So will you permit frozen solid H2O in a cup through your checkpoint without running an ETD?

And how are those 20 reasons coming?

I have seen pictures of atom bomb testing hundreds of times. I know they exist. I have a basic idea of how they work. I know they are extremely dangerous yet I could never construct one.

Show real examples of liquid explosives of various types that TSA is concerned about. No need to disclose the chemical makeup.

Demonstrate that these devices could be transported to an airplane or mixed on an airplane without going off prematurely or creating such a chemical smell from the mixing of components that attention would be raised.

Proof does not require that means have to be disclosed.

BD, this has been done. Right here in this forum. Several times. There are those who don’t believe their own eyes.

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

And the locals here toss it off as "unlikely", or "he's an experienced explosives engineer" or just plain ignore it. No, its likely. Yes, he has a great deal of experience with explosives, but he built his bomb with commonly available compounds (Tang?). The information / formula is available for anyone who has the curiosity.

Its not going to matter how many times or how much information/proof is provided to the folks, if their minds are closed then they are just not going to believe. Nothing I can do to convince them otherwise. And it does not matter how many times the proof is provided if they choose to ignore it each and every time.

There is only so much the TSA can do. Better to expend the resources protecting the public than attempting to educate those who refuse to be educated.

Ron,

"I would like to see rules that make sense across the board"

means exactly that- the rules read and mean the same to everyone- regardless of perspective, TSO, airport employee, flight crew, or traveling public.

As for "surrendered" H2O annoyance, well, if TSA wanted good PR for the checkpoint process, you would be handing out a replacement bottle. ;)

This passenger made the mistake at Newark of not walking away from the checkpoint when his watch was stolen.

He will have a much merrier Christmas now that he's got his watch back and has been cleared of charges. Wonder how the cleaning guy got to the watch? Could he have been working with a TSA employee?

I think that it is very clear that TSORon is about the same as TSA in ignoring questions. The first one should be simple to answer and the second one was off of a boast over a month ago, so he was asked to name just half of those 40. If he was only able to do one every other day, he should be finished by now. :rolleyes:

Check out November 18th's Bizarro comic.

Ron, detonating an explosive so unstable that it had to be handled remotely proves nothing.

TSA claims there are single part explosives that can be carried by a person and detonated on the aircraft.

TSA claims that multi-part explosives can be taken to the aircraft, combined and then detonated on the aircraft.

Put up some links of videos that support those claims.

And that IB is where we come to an impasse. The rules DO make sense to me, because I DO know why they exist. I have the background, the training, and the education, to see the reasons without a long and drawn out explanation.

No field of specialization has what you might call “clear cut” rules, without the background information necessary to make sense of the need for the rule they are just so much gibberish. Ask a surgeon why he chooses one type of cut over another, why one stitch over another, and without the background needed that explanation might not make much sense. Same for an engineer and types of steel, or concrete, or why one angle is preferred over another.

The rules make sense to me because I have the specialized education and training to understand them. To me its obvious. To you it makes no sense.

I saw nothing remote in him mixing the explosive, or planting it, and anyone who does not detonate it remotely wants to die. I'm sure he didnt mind leaving that part to the terrorists.

Sure there are. TNT, Semtex, C4, just to name a few.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356491,00.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/liquid-explosives.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news175259067.html
http://myprops.org/content/Video-Wat...xplosive-demo/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/wo.../11threat.html
http://news.cnet.com/Liquid-explosiv...3-6104475.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...225032,00.html
http://www.efilmgroup.com/Liquid-Che...d-to-Know.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_465600.html

A fairly simple Google search yielded these results in part. Only one video that I saw, and very much like the one I linked to in an earlier post, but the other news stories all tell the same thing. Liquid explosives are a viable and dangerous threat to civilian aviation.

Now, feel free to ignore the information. You have in the past so I expect nothing different this time. All of this information is available to anyone who cares to look for it. It only takes a few seconds to find and a few minutes to read. And there are still people out there who cannot bring themselves to believe that these chemicals are a serious threat to civil aviation. THAT is what you should find most disturbing.

I find it difficult to believe that wrapped presents can't be screened - the exception might be heavy foil paper. Millions of carryon bags filled with all kinds of dense objects routinely pass through every day, and most are never flagged. How many of them contain things wrapped in paper or shopping bags? :rolleyes:

Two things for this.

1. If I can not make out what the gift is, I have to open it.
2. When I search a bag, I am suppose to search the whole bag, open up the smaller bags inside etc. This would entail having to unwrap the presents.

Bonus point: Heavy foil would not stop an x-ray.

[QUOTE=TSORon;12843676]



I didn't specify a liquid one component bomb but that's what I was thinking.

If TSA is concerned about TNT, Semtex or C4 then why doesn't TSA inspect all cargo loaded on airplanes?


[PHP]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356491,00.html
PHP]

From just one of your sources:

"The other component is a mixture known as HMTD — hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, a chemical cocktail made from readily available household and commercial ingredients. HMTD is extremely unstable and can be set off by heat, movement and even contact with metal."

Now show me an example of either or both of these types of devices being carried on a person and in the case of a multi-component device mixing the parts together with facilities available on the airplane and not creating fumes, odors or needing carefully controlled temperatures.

Ron, no matter how many times you call this video "proof" it doesn't make it proof. I believe my own eyes, as you put it, when I see things in person. I'm inclined to believe my own eyes when I see a video if every effort is made to show continuity and eliminate all other possibilities. But I don't believe that Los Angeles slid into the ocean or that Hawaii melted down last Friday night, even though I saw it on the big screen.

Watch the video with the sound off. Don't look at what the soundtrack is telling you to see, look at what's really there. Here's what I see.

1. Guy pours orange powder into drink bottle. Could be Tang, can't be sure.
2. Guy pours clear-ish liquid into drink bottle. Liquid is labelled H2O2. Could be pure H2O2, can't be sure.
3. Guy shakes drink bottle to combine (unknown) orange powder with (unknown) liquid.
** Screen goes black for a second. (YCTTSFM has mentioned this before. Thanks.)
4. Guy puts a drink bottle against the side of fuselage. Could be the same bottle, or it could be a different bottle. Can't be sure.
** Screen goes black again.
5. Exterior shot of aircraft fuselage. Could be the same one as in shot 4, could be different. Can't be sure. Side of aircraft explodes outward. Could be due to mysterious powder/liquid mix. Or Mr Alford could have put a couple of blocks of C4 or sticks of TNT or anything else in there after the shot of the bottle was taken. Or explosives could have been placed behind the seat we saw in shot 4. Just because there was a bang after the drink bottle was placed, it is NOT proof that the drink bottle was the source of the bang.

Now if they had taken the camera through the interior of the fuselage to show that there was no other explosive source, if they'd shot the whole scene as one continuous shot so things couldn't be changed before the big bang scene, it would be closer to being "proof." They didn't even bother to try.

Do I think that Mr Alford would fake this to convince the UK gov't that liquid explosives are a viable threat, thereby setting up a market for his consultancy? Yes, I do. Do I think the UK and US gov'ts would fake this to cover up the fact that they peed their pants in Aug 06 over what turned out to be a joke? Yes, I do.

But here's my final problem with your "proof." If it's really as simple as orange powder + clear liquid + shake it up + detonator, then it's trivially, absurdly, laughably easy for anyone to take an empty container (allowed), packets of orange powder (allowed) and several 3.4 ounce bottles of the clear liquid (allowed) and recreate the mix shown in the video. In other words, if this is really your proof about liquid explosives, the liquid restrictions in place today do NOTHING AT ALL to prevent it happening.

If you continue to insist that this is proof when it could just as easily be simple video special effects, then it is you whose mind is closed.

Ron, somehow you keep reminding me of the guy with the tool belt from Laverne and Shirley. That kind of confidence.;)