If the threat Mr. Alford describes was in fact crediable two things would have happened already.

1) The agencies in question would have completely banned all liquids. This would have been a no exceptions policy and it would still be around. The fact that we have the stupid liquid rule gives at least some creadence that the threat in fact is not credible.

2) Some wacko would have already tried this. The fact that it hasn't been tried in the 1.5 years since the liquid fiasco tells me this isn't credible either.

The threat may be there, but I am not going to live my life running from this potential threat.

Also, I haven't seen it mentioned here, but if you look at the photos of the explosion there are several things that strike me as odd. (I am not an explosives expert). First it appears to me that the "test bed" plane was already cut into pieces before the test. The explosion ripped a 6 foot hole in the fusalage and broke the ribs of the plane. Now from my thinking, a plane that was already cut up would have a nice size hole for the explosive gasses to vent out that it shouldn't have that much pressure left to blow much of a hole in anything. That is unless this was a shaped charge with the force of the blast being directed to the outer hull of the plane. I saw no mention of a shape charge being used, and it doesn't look like they sealed the plane before the test. Thus, I think the explosion might have been enhanced for effect.