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.

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

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.