someone alluded to that earlier ... but I can't see it ... what specific services would he be trying to create a need for?

Bomb-proof trash bins at the airport to replace the plain ones into which all the "dangerous" liquids are tossed into? Just for starters...

Doesn't have to be specific. Just keep the Great Liquid Threat ramped up and his kind of general business will naturally increase, or at least maintain status quo.

We have yet to see a test carried out by a completely independent body. One that does not have a vested interest in 'security' (ie. DHS or DfT), or in direct profit therefrom. I don't know who approached whom for this particular demonstration, but I personally don't trust either the media or a business which has a dog in the fight.

The liquids wouldn't be dangerous without a detonator. That's the threat being looked for, not dangerous liquids per se.

Also remember that a tragedy at an airport is a tragedy, but not necessarily a national security concern, whereas something happening in a nation's airspace is very much a national security concern. This is the same way my house blowing up doesn't affect national security whereas the White House blowing up does.

And who draws the line on what is merely a tragedy and what constitutes a "national security concern"?
I take it that an urban bus being blown up by terrorists would be relegated to the level of "local security concern"?
What about a train? Would that be a "regional security concern"?

Really? Toss some bleach and ammonia into the trash and see what happens.

I can think of many "more tragic" casualties than losing the White House and its current occupants.

I'm sure Dr. Alford's company will be willing to sell (or subcontract out for) more than just the disposal bins. He's still stirring up fear to drum up business. After all, we on FT's TS&S forum discussed binary explosives involving nitromethane way back in August of '06 at the outset of the water carnival, so I'm sure the notion Dr. Alford posits that such bombs pose a risk is not news to the government security folks (unless they're far more incompetent than we make them out to be).

But that open trash cans are used to collect & dispose of confiscated liquids goes a long way toward showing how non-credible the governments find the threat of a liquid bomb. Some of the liquids proposed do not require a detonator (things like TATP or other peroxide-based explosives, for example). Others are toxic enough in and of themselves that dumping them into a bin open to the air poses a health and/or fire hazard to everyone at the checkpoint.

The government(s) involved apparently feel the threat to be so miniscule that the risk of someone's would-be explosives being poured out is able to be ignored. In other words, they know that a trash can filled with, for example, methyl nitrate is a disaster waiting to happen, but don't feel that it's ever really likely to end up in the bin.


In the case of a hijacking, I'd buy that argument, because of the whole guided missile aspect. But in terms of a terrorist wanting to blow up a plane in mid-flight, it's back to a tragedy, albeit a nasty one.

Jargon check on Aisle 1, please. :-:

Does it affect the security of the nation? If so, then it's national security. If not, then no, it's a local matter.

That's pretty much my take on it, at least.

Re-read my second sentence.

And you could do that with any acid and base combo in the parking lot, at the counter, the bathroom, baggage claim, etc. ad nauseum. So what? Again, it's not a national security concern until it hits the airspace, as a rule (unless it's a WMD, etc.)

C'mon Spiff, stop sugar coating it. Tell me how you really feel.

Suppose we agree on that.
What is your definition of "security of the nation"?

I see and understand your points, but what is blowing up, exactly, and where? If it's, say, radioactive and over a city, we could be back to national security issue again.

That which negatively impacts it's ability to survive or does serious harm to it. This might cover such areas as economics, infrastructure, physical security, etc.

My main point is air space security is strategy 101 and is the most heavily scrutinized of every major country in the world. No one allows things to go on in it's airspace if they can help it.

Yes, although if we've got terrorists carrying dirty bomb materials aboard planes, we've got more to worry about than the water carnival, too.

(And at that point, a dirty bomb on the ground becomes a national security threat as well; set one off in lower Manhattan or on the National Mall and you've achieved the same goals, largely--and perhaps more effectively so--than setting it off in the air.)

How well-scrutinised are takeoffs from small airfields? Are pilots scanned for explosives etc?

And some radioactive explosion can't happen in a tube train? How well are these scrutinised?