The Science Behind the Liquid Restriction
 

New Link to Evolution...
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/scie...ind-3-1-1.html
Doesn't look like anything new here.

In one spot they say H202 plus Tang = boom. In another a mysterious "organic material" plus H202 plus tang = boom.

Seriously? Are we talking consumer H2O2 that's diluted or high concentration stuff not readily available off the shelf?

I smell a Mythbusters test waiting to happen.

Hasn't Mythbusters settled this argument yet? Those guys can make anything blow up. :D

edit: I didn't see the post above this one before posting. :)

Actually, I'm fairly sure it's the highly concentrated stuff that is needed, but you'd never know it from the "reporting".

To me, it's simple. Scare the sheeple so they will be good little people.

Hey, leave the Mythbusters out of this! There's only two possible scenarios: (a) they film a sequence where they bust the myth, then mysteriously disappear forever along with the video evidence. :( Or (b) the TSA bribes/threatens/coerces them to "confirm" the myth and then puts the video "evidence" on its website with great fanfare. :mad:

12344435

You're missing nothing. We've been saying similar things since August 10, 2006.

Junk science makes for really bad (and illogical) policy. Junk science in the hands of liars like Chertoff leads to (deleted - don't want to run afoul of the TOS).

Don't forget about all the airports that allow you to "donate" oversized toiletries for the homeless or some other cause...because it's ok to blow them up if shampoo and conditioner mix in the shower :rolleyes:

I need to start filling out comment cards when i see that again. I think CID had one and i'm going there next week.

The TSA has long been relying upon GW-type fear and ignorance in order to continue application of this 'safety' policy. In reality, the earliest reports after the original 'scare' back in 2006 said all that needed to be said - it was a gross overreaction to a limited threat at the time, and everything since has just added to the compounded stupidity.

What makes matters worse is that almost 2 years into this carry-on restriction, there are still thousands of passengers who every day at every airport in the country pack 'prohibited' items and then throw time-sucking fits at the checkpoints when they aren't allowed to bring their gallons of 'do you know how expensive this was!?' creams and gels through the checkpoint. :confused:

Lieslieslies - all the TSA and DHS are capable of. Screw them both. :td:

Slightly OT-PHX in T3 on the AA concourse has them, in their very own holders & everything, but they are outside of the checkpoint as you exit the concourse to go back down to the main terminal & baggage claim. Not where anyone who is having problems during the screening process would ever see them.

Lovely.

From Anonymous on Evolution...
 

I highly suggest all visit evolution to read the comment including the above line. It is comment number 6, 7 or so.

Don't forget the little boy!:D

i am very impressed by the EXPERT replies
 

Obviously there are lots of chemical engineers and other experts regulary replying in this forum....:rolleyes:

But I imagine at least some of you took at least one class in high school chemistry - it is NOT difficult to make highly explosive compounds from otherwise benign and "innocent looking" ingredients.

Several people carrying aboard the necessary ingredients separately and then combining them could could easily have enough material to create a catastrophic event.

One person with the requisite materials in the limits established while able to create a very unwelcome event probably could not create a catastrophic event unless very very lucky in the placement and resultant collateral damage.

Why is this so difficult for people to accept?

Apparently you stopped at high school chemistry or haven't taken (or taught ;) ) any chemical engineering courses.

You cannot make reasonable explosives by tossing two or more liquids together, unless those liquids are already explosives. However, carrying pre-made nitroglycerin or TATP usually causes premature reaction.

Time (slow mixing) and temperature control are essential to making liquid explosives. I realize your high school chemistry teacher may have omitted this lesson, but there are plenty of other resources available, in addition to the fine compilation on this website.

Got any specific chemical or chemical engineering questions? Feel free to post them here. Don't be shy, use big words. We're here to expose, not obscure, the "liquids threat" for exactly what it is.

okay, explain why I couldnt use hydrazine and amonium nitrate carried in mini liquor bottles and mixed in a Starbucks "frappacino" bottle? obviously because of the smell I couldnt do it in my seat unless the pax around me were already dead - but 5-10 minutes in a lavatory with some breathing aparatus would allow more than enough to cause a catastrophic event.

get one pax to cause a diversionary incident in F while another one or two works in a Y aft lavatory?

come on, its not simple - but it aint really rocket science (in spite of the hydrazine).

The Kippy and Kittle Show
 

You are missing the forked tongue of the Man Behind the Curtain.

The English Eight now on trial were "planning" to use pre mixed whatever in a drink bottle. Just add detonator and boom. Of course, their bombs were made of such highly unstable mixes that the chance of a premature WHOOSH is extremely high.

Kips Khemistry lesson of the day: I say whoosh, not boom. Boom is a high explosive detonation initiated by a detonator. A real high velocity explosion. Concentrated peroxide solutions are unstable. Mixing these things must be done in an ice bath, as they self heat up, which is why the idea of a Jr. Jihadist taking ten pounds of ice into air airplane lav to cool his TATP reaction without being noticed is highly unlikely. If a solution is touched by a catalyst, it instantly can start decomposing and heating up internally. This is a chemical reaction, not a detonation. In a couple of seconds the entire bottle contents heat up to beyond boiling and the bottle ruptures from the pressure. Think of opening the lid of a pressure cooker under pressure. (do not try at home:p) A layman calls it an "explosion", as it makes a big ball of expanding gas and liquid that sprays all over. (My opinion: The English "explosion" video looks like this. If you want to make a similar looking "explosion", take a gallon milk jug full of water and shoot it with a rifle.) This WHOOSH will probably knock the lav door open, and the Jihad chemist and anyone within ten feet will be soaked with boiling peroxide. Nasty. Think about pouring boiling clorox over yourself. But this is NOT a detonation explosion and is not going to blow a hole in the side of the plane. It is called a BLEVE, a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, which can be quite powerful but no where near the power of the same liquid set off by a blasting cap for a true detonation.

However, this is not what the public has been told since the War on Water was declared. The original PR was that the Evil Ones were going to sneak two or more components through security and then mix them.

Quote: "A question raised many times on this blog is how can TSA justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.

We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.

That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items."

Who said that? Nico Blogger of the TSA .
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/so-w...l-of-that.html

Bee Ess. I would not want to work a shift standing next to a trash can holding a liter bottle of 80% hydrogen peroxide. With or without Tang, concentrated peroxide is not a harmless item. Shock can cause it to BLEVE. Like the shock of dropping a bottle of water on it while it "harmlessly" rests in the trash can. Mixing with alcohol can cause it to go off. Hope that confiscated booze and perfume and the peroxide bottle don't leak while in the trash can as they get pounded by confiscated toothpaste. And EPA for sure calls it HAZMAT and it is a federal crime to throw it in the nearest dumpster.

And while on the Kips Khemistry debunking, the TSA blog talks about the “Bojinka Plot”. This was using premade nitroglycerine, which the ETD should detect.

He talks about Korean Air Flight 858 and claims it was causd by "a liquid explosive concealed in a duty free whisky bottle." Another misleading partial truth. Wiki says it was "a liquor bottle containing approximately 700 ml of PLX explosive in an overhead rack in the passenger cabin of the aircraft." PLX is 95% nitromethane, which the ETD will detect. TSA Ed Kittle left off one LITTLE fact: What set off the PLX? A timer and detonator in a radio next to the whisky bottle. Minor little detail: the radio just happened to contain "350 grams of C-4." Kips Khemist Kittle tells the Kettles Korean 858 was kroaked by a "liquid explosive" and does not understand why some of us do not believe any of the other lies that come out of his mouth.

And I can cause a "catastrophic event" with solid, plastic, powdered or gaseous explosives, none of which are likely to be intercepted by the nonsensical liquid drama at the check-point, or likely to need the "diversionary tactics" you're postulating here. Determining explosive capability purely by physical state is a fool's errand, one the TSA (and apparently you) are well suited for. :p

Please tell me you're going to post your Kip Khemistry Lesson the Day on the blog...pretty please??

DITTO!!!!! Make them all squirm a bit. :D

Excellent post! The unstated reason that the trash cans are safe is that the confiscation circus is a 100% perfect DETERRENT to the bad guys trying the liquid explosive trick. So there are no hazardous liquids in the trash, but they have to retain the charade to make sure they bad guys stay deterred.

If the circus ever went away now, the TSA self-congratulatory backslappers figure, terrorists would flood the cabin with all sorts of experimental juices to see what could work. That's can't be allowed to happen - think of the children!

Indeed, and exactly what I've said all along. Solid explosives are much easier for terrorists to handle and use, and there doesn't seem to be some intrinsic "undetectability" to liquids which solids lack.

Astrolite 101, anyone?

Ammonium nitrate is easily detectable by ETD/ETP, just as most explosives are. You can take solid amonium nitrate past the checkpoint without raising an eyebrow since it won't show up on the x-ray. It is water-soluble, and stable.

Hydrazine is extremely toxic. A respirator is a must if you're going to play with it in an open environment. It is unstable, even as a liquid. It is not quite as reactive as nitroglycerin, but anhydrous hydrazine reacts with air and water, and concentrated aqueous hydrazine reacts with air, making it about as practical to cart around in a bottle as nitroglycerin. It can be stabilized somewhat by making the solution more diluted, but now the likelihood of successfully synthesizing Astrolite decreases dramatically.

Using ETP/ETD will detect ammonium nitrate and other nitrates, whether in solid or liquid form. Banning liquids as a reaction to this extremely unlikely successful synthesis of Astrolite is beyond stupid.

I have faith water is a high explosive, yogurt and honey too
 

Junk science is junk, and a waste of time is a waste of time.

sinanju nailed it in another thread: "The bottom line is that the TSA is practicing faith-based security and we're all paying for it."

Acetone and hydrogen peroxide are not detected by the ETD. Mike and Kip so much want to BELIEVE that a high school level London flat kid can smuggle it on a plane and mix TATP in the airplane lav that they HAVE FAITH it is true. Science be daammmnned, their bonus depends on it being true.

No one can ever change a faith-based opinon.

Read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. (He died May 21, 1983. Guess even he did not want to live in 1984.) for more http://www.philosophynow.org/archive...34madigan1.htm

They correctly mentioned the Terror of the Sky was so unstable the government lab had to assemble it by robot. I know how to test it, but it will never happen. Offer any of the defendants a choice: Use anything you want and assemble a bomb out in an open field. (They don't have to set it off until they leave, if they don't want to ;) ) If it detonates, they get out of jail free and a free plane ride to the country of their choice. If it vaporizes premature, well life in prison with no eyes, arms or skin can't be so bad with all those virgins waiting. Think any of them will accept the offer?

And it takes closer to 30 minutes than 10 to mix. You will not be allowed to bring any kind of breathing apparatus into the cabin, the lavatory is not a closed environment such as to contain the odors, so you are going to have to remain conscious amid toxic fumes for longer than you can hold your breath and hope nobody else notices the smell.

And then you still need a detonator.

A suitcase full of ANFO would be a better attempt :rolleyes:

Blog entry has been up for 16 hours now and only 28 comments have been made. I suggest we all get busy over there. @:-)

It was stuck on 11 all day yesterday-I wonder if they are either having 'problems' posting comments again or just aren't approving what they are getting in a timely manner; I doubt they've only rec'd 28 comments re: this.

Regardless of practicing faith based science, I would still advocate for Kips Khemistry Lesson of the Day to be posted-while Kip & Kompany may not believe it, it would be worth it if even 1 Kettle did & finally saw the light (just my opinion, though).

BTW: Astrolite has been around long before the so-called August 2006 "liquid plot" that resulted in the unnecessary, stupid, and scientifically bereft "liquid restrictions" that are in place today. Furthermore, no mention of Astrolite or its components is in play at the London Eight trial.

Conclusion: it should be sufficient to point out just how stupid Kippie's Klown Kemistry is wrt: (magic) peroxide-based explosives.

There is a process used in the jewelry industry for cleaning sterling silver castings which is commonly referred to as "bombing". Under a fume hood, you put the castings in a container of concentrated hydrogen peroxide, and toss in a sodium cyanide egg. There is a loud noise, the peroxide gets extremely hot, and the resulting reaction reduces the copper oxides and cleans the castings. Best done while wearing a rubber apron, face protection and rubber gloves. I imagine that doing something similar in an aircraft lavatory would probably kill all but the most hardy bacteria, and probably ruin the health of the perp.:D

54321

From Ed Kittel, in the linked article:

"Remember, the liquids, gels, and aerosols ban is all about the container and its ability to hold an explosive; it’s not about the original contents."

I think I have missed the explanation about how a toothpaste tube with toothpaste is equivalent to a water bottle. How can a toothpaste tube with a gel or paste be emptied and reused to hold an explosive (or anything else)?

:confused: Yes, Kipster the Tipster has also publicly stated that it's about the container, and I'm sure whoever Ed Kittel is, he unthinkingly accepted the words from on high as sacred.
If the "ban" yes, the "ban" with the umpteen exceptions :rolleyes: is really about the container, then why not ban the containers and not the contents. If it's all about the container's ability to hold an explosive, a roll-aboard can hold mucho C-4 or Semtex, or powdered sugar (which is also an explosive.) If the "ban" is about containers, why, then, are roll-aboards, bags or "containers" of any and all types not banned?
I suspect the moroons who "developed" this policy don't even watch "24" (so it can't be the source of their self parodying silliness)... you'd have to think American Idol stretches their intellectual limit. :mad:

Exactly! If it's the containers (and not the contents) that are the problem, why allow the containers and not the contents? I can and do bring empty bottles on board all the time.

It's like banning banning knife sheaths, but not knives, because knives are dangerous (though that analogy reverses the roles of the container & contents).

And why couldn't it be? It doesn't strike me as all that hard. Squeeze out what you can, then take a very small hose to rinse out the remainder.

The whole thing is a farce, anyway--it doesn't address the possibility of cooperative actions. Send 100 people through with 2 ounces each and you have 200 ounces. One person carries that.

What's missing is a demonstration of being able to make a useable boom under post-security conditions. (Note that you are *NOT* limited to on-board conditions, it could be made airside by a relay of people.)

I don't think that logic and science works with these people. If you bring that into the conversation, you're an "elitist." All they want to do is scare the sheeple and pretend that they're protecting us. Untill the gov't cleans house and stops rewarding idiots with high positions, all the science and logic in the world won't change their policies.

Hmmm, following Kittel's pretzel logic, then why don't they ban all beverages from air side gift shops? I can buy as much water or pop or fruit juice as I want, drink or dump it in the washroom, unlimited containers to do with as I please! :confused:

Cubana 455:Even easier now with plastic tubes instead of metal ones.

My guess is that this is a Kippie-speak way to justify not playing the Hazmat disposal game for real. In his brain, the passengers are "surrendering" containers, which aren't Hazmat. (Sorry -- I know this is a stretch.)

Kabuki Khemistry for the Kettles, today's version
 

It's worse than I thought over at Kip's Kubuki Khemistry Kult.

Over on the TSA Blog, under May 9 comments for "So What Exactly Happens To All Of That Stuff?" is a reply that looks to be written by a TSO, our front line in the War on Toothpaste.

Previous poster question (talk is about TSA employees taking confiscated things like perfume home for personal use) "Yes, but do you LEAVE it in the trash can?"

Answer: "Yes I do. I have no desire to get a reprimand or lose my job. Besides it's not mine to take and the reason it's not flying is to prevent someone from bringing explosives on a plane. How do I know that the item in question is safe? The answer is that I don't. We do separate hazmat items from the trash and dispose of them differently but otherwise they go in the dumpster."

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH. Through screaming for now, continuing:

A TSO can go through the trash and use visual inspection, intuition, ESP, The Force? and determine which bottle is Hazmat and which is water, but they cannot do that with the pax standing there?

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.

He admits some items ARE Hazmat. Is this the Official Policy of TSA: "The answer is that I don't (know it's safe) but they go in the dumpster"? Did the Patriot Act exempt DHS from EPA regulations? If not, every airport is violating EPA hazardous waste disposal regulations DAILY.

The DHS is exempt from everything, Citizen.

Why do you hate Amerika ?

Probably not, but Skeletor did, since he has to power to ignore any laws he chooses to ignore in the interest of "homeland security."

BTW, he's apparently taking a LOT of heat over the border fence and has in fact admitted that it doesn't keep people out (unfortunately, I can't find a link for what I read).