There simply isn't a real reason. There are many chemists and explosives experts who will testify to it. Your contact was taking advantage of your lack of experience in the field.

Note: You have convinced me to change my mind in several critical areas of security.

I wouldn't have done that without some background in security. Unless you convince me you have street creds in the liquid scenario the TSA is using to cow us, I'm simply not going to buy it.

The public are not children, except when the government wants to lie to them. @:-)

I guarantee that if you posted that "secret" you would shortly receive feedback to forever destroy sny confidence in your contact. That is how certain I am of physics and chemistry.

Read what I wrote again. The reason as listed is impossible, according to almost all experts I've read.

The reason I was given was nothing I had ever read about. He showed me video of test done. I was pretty sold.

Caveats - I am no bomb expert. He could have been totally lying to me. The video he showed me could have been dynamite for all I know.

That said, what's his motivation? He had no motivation to lie and he has briefed many LEOs before, including moi. That's his job. There's no benefit in him lying to me. He is no Nazi nor does he support draconian measures in security. He's a rational guy, although maybe a little bit touched (what bomb tech isn't )

I have adopted many FT thought processes in security into my own thinking, stuff I would maybe not have agreed with until I was convinced here. Your arguments Bird were not the least among them.

Ah, so the mutual admiration society closes for the nonce, eh?

No, that's fair enough. I am no expert. An expert convinced me, but I may be lacking some of the critical thinking or experience or education to punch holes into what was demonstrated to me. I acknowledge that. All I say is that I, who don't blindly back the TSA (even if I back them more than most here) was convinced and I went into that meeting 99% convinced the threat was bogus.

I wish I could say. I really do.

But please let me pose a question -

Assume for the moment that the threat IS bogus. It's 100% made up. Why would the TSA do so? What benefit does this give them? There's no advance in authority or (main consideration here for any bureaucracy) funding. Why take on this massive headache?

For the same reason the government had us collecting scrap metal during WWII. It enlists the citizens in the overall enterprise, even if that effort is wasted. We, well some, are given a sense of purpose, a place in the machine.

Note that I've always admitted that explosive liquids exist (as do solids). The focus here has been on liquids, either individually or in combination, that would pass the puffer or swab test, be combined on board, and be destructive enough to take down an aircraft.

Are we still talking about the same thing?

Neither US or EU directives related to the bans are codified in legislation ..... rather they are part of regulations which do a very poor job of definition.

An orange or watermelon -- for example -- would be allowed even though it is an organic container quite full of liquids.

Anyone here ever see someone flush some sodium down the toilet?

I'm not convinced that many people feel that giving up their Perrier is fighting the good fight but it's a theory I haven't considered yet either.....

Sorta but not really.

Obviously if it was carried by multiple people (ie- 3 ounce rule) then it would need to be combined to have enough to make the big bang. I'm not sure if this stuff passes the puffer test. That's one question I didn't ask. My uneducated guess, based upon it's nature, that it probably would.

It would certainly be destructive enough to blow up a plane, if the video demo I saw was any indication.

All I can say Bird is that I am convinced. I may be victim of the old bait and switch here but I don't think so.

Take it for what it's worth.

If the video LawDawg is referring to is the same video I've seen, it's the equivalent of NBC's blowing up the Pinto or whatever car that was. That video has been debunked.

As a geophysicist, I've not had much training in explosives. I could tell you about glaciers, though...

But from what I do know, from my friends in chemistry and physics, from a buddy who works EOD, there is no liquid threat that is otherwise undetectable.

Not the same one. Wasn't a car.

Although I'd like to see a Pinto blown up, personally.

I don't think he was saying that the video was of a car. Hopefully it was not this one.

Perhaps a similar experience to eyecue in post 18 of this thread.

Nope. Not the same video at all.

The videos I've seen are of aircraft....not vehicles. I believe we've seen the same ones, unless you now want to tell me that there weren't aircraft in the videos you saw.

It's wasn't a plane. I think maybe it was a barrel or something similar? I couldn't care, to be honest. What I focused on was the size of the explosion.......

Mmmmmm......not even. Even naked people can smuggle contraband.

To the OP:

Link

True, but <ouch!>