facts: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emo5CyHdt-I&mode=related&search= video] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:If they mean [[TATP]] then that television program indeed is probably wrong about it, per your excellent research! It is also possible that the TV clip refers to some other substance, as while TATP is a two component solution it isn't produced by simply mixing only those two compounds together as the clip shows. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

{{quote|On 12 August a public argument broke out between [[BAA]], the operator of Heathrow and other airports, and [[British Airways]], …}}

{{quote|Three days later on 12 August 2006 the owner and operator of London Heathrow, [[BAA]] …}}

It’s not clear whether 12 August 2006 was three days before or after. It reads as if the paragraphs were written by separate editors without reading what was already there. Could an editor with sufficient knowledge and research make the correction?

lol, [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_Zawahri.htm more fearmogering]--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I have removed the year 2006 and the description of BAA in the second paragraph as the year is clear and BAA is already identified in the preceding paragraph.

[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_Nerve.htm Hitting a Nerve] By [[Craig Murray]]:

{{Cquote|I appear to have hit a nerve with my call for a sceptical view of the alleged "bigger than 9/11" plot. In the UK, at least, the more serious wing of the mainstream media is beginning to catch up with the idea that all is not well here...

(This is my first contribution to a talk page so please let me know if I’ve done anything incorrectly here, thanks!) [[User:Fottry55i6|Fottry55i6]] ([[User talk:Fottry55i6|talk]]) 06:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This brings us to one particuarly sinister aspect of the allegations--'''that the bombs were to be made on the plane'''.

The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, '''is nonsense'''. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. '''But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No.'''

The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that '''the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs'''

Let me fess up here. '''I have just checked''', and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. '''So the authorities could announce--as they have whispered to the media in this case--that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb''', and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it?}}

The [[CounterPunch]] article then reminds us of the Bogus so called [[ricin plot]] and mentiones the granny that stoped the flight...--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:This will be the [[Wood Green ricin plot]] were one man was convicted (sentanced to 17 years)of trying to produce ricin, and according to the BBC after the trial "They discovered castor oil beans - the raw material for ricin - along with equipment needed to produce it and recipes for ricin, cyanide, botulinum and other poisons, along with instructions for explosives." but i bet striver thinks that means he wasn't a terrorist. There was nothing bogus about this incident, a field test (rough and ready) showed the pressence of ricin, the experts at Portland Down said it wasn't.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote the above source.

{{cquote|I spoke at the annual Stop the War conference a couple of months ago. I referred to the famous ricin plot. For those outside the UK, this generated the same degree of hype here two years ago. It was alleged that a flat in North London inhabited by Muslims was a "Ricin" factory, manufacturing the deadly toxin which could kill "hundreds of thousands of people". Police tipped off the authorities that traces of ricin had been discovered. In the end, all those accused were found '''not guilty''' by the court. The "traces of ricin" were revealed to be the '''atmospheric norm'''.

The "intelligence" on that plot had been extracted under torture in Algeria--another echo here, as '''the "intelligence" in this''' current case has almost certainly been '''extracted under torture in Pakistan'''. Another police tip-off to the media was that the intelligence had been stored in plastic jars, and they had indeed found plastic jars containing a suspicious substance. It turned out the containers in question were two Brylcreem tubs. What was in them? In the first, paper clips. In the second, Brylcreem.}}--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 12:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do read the wiki article. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:Heres the BBC link on the conviction [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433709.stm] as usual you mix up what the British Government says is so and what Tabloid "News"papers say is the case. The one Point i do agree with you is that '''Torture is not acceptable''' and the British Government should not engage in Torture by Proxy.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== POV edits ==

Please discuss here before making drastic unilateral (and POV) edits.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&diff=prev&oldid=70640522 This one] is bordering vandalism, for which [[User:Morton devonshire]] is sadly known for.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&diff=70662220&oldid=70652902 This one] ignores all the discussions we had about "alleged". Although I would agree that the title needs to be made consistent with how mainstream media (UK at least) are qualifying the plot. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please do not make personal attacks -- see [[WP:NPA]]. The data that is sought to be included borders on the absurd, and is not supported by reliable sources. See [[WP:OR]], [[WP:Verify]] and [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted again. Please seek consensus before making such radical and questionable edits. Thanks. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged should be reserved for those accused of the crime, not hte activity itself. There is no doubt that a major event happened and it seems the best word for that is plot. Who is responsible for it or whether it was a threat may be debatable. We qualify accusations with alleged, not events. Go to the airport and see if your wait time or the new restrictions are "alleged" or not. The event happened. It is incorrect to use alleged. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alleged The dictionary] and more importantly [http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=tuk&q=%22alleged+plot%22&btnG=Search+News the press] do not seem to be aware of your convention. Please seek consensus ''before'' such edits. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or the press. My last edit was to attribute who made the claim (who 'alleges' it). Alleged is a weasel word and is to be avoided on wikipedia. It is much preferred to use active voice and say who is making claims. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Ok, I have no problems with your last edit (as opposed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&diff=70662220&oldid=70652902 your first one]). In the future, please discuss first. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published web sites are not encyclopedic sources, please see [[WP:RS]]. "Skeptics respond to the arrests" is based on junk like prisonplanet.com. says any editor may remove such material from articles. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:You mean [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/160806sceptical.htm this]? Take a [http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1851078,00.html closer look]. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Were is the evidence that they were ''actualy'' ploting anything, except for the police saying so? Are we just going to cite their word as gospel? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

: ...may I add, after so many times they got it wrong? It all boils down to the fact that UK police as it stands cannot be considered a reliable source anymore, as it lost its credibility in this crywolf game. And as Striver correctly points out, the burden is on them to offer some evidence, because at the moment we have none. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes Striver you are not the only one to hide from reality in conspiracy theories, and this is meaningful or notable in any way?[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::[[WP:PA]]. I'm asking a legitimate question. You regard not accepeting anything the media says at face value as "hiding from reality"? Well, i can merit myself with me not having joined the Nazi party, just because the media said it was good, and i would not have swallowd fearmongering bogus nonsense like [[Wood Green ricin plot|this one]], just because the media said so. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes Striver the [[Wood Green ricin plot]] were someone was convicted of plotting to spread Ricin or other poisons on british streets. Keep bringing this up, the fact the police stopped them before they made Ricin is a good thing not a bad thing. As for me being a nazi [[WP:PA]] go back to listening to your pet nazi at prison planet, he'll tell you about how "banking interests" took over America after the great depression. You're the one who reads Nazi propaganda and believes it just so that you can lie to yourself that "Islamic Terrorism" does not exist.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hey, don't twist my words, i did not call anyone a nazi. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

=== sectfact tag ===

I just added a sectfact tag to the 'The skeptics respond to the arrests' sub-section. I think any conspiracy theories need to be cited to main line newspapers or news sites. These allegations need reliable source, or they need to go. [[User:Mytwocents|Mytwocents]] 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:If they were in a news paper, they wouldnt be labeled conspiracy theories, would they?--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 17:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::This section is complete '''Speculation''' Conspiracy theories are not notable, not varifiable and above all a continued personal attack on all british wikipedians. Completely made up info on self-published websites should not be in an '''Encyclopedia''' as WP:V says. And this teach the controversy argument is rubish as well, as there is no controversy except on Conspiracy nutter sites. I repeat these lies being told about the british police and government and now even the next King of England and Scotland is '''Highly insulting'''.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok, we've tagged this section to death. I propose we move the 'skeptics..' section to the talk page, until it can be written with citations to reputable news sites. The it can put back in. [[User:Mytwocents|Mytwocents]] 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

==Why are Lies allowed in this Encyclopedia==

This [http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Cooked.htm] conspiracy BS is totally against Wikipedia's policy of [[WP:V]]and [[WP:RS]]. Its got the Prince of Wales conspiring with Gordon Brown to overthrow Blair thats why he Murdock and Bush faked this plot. This '''BULLSHIT''' must go.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:Its use as a primary source to document a real phenomena, not as a source of stated facts. Chill. Or go afd [[Mein Kampf]] arguing RS. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please read about self-published sources in [[WP:RS]]. Seriously. New editors might not know about [[WP:RS]] and can violate it [[WP:AGF|by mistake]]. But by now you should know [[WP:RS]] exists and I think you should be expected to make an effort to follow [[WP:V|policy]] and [[WP:RS|guidelines]]. Check out point #2 in [[WP:V#The_Policy]]. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Fine Striver just lable it correctly, as rants writen by non-notable, non-knowledgeable and totally '''Biased''' person pushing his agenda against the Fedral Government of the US.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::That is fine with me. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That prisonplanet link is such bullshit (prince charles and Gordon Brown) - I tried to remove it but cannot seem to do it in such a way that does not mess up the references - I'll support any editor who removes it. In addition, I don't believe the register reference about the explosives should not be in that section - that's a discussion of a technical aspect of the proability of that approach working rather than the sort of foamed mouth rant on the prisonplanet link. --[[User:Charlesknight|Charlesknight]] 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== In the meantime... ==

...a panicked nation [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5269106.stm ostracises people from planes] for speaking a language they don't understand, and [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17415.html neo-con propaganda] (oddly making its way into Google news alongside mainstream news sources) defends their action. Thankfully, there were no US federal air marshals on the flight, so at least the pair survived the accident. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:yes some poeple have been terrorised into being racist, this is exactly what Osama wants. Are you posting this to enhance the article or just talking political smack?[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

==real questions==

From [[the Guardian]]:

{{cquote|Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, told the public his officers had thwarted a plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale". It was an apocalyptic scenario challenged at the time by '''journalists, who forced an admission''' that what was meant by these words was "on a scale never before witnessed in Britain",

Was there any plot at all?

It is clear that the security services have collected a vast amount of surveillance material over the past year, which they claim points to a plot in the making....The operation involved tracing the money that went in and out of their bank accounts and involved the Pakistani security services. (Striver: And we know that ISI and CIA are buddies...)

'''Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP''', triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive...Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes '''this would be very difficult''', particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours...Some 250g (9oz) of solid TATP would be needed for a substantial explosion, but Mr Murray said if the individual had never made the explosive before he would need '''a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane.''' Another theory is that pre-made explosives would have been hidden in the false bottom of plastic drinks bottles to foil hand luggage checks.

Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?

'''It seems unlikely.''' The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, '''after''' the arrest of what Mr Reid said were '''all the "main suspects"'''.

Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were '''unnecessary''' (read:fearmongering). Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for '''anyone else those individuals were peripheral''' to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is '''debatable'''.

The security services allege that this was a very specific, well-planned plot, which took nearly a year to put together. It seems '''unfeasible that others were planning to do the same thing in the same way'''. [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_questions.htm]}}

--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5637689 Was U.K. Bomb Plot Plausible?] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's a link to that story in the guardian? so I can read the whole thing in context. There is also confusion about the explosives here - just because something is technically difficult to do does not mean that someone will not try it. I don't think that bit should be mixed up with the bullshit like "Prince charles and gordon brown were involved!" I don't think the two go together. --[[User:Charlesknight|Charlesknight]] 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:I quoted it, just klick the link and follow the link to the Guardian article. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::Heres the link straight to the Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1853741,00.html] [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::PS Heres an intersting bit that may need to go into the article. "The Guardian has established that scientists at the government's forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead, Kent, are examining substances which have been seized during the searches." [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

America and survailance :[http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/200806Anti-Terror.htm]--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeees, just as planed, [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806Surveillance.htm keep the fearmongering heat up], so people wont question the iminent Pearl Harbor 3. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, they keep repeating the dubunked toilet-mix: "Government sources say there was a plan to bring down as many as a dozen airliners flying to the US, possibly in "waves" of two or three at a time. '''It is alleged that two apparently harmless chemicals would have been combined <big>''in flight''</big> to produce an explosive''', and detonated by an electronic device such as an iPod or a camera. The Home Secretary, John Reid, has said the main suspects are in custody, and that there is "substantial" material evidence to support the case. "[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806Surveillance.htm]--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh yeah!, fear [[Big Brother]]: [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806fear.htm Flying with fear: The future of air security: It may be bad now. But soon, you'll be scanned, sniffed and 'undressed' by the cameras]--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:''The last thing security experts are predicting is a return to business as usual. "We've crossed a Rubicon," says Simon Stringer, a consultant with [[Kroll Inc.|Kroll]] Security. "If anything, you're going to see far more draconian restrictions."'' omg, is Kroll involved in this? Boy, this goes high level. [[coincidence theory|What a coincidence]] that the same company that was heading security for wtc (hiring [[Marvin Bush]]) is now hyping the fearmongering. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[[Daily Mail]]:

{{cquote|The Briton alleged to be the '''‘mastermind’''' behind the airline terror plot could be '''innocent''' of any significant involvement, sources '''close to the investigation''' claim.

Rashid Rauf, whose detention in Pakistan was the trigger for the arrest of 23 suspects in Britain, has been accused of taking orders from Al Qaeda’s ‘No3’ in Afghanistan and sending money back to the UK to allow the alleged bombers to buy plane tickets.

But after two weeks of interrogation, an '''inch-by-inch search''' of his house and analysis of his home computer, officials are now saying that his '''extradition is ‘a way down the track’ if it happens at all'''.

It comes amid wider suspicions that the plot may '''not have been as serious, or as far advanced''', as the authorities initially claimed. [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806evidence.htm]}}

Dont miss the priceless fearmongering Quran-Muslim-Terrorist picture in the article. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPQcHXgIg0Q&mode=related&search= Daily Show: CNN's Fearmonering] --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we also include The North Korea Times [http://story.northkoreatimes.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/59a1a8c949a2188c/ article]? IT seems to convey what a lot of the sceptics are trying to get across.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 08:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yes lets include the last paragraph "When it comes to the airliner plot, however, analysts and security experts are united in their opinion that this was truly a deadly plan on the verge of being carried out. The security services and the government desperately need the cooperation of all sections of British society in the fight against terrorism, and must begin to restore public trust by being open and forthcoming about the facts of the alleged plot. Without sufficient information, the public will simply fill the gaps with its own theories." although i'd like an admin whos not edited here to say whether The North Korea Times meets WP:RS.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Its not true just c'uz they say so, you still have [[Jan Guillou]] and the American former ambasador contesting its factuallity. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Of course, its true if they say something that you like and not if its something you don't, now i understand![[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

==Page move==

Alleged should be reserved for those accused of the crime, not hte activity itself. There is no doubt that a major event happened and it seems the best word for that is plot. Who is responsible for it or whether it was a threat may be debatable. We qualify accusations with alleged, not events. Go to the airport and see if your wait time or the new restrictions are "alleged" or not. The event happened. It is incorrect to use alleged. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alleged The dictionary] and more importantly [http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=tuk&q=%22alleged+plot%22&btnG=Search+News the press] do not seem to be aware of your convention. Please seek consensus ''before'' such edits. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or the press. My last edit was to attribute who made the claim (who 'alleges' it). Alleged is a weasel word and is to be avoided on wikipedia. It is much preferred to use active voice and say who is making claims. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Ok, I have no problems with your last edit (as opposed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&diff=70662220&oldid=70652902 your first one]). In the future, please discuss first.

:::Anyway, I am still convinced that the title should contain "alleged". [[Timeline of the 2006 alleged airliner terror plot|This]] is another reason why. Last we had this discussion only one editor was insisting to keep it this way. If there are no objections I'll make the move. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I object to the title containing 'alleged.' We should not use weasel words in titles. We could use 'arrests' or 'investigations' but not 'alleged'. I think the current title is actually okay. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: Done. By the way, [http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1985781,00.html hear it from the horse's mouth], John Reid: "The police and authorities are convinced there was an '''alleged plot''' here. They have intervened and, in the course of the next few days, we will wait and see what happens in terms of charges." [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6027540,00.html And again]: "He also stressed it was important to remember the investigation remained a 'suspected terrorist plot' because '''nothing had yet been proved'''." [bold mine] Note three occurrences of "alleged plot" in this page-long article. Consider this: "War on terror" is an idiotic propagandistic expression, but we still have an article with that name, have we not? [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Like I said, I object to including "weasel words" in the title. Words like "allege" remove authority or give credence to authoirty that is non-existent. It is easy enough to have more descriptive titles without taking away legitmate authority of opinion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Use of the word alleged is not necessary because opinions that Wikipeida cites should all be sourced. People will think they are guilty and people will think they are not guilty. WP will source and cite both opinions but neither will require weasel words. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: Words like "allege" do not remove authority. They correctly qualify the noun that follows, because there is no plot unless/until a court of law rules so. Otherwise saying that there is a plot is tantamount to saying that the main suspects thereof are guilty, which they are not until proven so. This principle has been respected with the killers of de Menezes, I can't see why it should not apply here. I suppose I can live with your new title, but please fix the dozens of double-redirects that you have created. Thanks. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Current title, "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot investigations", does not solve the issue. The plost is still alledged untill they are convicted. Comments? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I maintain what I read in [[WP:V]] about this "allege" debacle[what follows is a truncated version of my post far above, to which no one substantively responded or rebutted]: "In any case, looking at WP:V, I see "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true," and I would take that to mean it's not necessary, beyond citing a reputable source that simply addresses it as a plot, to debate over calling it alleged for the sake of the article if there is a v. source that does so. Can we verify it's being called a plot, not merely alleged, on this side of the pond[the states, for reference/clarification]? Yeah. Can anyone verify right now that it's actually more than an alleged plot? Nope." Investigations makes the title really clunky, and the desire to use "alleged" or "allegations" seems to be referring to verifiability beyond the scope of what the original policy seems to have intended. Besides, no one's produced a satisfactory reason as to why the article itself, as someone else asserted, can't state whether or not there's issues about the likelihood of a plot really existing, as opposed to reflecting this in the title. [[User:Russ a boykin|russ.]] 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Russ, in all honesty, I can't work out what you are proposing we do. Even John Reid insists that this is an alleged plot, and [http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=tuk&q=%22alleged+plot%22&btnG=Search+News virtually all media is still calling it that], so I'm moving back and in doing so fixing all the double redirects that Tbeatty created. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia does not make assertions that require "alleged." Rather, Wikipedia in a NPOV way presents all notable viewpoints. As such, weasel words are not needed. Please read "weasel words" as it pertains to Wikipedia. To solve this, I changed it to "plot investigation" because the investigation is not alleged, it is real. It is NOT acceptable to have alleged in the title. HTere is no consensus for you to add alleged, and even if there were it would violate WP rules on "Weasel words." --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::: You have just created loads of double redirects. Again. The burden is on you to fix them, else I'll revert. Barring that, I can live with the current title. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 08:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Moving a page like this, while the discussion is still ongoing and without correcting the load of double redirects that resulted from it is not acceptable in my opinion. I just moved it back to fix the redirects. If it is moved again, PLEASE fix the mess that results from it. [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I will check on this later at work where I have tons of time, I will move it if its still with the alleged title since its something people can deal with it seems and I will fix the redirects. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue">^{<b>|sockpuppets|</b>}</font>'']] 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Alleged is the correct title until something is proved. Please do not move it again, unless consensus is reached here to do so. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Alleged is POV as should be clear from every time this has been brought up, any chance on a compromise like "plot investigation" or some other form of words. [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 10:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Alleged is not POV at all, like many editors that you are ignoring have already argued. All the media are using it. John Reid reminds us we should use it. There is a difference between being suspected and being convicted. We have respected presumption of innocence in other cases. Not using "alleged" is POV. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Why not attempt to come to a compromise all the editors can agree on, as you had no concensus to change the title.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: I do acknowledge that finding a title to this mess is very hard, especially one that keeps everyone happy. And I did say a couple of times that I can live with "investigation". However, I will very strongly oppose any unqualified "plot" as POV. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Investigation is fine with me.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::This article is not about the investigation, its about the alledged plot. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A good title is indeed difficult to find. Some suggestions (trying to find a middle way between using ''alleged'' and stating the fact of the plot too hard):

*2006 transatlantic aircraft plot arrests (would require a slight rewrite of the introduction to place more emphasis on the actual arrests, but makes it clear that it are only arrests and no convictions)

*2006 transatlantic aircraft plot anti-terrorism operation (makes it clear that it was an intelligence operation, implying a level of uncertainty)

*2006 transatlantic aircraft anti-terrorism operation (leaves out the 'plot' alltogether).

And most importantly, try not to mess up by moving this article around all the time without having a certain degree of consensus. --[[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd asserted earlier was that I agreed with leaving the title as it was before, transatlantic aircraft plot, and investigations, while making the title a little clunky in the saying, was still acceptable; the only point I was making is that you seem to be talking about something absolutely verifiable beyond wikipedia, whereas the policy specifically mentions that, for example, you don't need to check if something out of an NYT article is true[Speaking of which, for those of you with a free registration already, you can see this NYT article where they don't, and interestingly so given the amount of media PM refers to that adds this qualifier, preface plot with "alleged." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/europe/20family.html?th&emc=th]. So PM maintains calling it anything other than alleged is pov; the way I read verifiability, we can do away with this whole alleged mess if there are reputable sources that are calling it a plot. NYT is calling it, at least in that article, a plot. There were arguments about calling it alleged until it was proven, but that seems to be discussing verifiability beyond what's called for. It's not on us to wait till/find out it's "true" before we put a title on something; we just need reputable sources sourced, and there are statements to that effect as well, concerning not discussing what's true or not so much as what they believe, in other policy pages and the like.

To summate: I propose that all the worrying over alleged is silly because it goes beyond the demands of [[WP:V]] as far as I read it[and no one's had cause to say I'm mistaken], and I'm tempted to think we should leave it at its current state, if only because the constant name-changery is a little headspinning[plus, there is a nicer bit of assonance with the present title, rather than investigations, if that counts for anything.], but it seems to be at odds with weasel word policy. I don't know as much about that, though. [[User:Russ a boykin|russ.]] 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Russ, could you do me a favour and use indentation when you write? I have to re-read your sentences 3 times to analyse them. Like this:

<code>

What I'd asserted earlier was that

I agreed with leaving the title as it was before, transatlantic aircraft plot,

and investigations,

while making the title a little clunky in the saying,

was still acceptable;

the only point I was making is that

you seem to be talking about something absolutely verifiable beyond wikipedia,

whereas the policy specifically mentions that,

for example,

you don't need to check if something out of an NYT article is true

[

Speaking of which,

for those of you with a free registration already,

you can see this NYT article where they don't,

and interestingly so given the amount of media PM refers to that adds this qualifier,

preface plot with "alleged." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/europe/20family.html?th&emc=th

].

</code>

I still don't fully understand what you meant, but at least proper indentation saves me a couple minutes of parsing. Thanks. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies about that; I'm new enough in terms of participation that I'm unaware of the standards in conversation here. In any case, do tell where exactly I'm being unclear, and I'll do my best to respond with a concise summary. My main point is that it seems like you're talking about verifiability, regarding the use of alleged, beyond what [[WP:V]] asks. [[User:Russ a boykin|russ.]] 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Ok no problem. In fact, sorry for taking the piss (I couldn't resist) and glad you weren't offended. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading is: we have at least one source saying it's a plot, therefore we cannot question that. Well, the same should apply to "alleged plot" then, surely. The fact is that some sources say "plot", some say "alleged plot". (My impression is that the Brits are being much more conservative, but that's besides the point.) Which is correct? In my view, the version that respects presumption of innocence. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Alledged is more genral and less inclusive, hence less pov. alleged does not exlude factuality. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

==Legal Challenge to the detention of female known a "J"==

This from the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271196.stm?ls] according to the article "The case is expected to go before Mr Justice Collins at the High Court on Monday afternoon." this challenge is under Europian Human Rights Law.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One woman has been released without charge(from the story below) this is probably "J".[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 16:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:No. According to this evening's Six O'Clock news on BBC Radio 4 "J's" Lawyers were in court challenging her detention when news came through that she had been charged with having information which [s]he knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of terrorism. So it seems that J is probably Mehran Hussain [[User:Andreww|Andreww]] 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Some sources say Mehran is Umir's and Nabeel's brother[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2309327,00.html][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14309743/][http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1851116,00.html]. I kind of think Mehran is a male name. More below on the Hussains... [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

==More info from the BBC, Eleven now charged==

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271998.stm this is the story i'm going to add this information now to the article.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The last entry on the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5272264.stm list of charged people] is Mehran Hussain. Is this a new person to our "Suspects arrested in the UK" list? I can't make heads or tails of the Hussains. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/umair_hussain.htm Some sources] say Nabeel, Tanvir, Umair are brothers. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14309743/ MSNBC] says the brothers are Mehran, Nabeel, and Umair. Mehran and Tanvir can't be the same person because both have been charged. Mehran and Nabeel can't be the same because the charge is that Mehran failed to disclose Nabeel's plotting. Which ones are the brothers and how many are there? My head hurts... [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Poll for the title, once and for all. ==

Why bother moving it when we're collecting names for a poll for the title of the article? Anyway, here's the list of names proposed, in order (after the previous and current title). You are free to add more sections, if you wish. Poll should end on the 31st. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' ^{([[User_talk:Sceptre|Take me down to the]] [[Paradise City]])} 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC):

===August 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft plot===

#--[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

===2006 transatlantic aircraft plot===

# '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' ^{([[User_talk:Sceptre|Take me down to the]] [[Paradise City]])} 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

# [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

===2006 transatlantic liquid bomb plot===

===August 2006 airline security alert===

===2006 Plot to create massive delay===

===2006 Airline Wet Bomb Plot===