stupid enough to not use clean sealed containers for explosives? I dont know ... I suppose some would be that stupid ... others not ...

by ingredient x, I thought you were refering to the unamed ingredient that causes methyl nitrate to explode as soon as they are mixed

It's still much simpler to get an effective solid explosive past the checkpoint on one's person than to fuss with a binary. Why mess with liquids at all, if they require detonators (the binaries based on nitromethanes and related compounds do)? The ones that don't tend to be unstable enough to make them unsuitable, or take too much work to assemble effectively once airside.

I need to look into methyl nitrate in greater detail, but from what I've read, it is not going to be an explosive of choice for would-be terrorists on planes. It's too sensitive and too volatile, as well as being toxic; those properties make it difficult to secret aboard as a normal consumer product and then combine later into a large enough volume to be effective. And, it's a nitrated compound and as such should set off the ETD if checked.

Dr. Alford is trying to maintain the hysteria about liquids explosives in order to sell his products or services to the UK government (and to the USA as well, I'm sure). He doesn't seem to be pointing out anything new with his suggestions--we talked here about nitromethane-based binaries way back in 2006, and you can bet government authorities have as well.

So then either advocate for a COMPLETE BAN on all liquids (since the current restrictions would let this one through) or don't fly. Your choice.

Meanwhile, you're more likely to die on the way to the grocery store.

nah ... Im not afraid to fly with or without a liquids ban ... I don't put my head in the sand and pretend threats don't exist either ...

Any reasonably strong oxidizing agent will do the trick from what I understand. Maybe bleach would work.

And I don't pretend that the likelihood of those threats happening, with or without bans, is higher than winning the lottery either.

and who will protect bus or train or metro passengers?
I mean, a plane can have up to 500ish passenger...Hitting a long, busy tube train may take a lot more people out...
Obviously, those designing these "clever" measures are unlikely to be found in any public transport outside of commercial aviation...

dont forget the public water supply ... and the air we breathe ...

Did they actually state the ingredients in the BB, if not this sounds like another scare tactic by someone paid by TSA to keep this farce going.

566 days of code orange keeping the "threat" level this high causes a desensitization IE cry wolf. Good work TSA keep the poor work up because no one believes you anymore, no matter what spokeshole you use.

This in no way justifies the idiotic ban on liquids and gels and x-rayings of limited quanities of liquids by people who are willingly complying with the requirement.

For those who defend the "war on liquids" at airports, perhaps they should shove a plastic tube of prohibited amounts of liquid or gel into areas covered by their underpants and see how often they get caught.

The current "war on liquids" nonsense are a waste since the standard security procedure in place at US and UK airports will fail to catch them most of the time when concealed on person in areas covered by underwear; and x-raying liquids and gels does not identify the nature of the liquid or gel.

In other words, whatever this Alford did, there is no defence for the current nonsense "war on liquids".

Putting one's head in the sand: worrying about the improbable while ignoring more probable threats.

You are so right - and I have a really difficult time understanding why others, i.e., the Kettles of the world, don't see this. Your automobile is so much more likely to cause your death than any aircraft, even if we were to do away with screening altogether.

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.

Found this interesting: http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk...29/111147.html

Looking for new markets?