:Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=702221156 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205123747/http://www.dawn.com:80/2006/09/01/top11.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/01/top11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208194823/http://www.rawstory.com:80/news/2006/Sources_August_Terror_Plot_Fiction_Underscoring_0918.html to http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sources_August_Terror_Plot_Fiction_Underscoring_0918.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=783862812 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090327042820/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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 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.

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

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

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)