I don't think that's the question at all. I may be wrong, but to me, the ultimate issue is whether aircraft hull destoying explosive power is exclusively available in liquid form. If, as I believe, solid, powdered or gaseous explosives can produce enough explosive power to destroy a plane in flight, then it's obvious that an effective airport security regime would focus on finding explosives, not on finding liquids. The TSA's response to the information linked here has been to focus exclusively and totally on any and all liquids, when ETD technology was already available at the check-point, and could have been effectively used to detect any explosives, whatever their physical form. The TSA response was no more intelligent or effective than concluding, after seeing the linked info, that all orange colored mixtures must be surrendered at the check-point. Trying to determine what is explosive based on its current physical state is about as effective as using eye of newt to cure cancer.
Explosives detection is frequently done in other, vital circumstances by looking for traces of explosives, not by checking physical form. If TSA wasn't so much about appearance rather than substance, they would be out there learning how other security sensitive enterprises detect explosives, prevent their puffers from clogging up, and would not have to resort to futile rules to detect irrelevant charcterisitics, so actually accomplishing less than nothing.