Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Merger proposal

The 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.

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.

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.

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

 Done 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.

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. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• 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
• 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 message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

'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.'

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.

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?

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

My suggested alteration would be as follows:

'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.

'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.'

That makes more sense to me.

Have I got this right?

If so, let's update that section.

Eric Colvin (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Update needed

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.

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.

I also think the relevant sentence should be moved from the lead to somewhere in the body of the article. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2025 (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". Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Clarification about the announcement between BA and BAA

In section 7.2 (Controversy over the alert), the first two paragraphs begin as such:

On 12 August a public argument broke out between BAA, the operator of Heathrow and other airports, and British Airways, …

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?

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.

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