Are Liquid Explosives on a Plane Feasible? 875
permaculture writes "The Register describes the difficulty of mixing up a batch of liquid explosives on a plane. Further, it opines that such a plot might work in a Hollywood film, but not in the real world. Liquid explosives were used for the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, according to the official account — or not, as now seems more likely."
This story selected and edited by LinuxWorld editor for the day Saied Pinto.
Explosives? dunno.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Explosives? dunno.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Explosives? dunno.... (Score:5, Funny)
No, you want that other movie. We're talkin' about muthafuckin' liquids [craphound.com] on a muthafuckin' plane, and there ain't a got-damn thing you can do about it!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html [craigmurray.co.uk]
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane t
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I agree with a lot of the rest of your post. Particularly the comments about John Reid's speech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway, re 7/7, watch "terrorstorm" on google video, you'll see that there was a "training" exercise being run on 7/7, involving muslim terrorists bombing 3 stations and a bus, at the exact time of the bombing (+- 30 mins) in the exact stat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest everyone reading this thread go and read the story about Philippine Airlines Flight 434, onboard which a liquid bomb was smuggled as parts, assembled in the aircraft toilet and hidden under a seat in the lifejacket container, with a Casio watch timer mechanism. On the next flight, when it had been missed during the routine cleanup, it exploded killing the seats occupant and only narrowly avoiding a pressure vessel breach of the aircraft its
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA: "Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories."
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is the most simple explanation? That a bunch of people who don't have passports, plane tickets or (if the Register article is to be believed) the remotest understanding of explosives presented a genuine threat? Or that someone didn't really care what kind of threat they represented wanted to present themselves as the good guys by having "saved" us from this threat?
I'm slightly scared to post this, as I don't want to mysteriously commit suicide in the woods.
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Occam's Razor states that the most parsimonious answer is probably correct, not the simplest. In other words, the answer which introduces the least new ideas and/or causes you to throw out the least old ideas, but which still fits the evidence. A little pedantic to point this out, I know, but it's not exactly the same as simplest.
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
If memory serves, he stood down over the principle of Western intelligence agencies relying on evidence provided by the Uzbek secret police from torture victims. Or he might have been pushed. Can't quite recall the details right now.
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the policies grant them more power. Are protestors throwing molotov cocktails at the white house? No? Then the government can afford to let them cry conspiracy -- there's no real opposition yet.
Do you really think a man like Bush has the intellect to decieve an entire nation?
Fear is what deceives. All Bush has to do is control the fear and he controls the nation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a land where American Idol is a success and NASCAR is the most popular sport?
Ayup!
Hell, I listen to classical music, read plenty, follow political news like a heroin junkie, discuss politics daily, and watch a half an our of television a month. Even I voted for the guy the last time around.
I've made better decisions than that under the influence of illegal substances.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I realise we are talking about a religion, but racial/ethnic/religious profile takes too long. And how much ill will do you think is being created by this kind of behavior?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's also make a special line for Jews.
Catholics? You're next.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Er, nope, catholics (or just "irish accent") are previous not next - they have already been done, before we got onto the muslims.
That's in the UK at least - in the US I guess the catholics were "freedom fighters we send money to" rather than "terrorists", but hey, what's a few nail-bombs between friends.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you would be wrong.
Most of those being "harrased" in this manner have no love for western society in the first place. How much harm can you really create by harrasing people who would be quite happy to make your nation part of a Global Caliphate?
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, there is a huge difference between disliking something and being willing to turn to violence against it; and it is that difference that keeps the vast majority of the popul
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
The republicans are losing support big time over here. Finally the majority of people in this country do see through their bullshit, and short of another 9/11, there is no way the republicans can stop it.
Craig Murray (Score:5, Informative)
Needless to say, Mr Murray paid a heavy price [wikipedia.org] for his candour.
Oh give me a fucking break (Score:3, Informative)
These guys actually blew up the bathroom in a plane with a cut down bomb for testing. After blowing up a movie theater seat.
Re:Oh give me a fucking break (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, with nitroglycerin. The article from the Register said it was TATP, and proceded to explain his knowledge from researching TATP that it is highly unlikely TATP could be used to bring down a plane. TATP != nitroglycerin. And just looking up one aspect [scripps.edu] of the article seems to check out so far. The rest would be hard to check out without performing the experiments or talking to someone who has made it.
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
And... I guess you just commented on it for Mod points without providing any thing intuitive except a name from the link that he supplied at the top of his post. Pot calling the Kettle Black?
Liquid Explosion (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Liquid Explosion (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorist true mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
. .
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their immediate goal is to kill as many infidels as possible, with the final objective of wiping out the US and Israel. It's their mission statement, they make no effort to hide it and anyone who thinks otherwise might as well believe in unicorns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like many other totalitarians, they think little of inconveniencing or killing human life, as long as their goals are getting met. Terror is a tool. Inconvenience just another tool.
And destroying the US and Israel is their initial goal, to be followed shortly by world domination. They target the US and Israel because, in theory, we oppose their horrifying goals and have the balls to stop them. Of course, if we give in and put on our
Re:Terrorist true mission? (Score:4, Informative)
Believe it or not Osama's goals were more secular than religeous.
After he returned from Afghanistan he was sort of a semi-hero in his home country of Saudi Arabia. When Saddam invaded Kutwait in 91, Osama personally offered King Saudi access to Al Queda's 100,000 volunteers and his personal fortune to fight off Saddam from a Saudi invasion.
But... The King's delegation (Osama wasn't allowed to talk to the royal family himself) laughed at Osama's offer because Saddam had over 1,000,000 troops and they were well armed at that.
Then King Saudi invited the American to be based in Saudi and attack an attack on Iraq. This infuriated Osama because no only was his offer rebuffed, but infidels were on holy ground. At that moment he swore revenge and packed his bags and moved to Sudan.
Later... Osama assisted the muslims in Somalia to drive out the Americans. His support was negliable and some say didn't really help as much as he said he did.
The problem with this was that Osama mistakenly thought that if you killed a few Americans they would run with their tails behind their legs because they had no stomach for fighting.
So he mistakenly went about and concocted 9/11 thinking if he brought the fight to their home land the Americans would give in and leave Saudi Arabia.
Of course we know that he was horribly mistaken and would have done better attacking military targets in Saudi Arabia, but that is neither here nor there but there are very secular reasons or at least political reasons that the terrorists do what they are trying to do to us.
Many of them use the banner of religion to carry out that agenda.
Sorry, too simplistic, Benjamin (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a terrorism "expert"; just someone who likes to keep the "story" consistent with the way I've seen the world work. This "horde of Islamic fundamentalists" stuff is just fearmongering. Think about it.
The goal of Islamic jihadists (at least, the ones we care about-- Al Qaeda, right?) is to remove those people who stand in the way of a Muslim state. The reason why they target not just Westerners (who clearly stand in the way-- we introduct Democracy, corporate in
Re:Terrorist true mission? (Score:4, Informative)
It has been pointed out elsewhere that bombs in relatively open areas (like check-in areas) tend to be a lot less effective than bombs in enclosed spaces (like aircraft), although some of the extra-large backpacks and suitcases could hold a much larger bomb than you could possibly smuggle onto an aircraft, and a bomb packed with lots of shrapnel can kill people in open spaces much more effectively than a straight explosive.
An effective check-in attack would probably involve detonating relatively small devices in the entrances to the check-in area so as to block exits simultaneously with large backpack shrapnel bombs further inside.
Sporting stadiums, however, are perhaps the ideal non-aircraft target, since there are limited exits to disable. You wouldn't even have to kill that many people directly - just detonate the exit-blocking devices first, then detonate the in-stands devices one-by-one so as to demonstrate a continuing threat - the crowd will take care of the rest by crushing people to death in the blocked exits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharia law, USAPATRIOT Act... same difference!
It has been done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LINK [wikipedia.org]
The "Mark II" "microbombs" had Casio digital watches as the timers, stabilizers that looked like cotton wool balls, and an undetectable nitroglycerin as the explosive. Other ingredients included glycerin, nitrate, sulfuric acid, and minute concentrations of nitrobenzene, silver azide (silver trinitride), and liquid acetone. Two 9-volt batteries in each bomb were used as a power source. The batteries would be connected to light bulb filaments that would detonate the bomb. Mura
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
Nope. You can distill
Re:It has been done! (Score:4, Insightful)
Weren't most of these terrorists British-born and thus pretty well off? Actually, none of the 9/11 hijackers were poor either. Heck, Osama bin Laden himself is a millionaire.
No need for an explosion (Score:5, Informative)
I was shocked to hear the media talking about the possibility of bring nitroglycerin onto an airplane. The entire reason that dynamite was invented is because the liquid is horribly volitile. Some people have speculated that the terrorists were not attempting a large scale explosion as CNN and Fox News would have you believe. Instead they were waiting until the plane was in the middle of the Atlantic and starting a fairly large fire. There are many substances that can create a dangerous fire on an airplane in the middle of the ocean at 30,000 feet. There is no need for a Holywood style explosion at all. I am being intentionally vague in this post, but three men with drink containers full of certain substances starting three fires at three different parts of the plane would be extremely difficult to control, especially considering the lack of fire surpression systems in the passenger cabin. I am not a firefighter (rookie EMT and will be training to be a rescuer) but I cannot imagine trying to put out three fires with the 1-2 fire extingueshers available.
The first World Trade Center bombing and OK City show that everyday chamicals can be combined with horrific results. In those situations, however, there were truckloads of the two ingredients. I agree in part with TFA that it would be hard to perform an explosion the size of Pan-Am 103's with liquids, but that is not necesary.
Nitro on a plane (Score:5, Informative)
Read up! [wikipedia.org]
Another chemist's view (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Schneier linked to another post [schneier.com] which had an interesting take by a chemist in a graduate program. He describes details of the chemicals involved and what it would take to detonate them effectively onboard a plane.
The summary: improvised explosives involve pretty nasty stuff that you'd be hard pressed to mix in an airplane lavatory without killing yourself in the process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly the glorious martyrdom that they'd likely been planning for themselves. But hey, if the plan was to injure or kill only yourself and embarrass your cause in the process, then sure.
Re:Another chemist's view (Score:5, Insightful)
And, to a suicide bomber, this is a downside how?
Dying from the noxious fumes in a small bathroom before you can make enough explosives to blow up the plane isn't really meeting the goals of most suicide bombers. I suggest you read the actual articles before posting from now on.
In a word? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The hysteria this has caused is mind boggling. There are an infinite number of ways terrorists could attack random innocent civilians. It is not, repeat not, possible to protect everyone from everything. Banning iPods and water bottles is not making anyone safer. It is an attempt to appear that something is "being done". It's a pacifier for the masses.
Re:In a word? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
As Jon Steward said the other night, "You are more likely to die in your bathtub than in a terrorist attack."
You are more likely to die in a car crash than in a terrorist attack.
You are more likely to die in the bathtub, due to a car crash, than in a terrorist attack.
Basically, it is time to start contacting the media in droves and tell them that we are sick of their reporting of government misinformation, we are willing to take the chance of another 9/11, and that they should report on the crimes against the nation and humanity being perpetrated by the people in power.
Now I'm off on an unscheduled vacation to Gitmo. See you again after the trial (never.)
An even better article (Score:5, Informative)
Um yeah, considering it already has been done?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
It isnt a new concept, its an old plan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka [wikipedia.org]
To Quote the article on wikipedia:
The "Mark II" "microbombs" had Casio digital watches as the timers, stabilizers that looked like cotton wool balls, and an undetectable nitroglycerin as the explosive. Other ingredients included glycerin, nitrate, sulfuric acid, and minute concentrations of nitrobenzene, silver azide (silver trinitride), and liquid acetone. Two 9-volt batteries in each bomb were used as a power source. The batteries would be connected to light bulb filaments that would detonate the bomb. Murad and Yousef wired an SCR as the switch to trigger the filaments to detonate the bomb. There was an external socket hidden when the wires were pushed under the watch base as the bomber would wear it. The alteration was so small that the watch could still be worn in a normal manner. [1] [5] [7]
Yousef got batteries past airport security during his December 11 test bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 by hiding them in hollowed-out heels of his shoes. Yousef smuggled the nitroglycerin on board by putting it inside a contact lens solution bottle.
The density of the explosive cocktail would be about 1.3.
It's all hype anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
In any event I just took a flight from China to Los Angeles and they claimed you couldn't bring liquids aboard, but no one was checking. It's all just noise to make people feel like they are being protected.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure they are, and you're all gonna get an enema too.
I don't buy the "rush" defense. (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS. Nobody knows whether or not passengers will comply, because these are very volatile, fear-laden situations and if a couple of bodies are lying in front of you to illustrate the resolve of the attackers, you are gonna be scared to death of trying anything yourself. I'm not saying it's impossible, but until there is another hijacking attempt and we find out that the passengers rush the hijackers, we cannot c
Why so complicated. How about bleach + ammonia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Manipulating Elections With Terror Feasible? (Score:4, Interesting)
A British diplomat (to Uzbekistan, an actual center of the Qaeda War) warns us to be skeptical of the plot [dailykos.com]. Especially its timing, which was premature for destroying a possible network, but right on time to steal headlines from a primary defeat from a leading neocon [google.com] that drew defensive scare propaganda from Bush and Cheney even though it's a Democratic primary.
As we see more and more [msn.com] of our Republican government terrorizing us on their campaign schedule [usatoday.com], we have more chances to turn against them, and fight our own war against terror ourselves, in our own minds and at the polls. We can replace anyone in the House of Representatives [wikipedia.org] and 1/3 of the Senate [wikipedia.org].
Redox rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reader pointed out that, while the explosive scenario is problematic, incindiary devices are easy. A soup-can full of Potassium Permanganate and a rougly equal volume of Glycerine will make a heck of a blaze -- or a really nice igniter for a thermite bomb. I suspect all of these materials could be smuggled aboard (though I'm not about to try).
Another potential venue is nerve agents. Without going into any real detail, hydrofluoric acid is the foundation for several nasty nerve agents, some of which COULD be whipped up in the lav in just a few minutes. Probably not enough to kill the whole plane, and I'm assuming the pilots have a seperate air supply, but killing half the passengers on a loaded airliner might be good enough to interest a terrorist.
Then there's biological agents. Some years ago I worked with cyanotoxins, primarily anatoxin. Nasty stuff, and available at any nice warm, eutrophic lake in the U.S. I was playing around with extracting the toxin, and ended up with a protocol that used DMSO as a solvent to help seperate the toxin from cellular membranes. This stuff used to scare me to death -- a nice liquid that, if splashed on your skin (or clothing) would cause death in a matter of minutes. Imagine a squirt-gun or a water-balloon filled with this on a plane.
For the record, I'm far more frightened of the current Government that I am of terrorists, and I'd rather just take my chances that submit to the "protections" that are being provided. However, it doesn't take a lot of effort to come up with some plausible scenarious where a lunch-box might conceal some fairly deadly things.
Protection from Hollywood movie plots (Score:5, Insightful)
I rest easier on an airplane knowing that we're soundly protected from the most bizarre Hollywood movie plot type attacks, desperately trying not think about all the simple, easy practical things the idiots running things have overlooked.
The real terrorists have got to be laughing their asses off at the way we snarl air traffic, tie up millions of dollars in police resources, botch up air travel and twist ourselves in nervous knots over nothing. I'll bet they're more than a little amused at the video of people throwing toothpaste and hair gel into dumpsters.
If the terrorist plan is to make us live in fear, scared of our shadow and squander our national treasure on security that doesn't work while we go into staggering national debt spending 5 billion a month in a no-win war half-way around the world, then I'd ask which political party is really helping the terrorists?
A small group of people could cause mass panic and a surprising amount of damage armed with nothing more dangerous than a little training and a cigarette lighter or box of kitchen matches. We are so easily spooked, then our over-reaction and fear takes the little bit of damage the terrorists actually do and magnifies it to absurd proportions. Remember the panic and fear on the east coast when the sniper and his kid were on the loose? There were road blocks, random searches, helicopters, overtime for police...one guy with a rifle. Un-fucking-real.
Not Only Feasible, But Done (Score:3, Informative)
Not only is this plan feasible, but a terrorist had already detonated such a device on board an aircraft. In 1995 Philippines Airlines Flight 434 [wikipedia.org] was the target of a bomb left by al-Qaeda terrorist Ramzi Youssef on an earlier leg of the flight. The bomb cut Japanese businessman Haruki Ikegami in half, and ripped through the passenger compartment into the cargo hold. The aircraft lost primary and backup hydraulic controls and had to be flown in via throttles -- a difficult and dangerous maneuver.
Not only that, but the bomb that Youssef left on board that flight was one tenth the power of the bombs he intended to detonate as part of Operation Bojinka. The argument that such a weapon is not feasible is itself more FUD. It is quite possible, and it has been done before. Al-Qaeda operatives are trained in explosives, and they knew exactly what was doing.
Yes, there's a good chance of killing yourself while mixing such a bomb, but I rather doubt that any of the plotters of this attack had any qualms about killing themselves in the process.
Re:Not Only Feasible, But Done (Score:5, Insightful)
that's not really the question... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is whether undetectable, binary liquid bombs are feasible. To be undetectable, they couldn't be nitrogen-based explosives, as that is what all the detectors sniff for.
So the question is, could a two-part, non-Nitrogen-based liquid explosive (so called peroxide bombs) be smuggled onto a plane and then make a large enough explosion to bring it down?
It seems rather unlikely to me, with only a light skimming of the info. But I cou
Not to give anyone any ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you went through a security checkpoint to get IN the airport?
Just not plausible. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if they were using sensitised nitromethane, or pre-prepared gelled Acetone Peroxide, then it is very much plasuible.
But everything i've read claims that they were supposedly planning to synthesise AP on the plane.
Now, you start off with your Hydrogen Peroxide, say 35%, and you could have this pre-mixed with your acid catalyst - say conc. Hydrochloric or Sulfuric Acid. You only need a small amount of acid - and HCl doesn't react anywhere near as exothermically as conc. H2SO4. So this pre-prepared mixture could conceivably be handled quite safely - it's certainly nothing like 'Pirhana Fluid', which IIRC, is equal volumes of conc. H2SO4 and H2O2.
So this mixture can be mixed, on the plane, with acetone. Now, it needs to be done in an ice bath, - sure, maybe you can MacGyver this up on board somehow - and after waiting hours for the reaction to complete, the product needs to be filtered out and dried. In my opinion, this would be the hardest part to complete on the plane, and the hardest to conceal. It would be easier trying to get snakes on the plane.
TFA does mention something particularly scary in the context of aircraft terror - Dimethylmercury.
In a couple of bottles of eye drops or something, you would probably have enough to give everybody on the plane a lethal dose. No fancy delivery system needed, just drop it on the floor and let the volatility, vapour pressure and air circulation system do the rest.
And you wouldn't know a damn thing for months.
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for now limiting the number of things I can now bring on a plane. I thought the latest thing with not allowin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hate to burst you bubble but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_
How about this for logic. If it has been done then it is is possible.
Yes Virgina somebody manged to smuggle nitroglycerin on to an airliner and use it as a bomb.
Nitro is nasty stuff but you all have been watching too many old movies. They used to ship the stuff in wagons over dirt roads. It did blow up every now and then but it isn't impossible to transport.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it sounds like another failed plot, broken up in 1995 by ordinary police work without the aid of warrentless wiretapping, extreme rendition, torture, or invasion of sovereign nations.
The odd thing is that in 1995 ordinary good police work broke up a serious plot to bomb planes and no on
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sooo.. Roll back to the 90'ies. Research facilty for Norwegian Oil company Hydro in Oslo. They're handling lots of nitro-glycerin and various high-explosives.. and they have all these safety measures, because for some reason, people don't like being blown up,
So.. one day, one senior researcher, fairly hung over, is handling a glass-tube (shut) with the nitro-glycerin.. and drops it. So, the guy sees his life pass by in slow-motion, curses a little for not having had sex with his wife this morning and closes his eyes waiting to die.. Except nothing happens. So, he runs out and calls for evacutation. Eventually, they clean the mess up and everybody gets back to work. Turns out, the container didn't break, and the nitro-glycerin was still lying happily on the floor.
Now, the leading researcher and head of the facility was a really hands-on-guy. He knew all the theory and stuff, but he was really hands-on. So.. they had all these tests on how much pressure it takes to make nitro-glycerin blow up, but how do you test how much turbulence it takes to make a closed container filled with the stuff blow up? You could probably put it in a shaking-machine, but that'd hardly be realistic conditions now would it?
Now, the rest of this story is verified. This guy fetches some containers of nitro, drags it out in the woods behind the factory along with a fishing rod. He finds a big ledge, when at the bottom, he ties a container to the line, and being carefull not moving the nitro at all he walks up the top of ledge, and using his fishing rod hoists the stuff up and starts swinging it around wildly.. without hitting the rock ledge of course.. He stood there for 10 minutes just waving the stuff around.
Sadly, or maybe luckily for him, he was not able to make it explode as long as it was within a closed container. The scientific, now empirically tested, conclusion was clear, the risk of explosion within a closed container was grozzly exxagarated.
(This guy also ran an experiement with was I think was paint-thinner(not sure, it was poisonous atleast) and a sealed off cabin. Himself, another researcher acting as a secretary and a psychologist locked themselves in the cabin to find out the effect the stuff had on human beings, all the while writing logs of what they were experiencing. Reviewing the log-books the day after, they found they had started drawing stick-men instead of writing logs after three hours)
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:4, Interesting)
* Glyceryl trinitrate tablets generally contain no more than 500mcg of nitroglycerin. Even if there did exist a simple way to "strain out" the nitroglycerin from the tablets, it would take approximately 400 THOUSAND TABLETS to yield enough of the stuff to equal a very small 500g "stick" of 40% dynamite (dynamite is rated in ratio of nitroglycerin to binder, by weight). Given that they're doled out usually no more than 50 or so at a time, that's about hell of a lot heart patients he had to hit up at that asylum. Writers who create crap plot details like that need to be dragged out an shot. Don't even get me started on Lost or Alias.
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:4, Funny)
We'd better get it off our planes before someone gets hurt, then! And the dihydrogen monoxide! I don't trust that shit at all...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't get any better than that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You owe the GP an apology.
(And if I hadn't already posted in this topic, I'd have probably modded you down.)
Re:Flight 505 to MacGyver City... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the detectors are sensitive to incredibly small quantities (hundreds or thousands of molecules/parts per trillion when airborne). As in: you'll need a truly great seal on the bottle, two clean rooms and a remarkable cleaning protocol to make sure that the remaining residues are below the detection threshold.
Not that it can't be done, but the cost is unbelievable (and the number of people that need to cooperate increases the risk of detection). Someone from the first room being within several feet of the bottle for a few minutes after cleaning would leave a detectable explosive residue on the bottle's surface.
Regards,
Ross
That door is staying closed until you land (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, if you don't believe him you can try it for yourself. Remember to pack a hydraulic jack in your carry-on.
Re:That door is staying closed until you land (Score:4, Funny)
Rich
Re:That door is staying closed until you land (Score:5, Informative)
Because the plane is designed to withstand it.
Also, the difference between 1 atmosphere of pressure (i.e. ground level) and some fraction of an atmosphere (at cruising altitude) is an order of magnitude or so smaller than the difference between ground level and the bottom of the ocean.
Those planes have sliding doors instead of ones that open inward.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That door is staying closed until you land (Score:5, Informative)
The door also does not just "open out". It starts by moving inward a couple of inches, which it can only do when the pressurization has been turned off and the pressure allowed to equalize. Then the upper and lower ends of the door bend inward a few inches, which reduces the total height of the door. Then it rotates slightly outward on a complex double pivot, which moves the forward edge a little aft and the aft edge a little forward. Now it's able to fit through the door frame, and it swings out on the same double pivot.
As for shooting a hole in the fuselage, that would have very little effect. An airplane is not a sealed pressure vessel; if it were, you'd be feeling really rotten halfway to Europe. The pressurization supplies a constant flow of air, and a unit called the outflow valve lets it out of the airplane at an electronically controlled rate to keep the correct pressure inside. If you shot four or five holes in the airplane with a .45, the outflow valve would just close down maybe halfway.
Now it would be possible to get a much bigger hole by shooting out a window, and that would cause a rapid -- not "explosive", but rapid -- decompression. The people near the window would undoubtedly lose their magazines -- but they wouldn't notice that, because the pilot would be doing some rather attention-getting maneuvers to get the airplane down to a safe breathing level.
public education of science is obviously in BIG trouble
See, this is why engineers get annoyed when computer engineers call themselves engineers...;-)
rj
Re:False Flag. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:False Flag. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:False Flag. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a great idea. The world wide web (created by a multi-government funded organization) and the internet (created by a government funded organization) are seriously useless to society. Global communication is overrated. That includes the global telecommunication network (more munti-government funding in its lifetime, such as Morse's 30k government grant for the US telegraph network).
Heck, since we cann
Re:Several Informative Pertinent Videos. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Because it once again brings into focus how the internet tends to fuel the psychoses of paranoid schizophrenics worldwide. These people need help, but instead the internet just helps them descend further into madness. It's 9/11, it's chemtrails, it's Morgellons, and above all it's depressing to watch.
Re:Several Informative Pertinent Videos. (Score:4, Insightful)
A few verbal slips and some video that you don't understand as a lay person do not a huge conspiracy make. Occam's Razor should be applied, as usual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, we can stop toppling their sovereign leaders, establishing military presence without consent of the people, and sending their citizens to foreign prisons without trial.
If any of the above happened in the US because the government allowed it, would you stand for it?
*Terrorists*, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This certainly could be "a terrorist caught with explosives", the conclusion you jump to; given that it was a real possibility, evacuating the airport and investigating further as they have done was of course the appropriate course of action for the time being.
But it also seems possible this is a false alarm, similar to this morning when a bomb sniffing dog [nwsource.com] detected a suspicious container that turned out to be full of completely ordinary rags, or the day before when an "unruly passenger" was widely reported to have "Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing al-Qaeda [news24.com]" and then it turned out she had nothing of the kind [tvnz.co.nz] and was just having some kind of nervous breakdown and peeing in the plane aisles (?), or a couple days before that when three men of Arabic descent were arrested with a bunch of cell phones on suspicion they were going to blow up a bridge [record-eagle.com] but then turned out only to be buying cell phones to resell in Dallas at a profit.
Again, it could be that this woman arrested in West Virginia was part of a real terrorist plot, and it could be that some unhinged lady was inspired by recent media reports about plane bombs to pour lighter fluid in a couple of water bottles and attempt to board a plane. Perhaps there really was a legitimate threat to passenger safety there. I shall be watching the news on this one with interest to find out exactly what happened.
But until we do find out exactly what happened, it seems awfully odd in this case to say "reality has intervened" when in fact what you mean is "partly speculative media reports have intervened".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, the probably too busy wondering just WTF this whacko was doing wearing a range bag as clothes to worry about what the swabs showed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:John Carmack disagree's with the article (Score:5, Insightful)
The feasibility of this really isn't open for debate. There is no doubt that you can reliably mix two liquids and produce a high explosive that can be detonated with a sharp impact.
A quest for perfect safety from all conceivable threats is, of course, ridiculous, but I'm sure there will be many more added security measures thrown in as a result of this, to little real benefit and much general annoyance. Personally, I would have been completely comfortable flying immediately after 9/11 with absolutely no additional security measures. Statistics and probability leave me with no fear of terrorism.
John Carmack
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TATP is about the dumbest possible route to a liquid explosive on a plane.
With any actual knowledge of explosives, any professional could come up with a few dozen easy options for alternate binary liquid explosives, or even pre-mixed liquid explosives which appear to be innocen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who would have believed that before it happened? Who wouldn't have said that someone had been "watching a few too many Hollywood movies"?
Planes have been hijacked before 9/11, so it's not really that unbelieveable that someone couldn't accomplish the same thing. Learning how to fly isn't really that difficult, and obviously people do it all the time. The most un-intuitive thing about 9/11 was simply that a plane flown into a building could collapse it. That's something only an expert could have predicted
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:possible but improbable (Score:5, Interesting)
This actually isn't as stupid as it sounds. Had the explosion gone off properly, the truck (meaning the identifiable marks of the truck) would have been vaporized and buried. The truck wouldn't have been identifiable for months, at least.
That being the case, it would have been suspicious not to report the truck stolen and claim the deposit. Imagine you're the rental agent. The WTC just blew up, and an appropriately sized truck that you rented out has had no one claim the deposit. That's a direct line to the renter, which is how they actually caught the guys (but only because they identified the truck almost immediately).