Originally Posted by
Spiff
My credentials are more than a passing knowledge and understanding of chemistry, plus an unwillingness to accept explanations like "magic" or proof by authoritative statement.
I appreciate the response. I think my point remains: I'm not going to get upset about having to leave my toothpaste behind because some guy (or gal) on the interweb with a "more than a passing knowledge and understanding of chemistry" says it is pointless. I'm not so rabidly anti-government that I'll ignore everything they say. You seem to come from a different angle, which is fine, but I find your implicit claims to scientific knowledge to be unsubstantiated.
Originally Posted by
Spiff
Again, if you want to discuss specifics I am more than happy to have a discussion on any technical level you like over in TS&S.
I'll pass as I was hoping to be more impressed with your qualifications and was hoping that your concerns were based upon positive evidence about the possibilities of chemical explosives, rather than repetition of "prove it" as the substance of your discussion. That goes double when I get a very strong sense that no amount of proof would ever satisfy you.
Originally Posted by
Spiff
Dynamite or C4 is believed to be the explosive used; both are easily detectable with ETP/ETD. Got any thing else?
I have that it was 30 years ago. I suspect terrorists have learned a thing or two.