"Liquid explosive" damage on the BBC
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm

Ok so NOT a binary liquid but still a pretty nasty bang.

Of course you can create an explosion using liquids. That does not mean you should restrict all liquids on board airplanes.

You can also create an explosive using solids, but taking solids on airplanes does not require 3 oz recipients and anti-explosive zip-lock baggies.

And explosives exiat as mallable plastics and solids and gasses (and powders). I'm sure someoine at TSA HQ is working on a plan to ban solids from items brought aboard aircraft. :rolleyes:

In other words, completely irrelevant to the 'plot'; and not prohibited between Korean Air (1987) and 2006.

Mind the Gap(s)
 

Does the BBC clip look excessively edited to anyone besides me? The way it plays on my browser has more cuts to blackscreen than The Blair Witch Project. I can understand BBC wanting to avoid criticism of ostensibly showing a "how-to" clip, but there are so many gaps I don't find it credible.

Impressive bang? Yeah. Enough continuity to connect the orange liquid in the Oasis bottle to causing the bang? Nah.

All I see (via a decent-speed FIOS connection) is a never-ending spiral thingy. Such bombs must be really powerful if that's what remains of an aircraft after they explode.

Perhaps the bombs only work in the UK.

Could that have been the "Tang" bomb I have heard so much about? Orange powder, into a liquid, hmmm. Certainly binary, and it sure looked like a liquid to me.

Any further questions about liquid explosives? Ask the OP, he does not work for the TSA.

If you cruise BBCs site you can find more of the videos that show more angles and such. There are like 4 different versions of this video floating in their ether. This was a test conducted specifically for BBC, so if you question this, you are questioning the integrity of BBC (one of the oldest and most respected news organizations in the world)... Another point to make is, this is being done in an open section of an airplane, this does not simulate the increase in pressure and compression that would occur in a plane at, say, 30k feet. The resulting explosion would be quite a bit more nasty than this one.

Again:

Sure, you can make an explosion with liquids.

You can also make an explosion with solids, or gases.

Why are liquids specifically limited (but not really limited) on airplanes?

Why limit a whole specific state of matter, instead of testing for specific, potentially explosive, chemicals?

Because Kip Hawley is an idiot. I'm surprised I have to explain this.

You doooo realize that Kip is no longer here right?

The solids are fairly easy to test and determine on xray. Gases have to have some form of container that withstands pressure, fairly easy to pick those out on xray. Liquids are a whole different ball game and clearing them is harder, more expensive, and really time consuming at this point. I agree with you that better tech to test for more threat possibilities would be fantastic! I would love to have an xray that alarms on things that are boom making and clears things that aren't, but they are not really available at this point.

He left much of his idiocy behind.

TSA proves it every day!

Interesting post.

Since we can tell by TSA's liquid rule exceptions that only pax' liquids are of concern, we typical pax, when we need to transport a liquid, usually adapt to your agency's actions by checking said liquids. If liquids are really a concern, how do you clear the liquids that are in checked baggage without using "harder, more expensive, and really time consuming" methods. Or do the exothermic capabilities of liquids change if in the baggage compartment rather than the pax compartment?
Why can't the protocol that makes checked liquids safe be applied to liquids brought into the cabin?

And, BTW, your agency did have a tool that is effective at detecting explosives by their chemical properties. These were the puffers, but apparently TSA could not effectively maintain said devices at an acceptable reliability level. No it's not the X-ray machine you write of, but TSA seems unable/unwilling to accept that X-ray technology does have limitations.

Not only does his idiocy remain, but his successor apparently shows no inclination to dismantle a jobs program for tens of thousands of people, or give up $6+ billion in funding.

Government does not shrink.

Of course. But the nonsensical liquids policies he implemented remain in place.

Most of the baggage areas have different screening methods and better tech. The equipment in baggage is usually quite expensive, so it can't be placed at all checkpoint areas (although it would be nice wouldn't it?) The bag is also unavailable to the passenger (which limits some interactivity). I really want to know what an endothermic liquid would be.... sweet, maybe it could take the place of my air conditioner eh? Anyway, the puffers had many problems with dust and enviornmental contaminants, maintenance, etc, and became to costly to maintain at effective levels. I actually think the agency has admitted the limitations of the xray by taking steps like this and using the trace detection equipment. Nothing is foolproof, all aspects of the screening have faults and shortcomings, that is why we use several different (to quote agency speak) "layers" of security.

And Gail Rossides is an idiot for continuing his idiocy. :td:

So you don't think it likely that a evildoer would check his liquid bomb and have a remote detonator in his pocket that looked like a pen.

I really feel safe now!

Because the ONLY threat the TSA seems to recognize or care about is the one at the passenger checkpoint. Checked bags are given a cursory glance (unless there is something worse stealing) and cargo gets on board almost totally check-free. Through-the-fence contractors have almost free, unfettered access to aircraft where they can hide God knows what.

There is ample proof that all the TSA is after is a public display of 'security' (hence security theater) which will keep the public satisfied and their funding stream alive. They likely would care less if a cargo bomb went off and took out an airliner.

The sad part is the number of screeners who actually believe the X-Ray machine can detect the presence and content of liquid explosives. The organization is rotten from the top down and everything in between. It is beyond saving at this point.

Well, I didn't phrase it explicitly enough. Not to get overly technical, but IIRC, it's the reaction the substance(s) undergoes(go) that is either exothermic or endothermic. Obviously the postulated reaction from a given detonated explosive has effectively the same exothermic result whether it's in the cargo hold or the passenger compartment, even allowing for slight differences in the heated, pressurized atmosphere in the cabin vice the cargo hold.
A good, everyday example of an endothermic liquid reaction would be the passenger held (not OK for air travel in the passenger compartment) water, that will undergo an endothermic reaction when boiled. Any liquid requires heat of vaporization to change state to vapor/gas. H2O makes a lousy refrigerant, though a theoretically possible one.

And you believe the equipment used in baggage at any airport can differentiate between explosive and benign liquids?

It's also really telling that any mention of costs from TSA or individual TSO's comes to what the testing equipment would cost the agency. Apparently the cost to pax of throwing away completely harmless liquids, of buying the airport $4 per bottle "screened" water vice the Albertson's $1.49 a skid brand, of the time spent (and expense to the airlines) of dealing with checked bags that would have been perfectly safe in the cabin is apparently not worthy of mention. :mad:
A more rational policy is apparently being implemented with powders. Perhaps someone could consider adapting this to liquids.

Links, please? Other "versions" I'm finding are much older than yesterday.

Ohhhh noooo, I questioned one of the most respected news organizations in the world. :eek: As a citizen, voter, and general participant in life, that's my job. I would be derelict to uncritically trust "authorities" whatever their nature.

The New York Times has been scammed, the Pulitzer committee has been scammed, but BBC is immune? Even skilled and dedicated journalists will have a few deficits in knowledge, experience, and time.

Generally I have a good opinion of the BBC; having family and friends in the UK I surf it regularly, as well as other UK news media. My point was that lack of continuity fails to prove the orange-filled Oasis bottle was placed, alone, in the fuselage and produced that explosion unassisted. Perhaps it did; but what is shown leaves plenty of room for other possibilities. If I were seeing this as a juror, my reasonable doubt would not be overcome.

As I said in my first post, BBC may well have edited the visuals for "responsible" reasons. Regardless of justification, these cuts greatly weaken their strength as "evidence."

That an open-ended fuselage section at ground level does not replicate conditions of a pressurized cabin at cruising altitude is beside the point. Even the explosion shown could bring down an aircraft. That's not in dispute.

The question is, did that orange liquid in the Oasis bottle, absent any other apparatus or assistive detonation, cause the damage we see?

Exactly! Here in the 21st century, any video "evidence" must be taken with a large grain of salt. Especially when the "scientific expert" is a government consultant whose livelihood depends on convincing the authorities (and by extension, the taxpayers) that there's a threat to be countered.

OTOH, the BBC does keep us up-to-date with the true life adventures of Dr Who. I don't understand why the TSA is more worried about powders than about Cybermen. ;)

Sidney Alford who ran this experiment is an adviser to both the British and U. S. governments...

I always believe every video that I see on TV. :rolleyes: Including the the Dateline piece on the exploding gas tanks on GM pickups. Of course, it was later determined that Dateline rigged the truck with explosives to make sure it would blow up. :td:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawa...ch19930301.asp

GAK! I was trying to make a joke! :D

Never said that, as a matter of fact that is one of the most espoused theories. It is also one of the most difficult to counter, hence the more expensive equipment in many o fthe bag areas.


Some of the xray machines out there can detect a difference. Several of these are in use by MANY groups worldwide, including TSA. If you actually think anyone for the agency wants some sort of an incident with cargo, then you are probably cynical beyond help. At this point the agency is still on track to screen 100% of cargo by the congressional mandate. That may change, but as of now TSA is still on track to achieve that goal.

(emphasis mine)
Which does absolutely no good if the evil-doer ships the bomb package as cargo through an airline cargo desk, most of which allow the shipper to see which aircraft their package will actually be assigned to ride and are not, to date, fully secured and inspected prior to placing items in the hold.

I BTD, it's easy to counter. If TSA actually believed the cr*p it spews, it would, in the interest of flight safety, ban liquids (>100ml) from aircraft cargo holds, as well. It doesn't because airlines would scream too loud as cargo income transferred over to FedEx, and because TSA knows this isn't about logic, it's about theatre.
Instead, the more expensive equipment that apparently detects explosive liquids in bag areas would be installed at pax check-points in lieu of uniform upgrades or shiny new badges. TSA doesn't because it would rather spend money in a futile attempt at image polishing, or because the moment of separating pax from liquids is deemed to be one that convinces some traveller somewhere that we have an effective airport security policy. :rolleyes: Like I said, theatre and poor theatre at that. :td:

There are no X-Ray machines in existence that can detect the chemical composition of a liquid. None. Nada. That's not what X-rays do.

There ARE machines out there that can - these are separate add-ons and I blogged about them here (even providing a link to the vendor) almost two years ago. They are not overly expensive, can test without a sample prep, are highly accurate and require little in the way of passenger inconvenience.

I believe the TSA has bought a few of these, or similar machines for testing - but in no way does the X-ray portion of the bag screening device or any of the standard X-ray devices there which lack this add-on detect the presence of a binary explosive compound.

I didn't say the TSA wants a cargo-sourced incident - but their ridiculously unbalanced approach to threat management clearly indicates to me that an incident caused by a cargo explosive is not on their list of priorities, and it should be their number one priority as it's the easiest attack to carry out.

The entire TSA security apparatus is focused on three things:

1. prevent another 9/11
2. prevent another shoe bomber
3. prevent a liquid bomb attack

1. has already been taken care of by procedural and structural changes. 2. is not a credible threat, and it's a threat that could manifest itself in any number of places other than shoes, and 3. was never a credible threat to begin with - the science has proven that it's functionally impossible to prepare a liquid bomb on board or to prepare it ahead of time and transport it to the aircraft without it either detonating ahead of time or going benign en route.

These 'controlled lab' demos to "prove" the viability of a liquid explosive are nonsensical when applied to a non-controlled test.

The first link is the video shown in the court in London during the trial. It is simply a demonstration of the capability of this type of bomb.

http://a.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=4846354&page=1

This one is actually a demonstration of how you could take enough through in a baggie to blow a hole in a plane. It isd actually fairly compelling for a complete ban or deployment of more tech to counter this capability.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...fKuqSVAw&hl=en

The last one I have is the only version of this event that I can find now. There is a longer version that is like 4 minutes long that I can't find right now. It has a camera angle across from the bottle and another one at the back of the plane looking forward. This demonstration took place in 2008, by Dr. Sidney Alford. If you pay attention, even he is surprised at just how effective the bomb was (you get varying yield based on mixtures). I wish I could provide you the other link, but I can't right now (maybe I will find it later). This is the same video posted this month on BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm

Dr Alford and BBC, and ABC have nothing to gain by posting fakery or things like that, quite the opposite, they have a ton to lose if they post junk. I was not harping on you for questioning, merely pointing out that they have no reason to decieve.

I agree, but the agency is moving towards 100%. That is all I have to give you on that.

This should have been done by 2002/3 - there is no excuse for 'moving towards 100%' in 2009/10. On top of that, I highly doubt they will meet the Congressional mandate with a process that comes close to being effective.

They will do the bare minimum to meet the mandate regardless of whether or not the process is effective or efficient so they can continue their dog and pony shoe at the checkpoint.

Ok, what I am referring to as an Xray (CTX) has a CT component to it, that works in conjunction with the xray. That has the ability to tell the difference. I was not specifying that, but ok, there you go.

The organization is moving towards the 100%, I have nothing else to give you on that, because it is not in my sphere of influence.

1. Remains an impossibility because of the new policies (if all involved respond the way they are supposed to). The most likely scenario will involve an IED blowing the plane up or killing a handful of people near the bomber.

2. Remains a viable threat. The best way to screen the shoes is xray.

3. Is a viable threat. Watch the videos I posted earlier in the thread, there is even one that details how simple it would be to circumvent the screening in place now. This makes a fairly compelling case to ramp up the tech or ban all LAG. I want the tech rolled out to help the checkpoint, but that is not in the budget right now. When it is, I think we could see some constructive direction on the ban.

Nonsense. Planes did not fall from the sky thanks to shoe bombs when the shoe carnival was not mandatory before August 2006, when TSA completely lost its mind; nor are they falling from the sky thanks to shoe bombs in any of the other countries that do not have a mandatory shoe carnival. There is no threat from shoes, and when TSA says that there is such a threat, it is lying.

But can you not see that the increasingly intrusive policies at the checkpoints while cargo is still not 100% is like putting more expensive locks on your front door while the back door has a huge hole in it? If someone can walk through the back of the house, more locks at the front doesn't add a layer, it's just stupid and expensive.

As I pointed out over here, in July 2007 Kip Hawley said there would be a solution to this "in the near future." In October 2008, Blogdad Bob said it would "Fall 2009." Now USAToday quotes your people saying "at least another year."

So first of all, why has TSA been making these promises for over two years if, as you say, there's no budget for the technology? And secondly, if for the third year it's still at least another year away, why should we believe that this will ever be deployed? It's just as likely that in 2015 your management will still be saying "next year we plan to deploy technology for liquids." :rolleyes:

Shoe bombing is not a viable threat. Never was. One lone loonie tried it unsuccessfully. Others tried bra bombs and could have had greater success - so why isn't every woman being disrobed, patted down or x-ray'd? Isn't that a viable threat too? Or we only rank our threats based on how palatable the screening process is for people?

Liquid bombs are not a viable threat. You're ignoring the fact that liquid explosives need highly controlled environments for mixture and transport. This stuff can't be cooked up in someone's apartment, tossed in a shampoo bottle, carried to the airport, taken on a plane and then detonated undetected. It doesn't work that way.

These lab and controlled demos are useless. Show me a demo where someone creates such a bomb in a totally uncontrolled environment using accessible ingredients, is transported just like any baggage and then detonated in a way which would not be detected by others and stopped.

There is a viable threat from shoes. To ignore a threat this simple is stupid and irresponsible. There is no lie in taking steps to prevent a simple process that can cause an explosion.

Other than Richard Reid, please point to another country with planes falling out of the sky due to shoe bombs. Even Canada allows you to fly everywhere, except the US, while wearing your shoes. It is a myth and a lie told often enough doesn't magically become the truth.

As far as cargo, I don't understand the problem or hold up other than logistics. The only info I have at this point is we are on track to be 100% by our mandate. I can't give you anything else on that because I don't have it. I will agree with you that the cargo is a soft spot right now, and we do need the 100% screening asap.

I have no info on the plans for rollout of the new tech. I know that there are probably some problems with testing (they have to test the equipment in a location that is consistent with a checkpoint), and I know there are problems with money. Again, I have nothing else to give you on what is holding up the deployment of the tech other than what I can think of that seems to be a normal reason for delay.