Originally Posted by
JamesBigglesworth
Knowing something about explosives, having been paid to play with explosives in a professional sense in the past, I'd disagree on the plan being viable. To me, viable means being able to assemble and place the explosives and have them have a reasonable chance of detonation at the desired time.
The plot, as described, does not feature those attributes IMO. They are far (far!) more likely to have blown themselves up prematurely while trying to assemble the final device - basically, a squib detonation that would likely only burn (maybe kill, if they were unlucky (or lucky, depending on perspective)) them and do minimal damage otherwise. In the context of a plane, still potentially dangerous, but no more so than the idiot shoe or undies bombers. If they tried to assemble it airside in the sterile area then no real threat at all.
I would strongly suggest you never go into the field of risk assessment if that's your definition of "viable".
Well, lets see: the bombers were arrested while they were actively assembling the bombs, at that point in time they easily could have brought the bottles onto the plane, and they had already detonated such bombs in training. So what else was needed for the plan to be considered viable?
That the explosive material can be volatile and requires careful handling really doesn't mean the plan didn't have a reasonable chance of working. Because it has been demonstrated time and again just how effective it can be:
TATP was used by the 7/7 bombers to murder 52 and injure nearly 800. More recently, it was also used in the Paris 2015 bombings. And in the 2016 Brussels bombing to murder 32 people. And in the 2017 Brussels bombing. And to murder 23 in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. And it has been used in untold number of incidents around the world, such as to murder 15 in Surabaya, Indonesia.
To be fair, the delivery device and format of the explosive was different than in those attacks, but it is the same explosive and the device and format would have easily passed through security.
Viability <> probability. And reasonable <> highly probable. Viability is commonly defined as "capable of working successfully; feasible." Common synonyms are: workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable. Which is essentially what I gave as my definition. Your use of an alternative definition does not justify an ad hominem attack.