Being discussed in Newsstand and detailed here, some researchers managed to mix a binary bomb using materials easily capable of being packed in 100ml containers and mixed in a water bottle that could be purchased air-side. Although not explicitly stated in the article, it appears that the ingredients were not mixed in lab conditions.

Among fun quotes in the article:
You'd still need a detonator, but that doesn't seem to be such a big deal to get through.

So are we going to switch to no liquids or a solution that actually tests the liquids versus just trying to control their size?

I think it's a fairly safe bet to say that nothing will be done until and unless someone make a successful attempt to blow up a plane. That's the way the TSA works, isn't it?

but ... but ... all the FT chemistry experts have assured me that this is impossible ...

"The explosive was made by mixing two easily obtainable chemicals that can be carried through security in the permitted 100 millilitre containers.

To a security guard, the chemicals - which the Standard is not identifying and cost only a few pounds - are colourless and odourless and seem like water. They can be easily disguised, if necessary, as toiletries.

Dr Sidney Alford, the leading explosives expert who made the bomb for us, said: "Terrorists could easily make this device. They could obtain access to the chemicals without too much difficulty. They're not particularly tightly-controlled liquids."

I'm still waiting for the identity of these magic chemicals, but as I've said all along, my money is on ETD/ETP catching them (the precursors) and that the x-ray is nearly useless for explosives detection purposes.

Without identifying the two liquids, we have no idea as to the accuracy of the test, whether it was real or staged, or have any other data necessary to assess the real risk.

Again, there are machines available right now for under 200K which can scan the contents of all bottles/containers of liquids/gels, un-opened, without sample prep, in the same amount of time needed to scan a checked bag - implement these machines at checkpoints and you can stop the liquid restrictions AND ensure safety at the same time. The only requirement: customers must drop their liquds/gels into the bin so the scanner can see them.

There is no excuse for not having this technology in place.

And without any word from the "experts" conducting said test (who just happen to be in the business of selling the government things) as to what went on, their statements about how easy it is to obtain, smuggle, and combine the liquids is questionable.

There have been viable binary explosives available for quite some time, and things that are not so sensitive as TATP or nitroglycerine and which don't require the difficulties in combining them (TATP and nitro both need lab-like conditions and a lot of time).

However, these things have, in entirity, consisted of things that are easily detected by ETD. (Most make use of nitromethane as one of the two ingredients, and there's no way ETD, if performed, misses that; any heavily nitrated compound is going to set off alarms left and right at the ETD.)

I can think of a few other ways to make a bomb, but not one that is as destructive or reliable as something like that. For example, some acid with some zinc powder will make a lot of hydrogen gas, which I suppose you could keep bottled up under pressure until you detonate it--but the energy density of hydrogen isn't going to make it an effective explosive (or one easily directed, which is what you need to make one to damage a plane's fuselage).

I'm also not sure of why there's so much fascination on liquid explosives. Solid explosives can be more easily smuggled aboard in this day and age anyway, and there's absolutely nothing being done to catch them. (Unfortunately for us, the first terrorist to come through a checkpoint with a C4 enema is going to make screening a distinctly more unpleasant experience for us all. )


Indeed. I've yet to hear of any plausible explosive that doesn't involve nitrated materials, which are easily caught by ETD. (TATP and other related explosives is often bandied about as being "undetectable" by ETD due to its use of peroxides vs. nitration, but it and its related peroxide-based explosives are way too sensitive and difficult to assemble aboard a plane to be effective explosives... and ETD can be configured to catch their ingredients, too.)

1. Was the yield of this explosive sufficient to cause significant damage? I am not saying that it wasn't. I just want to know the validity of the evidence.

2. I am surprised at all the requests for testing machines, when so many people here have said that they stick their water bottle (not binary explosives, just water) in their pants. If we assume that there is significant danger from 25ml of fluid (4 people could easily collude to combine into 100ml), what level of personal search is necessary to ensure that no one is getting 25ml of unchecked fluid past security?

P.S. - My point is that we simply can't make air travel 100% secure. It is all risk/benefit analysis.

You would do well to consider the source(s): "Channel 4's Dispatches programme and the Evening Standard".

I think I still tend to put more credence in science than the media.

One possible method for screening liquids:


http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/bls.shtm

Think through the ENTIRE airside world... don't just limit yourself to what the bad guys may buy.. or bring... how about the cleaning solvents used at the airside restaurants... want to tell me that they are regulated? Want to tell me that every employee gets a background check? Uh huh...

Also, don't worry too much about chlorine found in Ajax/Comet (or something similar)... that gets through with no problems... of course, any high school chemistry teacher can show you how...

Travel is as safe as we want it to be... it is as safe as we, the traveling public will allow for our convenience.

My question is this... why are we fighting the last battle in the war... over and over again... do you think that the bad guys read Sun Tzu? I do...

Actually the technical part was given credit to Dr. Sidney Alford of Alford Technologies.

The question is "Can you get liquids past security and mix them airside to create a bomb capable of bringing down a plane?"

Muddy can't credibly answer (Im an obscure screen name on the internet just like all of us clowns here). I can however point to Dr. Alford who says the answer is yes. Is he right? I dont know for absolute sure, but he's got my attention and I have no reason to doubt him at this point.

Do you have any any dissenting opinions from a verifiable expert source? (please not an internet handle .. or my cousin's chemistry teacher)

from the article:

And a terrorist could also get onto to the airport grounds at Heathrow, carjack a fuel tanker and kill people on a plane that way too.

My position is that there is no such thing as safety. Safety is just a comforting illusion.

You face more danger when you step into a car than when you step into an airplane. That's never going to change, and because people react emotionally the chances of having less goofball-ish security in airports are slim.

LHR isnt secure???
these guys would probably agree with that:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...est/index.html