The Telegraph: Airline terror trial shown liquid bomb exploding
May 16, 2008 | 9:25 am
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Ex Platinum & 1MM, DL PLT, Marriott LFT PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,540
New Thread on the TSA Blog: "UK Liquid Explosives Trial"
Started this morning, for those who haven't taken a stroll over there recently. Took 3 posts, btw, for someone to point out that Blogger Christopher, accidently I'm sure 
, left out a rather significant piece of information in his posting pertaining to the trial, namely this:
""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."
, left out a rather significant piece of information in his posting pertaining to the trial, namely this:""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."
May 16, 2008 | 9:41 am
#32
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
Actually, no they WOULDN'T want that - it's kind of tough to blow up an aircraft when your supersecretultimateliquidexplosive detonated as you were prepping the mix for travel in your safehouse, blowing your arms off.
If it blows up before they can get to the aircraft, or even undergoes a partial reaction during inflight lavatory mixing, it kills the bad guy and wastes the mix BEFORE IT CAN BE USED TO DESTROY THE AIRCRAFT. Terrorists want to rain bodies from the sky, and don't mind dying themselves in service to that cause. It's a waste of martyrs and resources for them to blow themselves up WITHOUT killing infidels in the process. Volatile's only good if they can control it up until the point they need it to go boom, and from the sound of it, that's not the way this one works.
If it blows up before they can get to the aircraft, or even undergoes a partial reaction during inflight lavatory mixing, it kills the bad guy and wastes the mix BEFORE IT CAN BE USED TO DESTROY THE AIRCRAFT. Terrorists want to rain bodies from the sky, and don't mind dying themselves in service to that cause. It's a waste of martyrs and resources for them to blow themselves up WITHOUT killing infidels in the process. Volatile's only good if they can control it up until the point they need it to go boom, and from the sound of it, that's not the way this one works.
My point is that if the mixture is this volatile, then why wouldn't terrorsts be willing to give it a whirl? After all, if you're ready to die for your cause, you're probably ready to spend some time in prison and without arms.
As someone else pointed out, the government probably used these measures because lab workers aren't martyrs, and a risk that is acceptable for a terrorist isn't acceptable for them.
May 16, 2008 | 4:12 pm
#33
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
There is a slight risk of someone bringing an explosive liquid to a checkpoint. A very slight risk; and that risk is no greater now than it was during the first 4+ years of the TSA's existence. Or the preceding decades of private sector screening in place since the Korean Air occurrence. The difference now is that the American public is cowed.
May 16, 2008 | 9:11 pm
#35
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
No, that would be regarded as a complete failure. They have abandoned plans before when it seemed they likely had a low probablilty of success. 'Bojinka' for one.
There is a slight risk of someone bringing an explosive liquid to a checkpoint. A very slight risk; and that risk is no greater now than it was during the first 4+ years of the TSA's existence. Or the preceding decades of private sector screening in place since the Korean Air occurrence. The difference now is that the American public is cowed.
There is a slight risk of someone bringing an explosive liquid to a checkpoint. A very slight risk; and that risk is no greater now than it was during the first 4+ years of the TSA's existence. Or the preceding decades of private sector screening in place since the Korean Air occurrence. The difference now is that the American public is cowed.
So kudos for you for managing to deduce the likelyhood of success, and determining it to be extremely low -- perhaps you should do some contract work for the TSA?..
May 16, 2008 | 9:13 pm
#36
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC & EGC
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.7 MM
Posts: 1,562
Any competent, reasonably-priced chemist could do the same contract work and would come to the same conclusion. The TSA isn't interested in responding appropriately to actual risk. They don't want to secure your flight... they want to secure as big a slice of the next funding pie as they can.
May 16, 2008 | 9:18 pm
#37
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
Any competent, reasonably-priced chemist could do the same contract work and would come to the same conclusion. The TSA isn't interested in responding appropriately to actual risk. They don't want to secure your flight... they want to secure as big a slice of the next funding pie as they can.
May 16, 2008 | 9:20 pm
#38
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC & EGC
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.7 MM
Posts: 1,562
There are those who "believe" there is a threat. A belief is a conviction without proof. If the TSA is a religion, that's just fine. As a security agency, they need to consult those who "know". Those who know, know it is not a credible threat. Unfortunately, this administration "believes" a whole lot and is not interested in "knowing" much at all.
May 16, 2008 | 9:22 pm
#39
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
There are those who "believe" there is a threat. A belief is a conviction without proof. If the TSA is a religion, that's just fine. As a security agency, they need to consult those who "know". Those who know, know it is not a credible threat. Unfortunately, this administration "believes" a whole lot and is not interested in "knowing" much at all.
May 16, 2008 | 9:31 pm
#40
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC & EGC
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.7 MM
Posts: 1,562
But, if you insist, you can start here. That article includes a peer-reviewed reference.
Last edited by sinanju; May 16, 2008 at 10:06 pm
May 16, 2008 | 10:34 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
At this date there is no percentage in taking the side of the TSA vis a vis security.
May 17, 2008 | 8:38 am
#42
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Now some of the candidates don't seem too bright or technically adept, in which case they aren't much of a threat despite government propaganda to the contrary.
Not me. My explosives expertise is limited, so I defer to the many expert opinions as noted in other posts. As for working for he TSA, I'm afraid I don't suffer fools gladly so I wouldn't last long.
May 17, 2008 | 12:54 pm
#43
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
Not much conjecture actually. For seven years the TSA has failed to justify their existence while failing test after test after test of keeping even crude simulated threats out of the sterile area.
At this date there is no percentage in taking the side of the TSA vis a vis security.
At this date there is no percentage in taking the side of the TSA vis a vis security.
May 17, 2008 | 12:56 pm
#44
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. The search feature in this forum will turn up any number of postings on the topic with references. Google is also your friend. My own university colleagues don't travel like I do and do not frequent this site. Were you "genuinely interested in reading the opinions/conclusions of an expert" you need only look.
But, if you insist, you can start here. That article includes a peer-reviewed reference.
But, if you insist, you can start here. That article includes a peer-reviewed reference.
May 17, 2008 | 2:33 pm
#45
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC & EGC
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.7 MM
Posts: 1,562
Question authority.
Last edited by sinanju; May 17, 2008 at 2:51 pm