ExitRowOrElse

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

I was a skeptical about the claims that bombs were going to be produced in flight from common household items until I read this story and watched the video.

My question is why is Tang still allowed past security?

txrus

There's a lengthy discussion on this over in the TS&S forum, as well as one on the TSA Blog (who, like the report referenced in the original post cherry-picked pieces of information for this story), though I will give this report points for including the piece about the liquid 'explosive' having to be assembed by remote control, though it conveniently left off the reason-the substance being assembled was too unstable to do otherwise. Also pointed out in the TS&S forum is the fact that the pieces of 'protective barrier meant to contain' the blast were nothing more than pieces of plywood-how much force does it take to blow over a piece, or pieces, of plywood? Not much.

Spiff

Absolute rubbish!

If one needs laboratory conditions to assemble such a bomb, it is not a credible threat.

Don't be brainwashed! Question junk science!!!

dgwright99

If a sufficiently determined group of well-financed smart people (or directed by smart people) want to blow up an airplane in flight, and are willing to die trying, then they will find a way.

Arguably, it's reasonable to take minimally invasive steps like x-raying checked bags, and reconciling bags with pax in order to make it challenging for some random nutter to blow up a plane.

But this charade of adding layer on top of layer of intrusive "security" in the hoping of preventing yesterday's failed plot is a hoax on the citizenry.

alanR

There are lots of "normal" substances (flour in the case of the 21/7 attack) that can be made into deadly explosives under the right conditions.

Just because you can make liquids go bang in the lab under controlled circumstances and after a large number of attempts doesn't mean that you'd be able to do so in an aircraft loo. The odds are more likely that the people concerned would only hurt themselves or have something that just went "fizz" rather than "boom". (like in the case of the 21/7 attack)

As is pointed out on the other thread it would be easier to smuggle commercial explosive and a detonator onto a plane

Whilst it seems probable that these people wanted to blow up a plane, it doesn't mean they had that capability

Flaflyer

News writers went to journalism school. They did not study chemical engineering. From my local paper to national news, anything involving math and science is butchered by news reporters. They simply do not have an understanding or grasp of the science behind the story and usually botch it.

Click the next link on the above FOX if you want to know how out of touch from reality DHS is. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353979,00.html

Science-Fiction Writers Help Government Prepare for Attacks of the Future
Friday, May 02, 2008 By Allison Barrie (yes the same Allison who wrote the TANG BOMB article )

"So the government has turned to an unlikely source for help in identifying these (future) threats: science-fiction writers. (a group called SIGMA).

Those in the know in government clearly agree, since SIGMA members have long consulted with agencies like the Homeland Security and Defense Departments, DARPA, Sandia Labs, NASA and the CIA.

So just what have these guys been thinking up?

Andrews recently proposed “intelligent bullets” that could correct their own course and loiter in the air before landing."


No wonder Kippy thinks water is a high explosive. His consultants talk about bullets that can loiter in the air and he can't differentiate between reality and science fiction. Neither can Fox news writers. Oh well, let us be optimists. At least Allison is just spewing non science on Fox, thank goodness she does not have a job as a civil engineer and did not design the next bridge you will drive over.

Spiff

I'd be surprised if these morons didn't put J.K. Rowling on the payroll.

ExitRowOrElse

Maybe it is and maybe it's not. Remember that the lab techs don't consider themselves expendable and will take careful preparations in their attempts to duplicate what the hashish heads, who can't wait to die, were attempting.

Spiff

No, it really is not.

If one needs to slowly mix two or more chemicals together in a cooled (ice bath or similar), ventilated envirnoment, one cannot do this airside. It's just not feasible.

It would be like banning beer sales because one could distill absolute ethanol from a sufficient quantity of beer to have something flammable. Or removing metal chairs from the airside area because someone could break off a piece and file it into a knife. Or make a chainsaw out of metal and some spare parts. It's just plain ridiculous.

ExitRowOrElse

That was the mentality before 9/11. We didn't think about that either until after the attack had taken place.

I still wonder why we can't take more than a few ounces of liquid past security, but could take all the powdered Tang, or Gatorade we want.

Spiff

Are we now contemplating magic and other imaginary threats?

Screw 9/11! It's not a valid excuse for stupid, junk science responses to threats that cannot be carried out!

I can "plot" to jump over buildings. It is physically impossible for me to do so. It is not a credible threat.

The so-called "liquids plot" is 100% pure BS. It's not thinking outside the box -it's not thinking, period.

ExitRowOrElse

In the case of air transport, the prevention we put up with is annoying. But those in a hurry to get to their carnal rewards haven't pulled off any more attacks on our soil.

As for the those on trial in the UK, if they in fact were attempting what they are accused of, then I hope they get life (as Richard Reid did) for the additional hoops they have forced us to jump through.

sbm12

Your choice to credit the inane rules for the lack of additional attacks is rather unfounded. If there were actual threats that were prevented by the rules/screening/etc. that is one thing. In this case, however, the attempt is to prove a negative. We have no reason to believe that any credible attempts have been thwarted by the rules. The Reid case is actually a good example. He was turned away one day for being a security risk and then allowed to fly the next day. If he was really a risk he shouldn't have been allowed to fly.

As for the morons, they are likely guilty of conspiracy to blow up an airplane, even though their methods were rather unlikely to work. But I'm really not sure what the laws are in the UK.

Spiff

Specious Logic 101! My magic rock is just as likely to have prevented any attacks. (thank you, Lisa Simpson)

And I hope they beat the rap. They are not responsible for the stupid hoops, the imbeciles in the UK and US government are. The "plot" was not credible, but the morons in these two governments responded anyway. The UK plotters might as well have "plotted" to use magic to blow up aircraft. Such a plot would have just as much chance to be successful as the so-called "liquid plot": zero.

Dieuwer

With 3 oz of liquid you can still create an explosion, it just depends on what liquid.