Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the Newstand

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...exploding.html

My favorite section:
"The device, made from an Oasis soft drink bottle, had to be put together with a remote controlled arm at a government laboratory because the mixture was so volatile, a jury heard."

And the TSA thinks this stuff can be mixed in the airplane lav??

Let's see Jason Bourne could get past security without every being checked; Michael Weston can hop a fence onto the ramp undetected; James Bond would be able to sweet talk his flask past the TSA; Chuck Norris could just kick open the cockpit door; Macgyver could disable the plane with a Bic pen a rubber band and some Big Red gum.

......let's see the TSA stop them!

The issue is a matter of risk. The risk that's acceptable to a government lab worker and the risk that's acceptable to a suicide bomber are very different.

The question is not a matter of how risky it is, but whether a sufficient boom could have been made.

That risk translates into the probability of success - mixing the liquids in a controlled lab environment (who knows how many times they tried and failed before getting one valid test to tape record), vs. the risk of mixing them onboard or before getting to the airport are different risk.

If the terrorists have a low probability (which is agreed by most experts), they are unlikely to try something which is going to blow up in their home, car or while mixing it in the terminal bathroom.

Are explosive liquids dangerous? Sure they are. Are they a practical tool for a terrorist to use in an attack? Not at all. There are far more stable substances available, still undetectable by conventional airport scans.

I could take a box of Whitmans, remove the chocolates and replace with blobs of Semtex or C4, bring it on board and recompile the material into one large block to detonate. To me, that would be 100x easier than trying to juggle a bunch of liquids which could blow my arms off if I make even the slightest mistake.

I don't think that's the question at all. I may be wrong, but to me, the ultimate issue is whether aircraft hull destoying explosive power is exclusively available in liquid form. If, as I believe, solid, powdered or gaseous explosives can produce enough explosive power to destroy a plane in flight, then it's obvious that an effective airport security regime would focus on finding explosives, not on finding liquids. The TSA's response to the information linked here has been to focus exclusively and totally on any and all liquids, when ETD technology was already available at the check-point, and could have been effectively used to detect any explosives, whatever their physical form. The TSA response was no more intelligent or effective than concluding, after seeing the linked info, that all orange colored mixtures must be surrendered at the check-point. Trying to determine what is explosive based on its current physical state is about as effective as using eye of newt to cure cancer.
Explosives detection is frequently done in other, vital circumstances by looking for traces of explosives, not by checking physical form. If TSA wasn't so much about appearance rather than substance, they would be out there learning how other security sensitive enterprises detect explosives, prevent their puffers from clogging up, and would not have to resort to futile rules to detect irrelevant charcterisitics, so actually accomplishing less than nothing.

After all of the discussion about liquid explosives throughout this forum, I can't help wondering if any FTers have been called as expert witnesses by the defense (defence).

There are plenty of expert witnesses available who can poop on the government's case with very little effort. Frankly, I'd like to see them called at trial.

Sounds like truly explosive testimony.

I'm sure they will be, once the defense gets their turn.

I believe when asked by the defence they did say that it took quite a few attempts before they made it work

Interesting the spin the TSA has put on it on their 'follow the trial' section of their website; seems a few key pieces got (accidently, I'm sure ) left out of their version of the story, namely the part about had to be put together with a remote controlled arm at a government laboratory because the mixture was so volatile

Sheesh!

Did they duplicate the supposed terrorist's plans exactly? I'll bet not. They may have mixed up the Tang Bomb but I'll bet they used a commercial blasting cap to set it off. It is a heck of a lot easier to set off a boarderline bang with a real blasting cap to initiate it than to use the very questionable detonator the article describes these tewwowists planning to use.

The video looks rigged for effect. What "destruction" is shown by the video? The bomb was surrounded by loose sheets of plastic looking to be 3 by 6 feet in size, leaning against a short wall. That is a sheet of plywood. Huge area, does not take much to blow one over. A leaf blower or an air gun can blow one over from the distance shown. A large balloon popping might do it.

How about a real test? Complete reality would take an entire scrap aircraft section sealed up and pressurized to high altitude equivalent differential to stress the metal. But at least cut a lav out of a scrap plane and set this same bomb off inside. The structure might contain the blast.

I can blow a sheet of plywood over six feet away with a leaf blower, but a leaf blower inside an airplane lav will do: nothing.

Isn't the point of the whole nonsense that the stuff wouldn't react to the ETD?

Dang it, Flaflyer! Talk like that is gonna get leaf blowers put on the prohibited list and then I'll have to start checking it�

I thought the test looked very contrived, too. Looked like they wanted those boards to be perceived as some kind of safety structure, but what possible purpose could they serve, other than to fall down?

Now I'm just a stupid TSO, but if the mixture is so volatile... Wouldn't that be a testament to the threat it posed?

Isn't a volatile mixture what a would be terrorist is going for?

"Oh Habib, we can't use this mixture, it is far too volatile, it might blow up while we're mixing it, we wouldn't want that!"