That article you linked is just one big causal fallacy. It claims that the TSA admitted that the liquid ban was bullshit, citing a Slate article which does not

That article you linked is just one big causal fallacy. It claims that the TSA admitted that the liquid ban was bullshit, citing a Slate article which does not itself even quote the TSA lol. I'm not a chemist, but I'm under the impression that the liquid explosives in the 2006 plot are a much more feasible approach to explosives than what the shoe bomber attempted. I'm also not going to pretend like I have any idea how effective any of these security measures are, I'm only explaining that I'm under the impression that there's at least a real precedent for them. I don't know what the solution is to terrorism in air travel, but it's a very hard problem and the liquid limit isn't something that personally bothers me that much -- who wants to carry around full bottles of shampoo and shower soap and whatever else anyway?