|
Originally Posted by studentff
If it were a realistic threat, don't you think they'd make a nice video of someone quickly mixing to harmless-looking flasks and then placing them next to a harmless looking cell-phone before exploding a nice simulated aircraft cabin?
|
Originally Posted by studentff
Your scenario still requires there to be a binary explosive that can be created fairly quickly in a non-lab environment. So far all the chemistry I have heard about post 8/10 has indicated that mixing these things with a fairly high probability of success (success = getting enough explosive to blow up a plane instead of just burning off your own face) at a minimum would require much longer than someone could sit in a lav without drawing attention, would require copius amounts of ice to keep the reactants cooled, and would generate a noxious smell that would attract attention of passengers/FAs.
And pre-mixed liquid explosives (e.g., nitroglycerine) are so notoriously unstable that in large enough quantities they would be likely to blow up in the carry-on bag well before the bad guy ever reached the plane. Not to mention the fact that existing ETD and puffer technology can detect them (and does in fact detect them in heart patients daily). Notice the conspicuous absense of government sponsored demonstrations of the potential threat. If it were a realistic threat, don't you think they'd make a nice video of someone quickly mixing to harmless-looking flasks and then placing them next to a harmless looking cell-phone before exploding a nice simulated aircraft cabin? |
I did wonder about how that they could use basic over-the-counter ingredients and these would combine together to actually perform enough of an explosion. I remember organic chemistryand inorganic chemistry and I don't remember any chemicals which it must you had a huge quantities and the ability to either cool or heat the reagents would you be able to generate a sufficient explosion to cause damage to the plane
|
Originally Posted by stimpy
Unless you stay away from North America and Europe forever, then yes you are part of the "we". I don't support these horrible policies either, but I'm still a legal citizen able to vote and express myself. You can't separate yourself from humanity if you still live amongst them.
Simply put, the whole of humanity (or even just North American and Europe) is not guilty of "[sacraficing] our liberties" just because some or a majority are willing trade it for temporary and illusory security. To suggest that the only way to escape such classification is to flee from one's residence/country of citizenship makes no sense. If anything, I ought to remain here and defend my freedoms and privileges as long as I can. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
It'll take a really stupid terrorist or a miraculously luck airport "security" employee for liquids/gels not to get through the US and EU airports.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I didn't miss the typical muslim-bashing (i.e., "ROP" comment) in the above post. Why am I not surprised that it's here yet again.
It is actually meant as a somewhat ironic reference to the CAIR, MCOB, and other advocacy groups who rush out after the latest terrorist outrage committed by a radical muslim, appear with politicians, and solemnly intone that "Islam is a religion of peace." |
Originally Posted by justageek
You are correct. Every scientist I have seen interviewed has said London the plot could not have ever worked, for the reasons you outline.
I asked a guy at a party who works in the Chem department at the University of Plonk does not, IMHO, constitutes neither an expert nor an interview. It beggars the imagination that otherwise rational people can fail to be afraid of chemicals in a tin can flying 400 mph at 35,000 feet. |
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Ok, if we can only catch the stupid terrorists, we can start there. The option would be to let the stupid ones go?
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Sorry if I offended your sensibilities. Please let me know the last non-muslim to blow up a plane and I'll insult them for a while. I know some good Kurdish, Newfoundland, and Redneck jokes.
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
It is actually meant as a somewhat ironic reference to the CAIR, MCOB, and other advocacy groups who rush out after the latest terrorist outrage committed by a radical muslim, appear with politicians, and solemnly intone that "Islam is a religion of peace."
I heard recently that some baptists came out and said Christianity is a religion of peace too. Right after some baptists blew up a car with an illegally acquired landmine and injured the vehicle occupants and killed some shoppers on the side of the road. Are you referring to Christianity as the ROP too? ;) |
Originally Posted by studentff
And pre-mixed liquid explosives (e.g., nitroglycerine) are so notoriously unstable that in large enough quantities they would be likely to blow up in the carry-on bag well before the bad guy ever reached the plane.
Originally Posted by studentff
Notice the conspicuous absense of government sponsored demonstrations of the potential threat. If it were a realistic threat, don't you think they'd make a nice video of someone quickly mixing to harmless-looking flasks and then placing them next to a harmless looking cell-phone before exploding a nice simulated aircraft cabin?
What does amaze me is that the MSM haven't shown half a dozen ways to blow up a plane or fill it with poison gas using common household chemicals. Perhaps they have a remaining scintilla of good sense because they fly a lot?
Originally Posted by studentff
I am still not convinced that the "liquid threat" is credible outside minds of the paranoid risk-averse nervous nelies making decisions in the TSA.
Originally Posted by studentff
And if the bad guys have someone on the inside in the airport, none of the passenger restrictions matter, because the inside guy can just give the terrorists whatever they want including much safer explosives like dynamite and C4.
Originally Posted by studentff
TSA: reprogram your ETD machines to detect these so called explosive precursors, screen liquids/containers instead of banning them and encouraging thousands of travelers to smuggle them anyway, and let us get on with our lives!
I've flow seveal times since the ban inside the country and my life is just fine, thanks. |
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
What does amaze me is that the MSM haven't shown half a dozen ways to blow up a plane or fill it with poison gas using common household chemicals. Perhaps they have a remaining scintilla of good sense because they fly a lot?
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Dude, if they gave you the job of risk assesment at the TSA you'd be just as nervous inside a week.
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Heh, "safer explosives," that was good. My wife will be horrified when I use that expression. Employee screening terrifies me, actually.
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Wonder if they have thought of that?
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
I've flow seveal times since the ban inside the country and my life is just fine, thanks.
|
Originally Posted by stimpy
In the Euro WSJ this weekend there is an article saying that it is likely that the EU will try to adopt rules in line with the US and UK for liquids and gels. Thankfully Ms. Francoise Humbert, of the Association of European Airlines said that an outright ban would be totally unrealistic. But she did say they would accept a 150ml maximum for onboard items which would allow small toothepaste and deoderants, etc. More technical discussions on the topic will happen next week.
Separately they agreed on a new EU-wide requirement for all laptops to be removed at the checkpoint for scanning. These recommendations would then have to be adotped into law by the EC. |
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
What is stupid about trying to plug a security hole? Do you want to be on a plane where a ROP'er has smeared sterno all over the inside of the loo and lit it on fire?
|
Originally Posted by essxjay
Mmm ... the argument doesn't work. You're committing a fallacy of composition: concluding that parts of a whole with a particular property means that the whole also has that property, e.g. Genus: humanity; Differentia: (i) security appeaser | (ii) liberty defender.
Simply put, the whole of humanity (or even just North American and Europe) is not guilty of "[sacraficing] our liberties" just because some or a majority are willing trade it for temporary and illusory security. To suggest that the only way to escape such classification is to flee from one's residence/country of citizenship makes no sense. If anything, I ought to remain here and defend my freedoms and privileges as long as I can. |
150 ml is better than zero, but still not enough to make travel reasonably easy. I can't even find a bottle of contact lens solution less than 120ml, which leaves 30 ml for toothpaste, deoderant, hair product, water and such?
|
Originally Posted by Doppy
150 ml is better than zero, but still not enough to make travel reasonably easy. I can't even find a bottle of contact lens solution less than 120ml, which leaves 30 ml for toothpaste, deoderant, hair product, water and such?
|
Originally Posted by stimpy
We are all part of the whole, no matter what the differentia.
Originally Posted by stimpy
What's next is that we will continue to sacrifice our liberties (that so many died for) to gain temporary illusory security. As such, we shall have neither and deserve neither
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.