Slashdot Mirror
Are Liquid Explosives on a Plane Feasible?
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.
his shit is explosive
but what about SNAKES on a plane, ever thought of that?
Borat is able to do liquid explosions
Let's not all suck at the same time please
Is built the entire plane out of sodium. That way crashing it into the sea (or flying it through a rain cloud) would achieve the desired effect without all of the expense and inconvenience of organised terrorism.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Nitro Glycerine is a liquid.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/08/sn akes_on_a_pla_4.html
That bitch is dumb.
Does the pope wear a funny hat?
...the breaking news on the BBC website suggests that someone was about to do that very thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5261456. stm. It may be another false alarm. Time will tell.
Testiculos habet et bene pendentes.
Does anyone else think that these terrorists' true purpose is not to kill the passengers on a few planes but to inconvenience travellers for years to come? Blowing up a plane is a one-time deal but scaring people into not taking drinks onto planes, making people take off their shoes before boarding, checking their ipods in with their luggage, these annoyances are going to be with us for decades to come! Why terrorize when irritating is so much easier?
ÕÕ
Christ, this has .
I don't think the article is talking about liquid explosives. Liquid explosives are apparantly usable in liquid form.
Liquid explosives don't seem feasible for just the reasons outlined in the Register article. OTOH, combining liquids that release some very toxic gases like chlorine would be easier to deploy. It might not kill everyone aboard the plane, but the terror factor would still be as high.
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.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I'm having a hard time figuring out if you believe what you wrote or if this is satire.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Pssh.
Everyone knows Hitler's brain, controlling the UFOs from inside the Hollow Earth, perpetrated 9/11, possibly with help from the Mole Men.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I don't know if I agree but you make the point for low taxes and very little government involvement in any part of our lives. For example government controlled health care means government controlled experimentation on sick people. etc.. etc...
Read the book on nutcase theories regarding 9/11. No matter how many times you watch Loose Change, it doesn't make it factual. Even Oliver Stone couldn't make a conspiracy theory movie out of 9/11. Yes Virginia, terrorism is real. There are Islamic Fascists in the world that want you dead, no you cannot appease them and George Bush did not create them.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html
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
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Oh c'mon, was that really called for?
People like you are part of the problem. I hope you enjoyed your 10 second giggle.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Theory be damned, it seems like *terrorists* certainly think liquid explosives are feasible. A woman was apparently just caught at Tri-State Airport with explosives in her water bottle:
http://www.wsaz.com/breakingnews/3590966.html
My bicyles
Yea. i told you before about this, when the recent british 'terror thwart' story was posted in slasdot. i told you that it smelled fishy. i told you it was government's job. you told i was being conspirative. you modded my post down. now everyday someone coming out and expressing disbelief about the 'terror thwart'. each day smell is worse. see ? what now huh ?
huh ? ha ? see ? seeeeeee ?
*czzzrt czzt*
Read radical news here
And I'm having an even harder time figuring out why someone modded it "informative".
Then my Israeli friend who specifically avoids buses and discos must have nothing to worry about because terrorism obviously doesn't exist.
The author makes the assumption that the terrorists need to use the explosive to blow up the plane or they where trying to. Why not just produce poison gasses or if an explosion is the desired result blow up the door to the cockpit and take the plane down. There are many more easily achieved results that would cause terror to the crew and passengers.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
By all means lets cast doubt on the method of attack. They couldn't pull it off. The authorities are overstating the threat... Maybe that way the terrorists will do less time in prison.
an ill wind that blows no good
Bruce Schneier linked to another post 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.
Firstly, the 7/7 bombs were reported to be TATP. This compound is made with acetone, hydrogen peroxide and drain cleaner. The ingredients are liquid, yes, but the end product is a powder. Creating TATP requires access to a cooler or ice water bath, it is not something you can whip up in a bathroom.
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.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Really, what more can I say?
guncotton can be made by combining nitric and sulfuric acid with cotton.
Just like those terrorists, it's not very stable.
Perry Metzger wrote an excellent post to the interesting-people mailing list last Friday. He goes into more detail than the Register article does, offers first-hand information, and packs in more irony and sarcasm besides.
They talk about how far-fetched and difficult it might be to pull off.
But couldn't we have made all these drawn out "first they'd have to learn how to fly commercial jetliners, not necessarily knowing which types they'd eventually board, then they'd have to successfully get to the cockpit without being incapacitated, and THEN they'd have to make the pilots think they were hijacking the plane, then kill them, and if all that weren't enough, then they'd have to actually divert the planes successfully to their targets as inexperienced pilots, AND hit them once there"-type things about 9/11, too?
Who would have believed that before it happened? Who wouldn't have said that someone had been "watching a few too many Hollywood movies"?
These were determined people who had been planning for months, if not years (depending on which reports and which of the people you're talking about). Only one person really had to succeed. And even if the actual loss of life on one plane would be negligible, the economic and other impacts would again be immeasurable - that's the point, theirs and ours.
What a bunch of idiots, it has already been done on a plane, years ago.
It isnt a new concept, its an old plan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka
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.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Libertarians appear out of fucking nowhere; roll for save vs. simple solutions to complex problems.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Does it matter if the plot would have worked? This plot is actually much more effective as a failure; everyone assumes it would have worked, and British people can never again bring liquids! on a plane. Probably about as much terror gets inspired by having Blair and the White House give serious and hystrionic speeches about what these plane bombers could have done if allowed to go forward as if the plane bombers had actually gone forward, and making the lives of anyone who flies on an airplane just that bit much more miserable in the years to come under newer and stringent regulations is something that lasts whether you "succeeded" or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209042,00.html
West Virginia Airport Terminal Evacuated After Water Bottle Tests Positive for Explosives
Thursday, August 17, 2006
PHOTOS VIDEO PHOTO ESSAYS
Click image to enlarge
Photo Essays:
London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot
STORIES
London-to-D.C. Flight Diverted to Boston After Passenger Disturbance
Sen. Schumer: UK Terror Plot Shows Weaknesses in U.S. Security
Attorney General Gonzales Praises International Effort to Disrupt UK Terror Plot
Jetliner Terror Suspects to Stay in Jail in London
TSA Says Shoe X-Rays at Airports Can Detect Explosives, Despite Security Report
DHS Lowers Terror Alert Level From Red to Orange for Inbound Flights From UK to U.S.
CEREDO, West Virginia -- A West Virginia airport terminal was evacuated Thursday after a female passenger's water bottle twice tested positive for explosives, a Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman said.
"The bomb squad is on site and the woman is being interviewed by the FBI," Amy von Walter said.
Security checkpoint screeners got a positive test on a machine that uses swabs to find traces of explosives, von Walter said. A bomb-sniffing dog also reacted to the water bottle.
A screener noticed the bottle in a woman's carryon bag as she prepared to board a flight to Charlotte, N.C., said Tri-State Airport authority President Jim Booton.
Commercial airline service was temporarily suspended, and about 100 passengers and airport employees were ordered to leave the terminal, Booton said.
At least one flight was diverted to Charleston's Yeager Airport, about 60 miles away.
Note: I live in the Tri-State area, this is right now local news, hasn't broken national yet.
Corporatism != Free Market
It's hard to understand you when you mumble like that.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
There are so many problems with this. Why weren't liquids blocked before? I'm sure in the billions they spent investigating possible methods for bombing a plane that liquid explosives were considered. Authorities aren't gonna make people get on planes naked, so they have to let people take stuff on. They are only blocking liquids now because they have to show the public that they are doing something. There are still dozens of other ways to easily get dangerious stuff onto planes, but they don't block those now, do they? easy examples: Sharp pencils and pens, materials in laptops and other electronics that show up as normal shapes on the xray but could easily be reconfigured into weapons, etc.
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.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
plane full of snakes?
I don't care why you're posting AC
Libertarians are like mind flayers. Fail your saving throw and lose several points of intelligence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Interesting.. looks like this is very breaking
Returns Link
mod parent up
I hope some day the unwashed masses realize, terrorism only works if you let it!
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
Mixing the explosives on the plane might not be easy, but it's certainly possible, especially since one doesn't need much of an explosion to take down a transoceanic flight. Just enough to burst a few windows (13 atmos for most contemporary planes IIRC) is all that's needed - at that point the cabin depressurizes and the pilots either pass out or freeze up, the plane ends up in the ocean, and the chance of survivors from a plane landing in the ocean is somewhere around nonexistant.
Seems like another good reason to institute those heavy locking doors pilots were asking for after 9/11.
'nuff said.
Or are the findings "secret" and "not for public viewing"?
With all the media-buzz about these "bombings", I find it silly that people (and journalists first of all) fail to ask the single most important question:
"Where's the evidence?"
If one wants to believe the official press-communication, the "terrorists" were "very close" to actually boarding their planes and let the fireworks begin - yet not a single of those "liquid bombs" has been shown to the public.
Meanwhile, security-personel is making women drink baby-milk...
The article sums this all up very nicely. If you haven't read it, go and RTFA.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
"OK. Here's what we got... the RAND Corporation in conjunction with the Saucer People, under the supervision of the Reverse Vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early, in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner! We're through the Looking Glass here, people."
Wow. Either I'm missing the joke here, or someone forgot to take their medication this morning. Start with the Red Pill.
S
Dimethylmercury
Dimethylmercury ((CH3)2Hg) is a flammable, colorless liquid, and one of the strongest known neurotoxins. It is described as having a slightly sweet smell, though inhaling enough fumes to notice this would involve significant exposure to the chemical. It is extremely dangerous, with absorption of doses as low as 0.1 mL being fatal. The high vapor pressure of the liquid means that any spillage will result in dangerous levels of exposure to the fumes for those nearby. Its molecule has a linear structure, with the mercury and carbon atoms in line. The CAS registry number is [593-74-8] [1].
Dimethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier easily, probably due to formation of a complex with cysteine. It is eliminated from the organism very slowly, therefore it has tendency to bioaccumulate. The symptoms of poisoning may appear when it is too late for effective treatment.
Dimethylmercury passes through latex, PVC, and neoprene rapidly (within seconds), and is absorbed through the skin. Therefore, most laboratory gloves do not provide adequate protection from it, and the only safe precaution is to handle dimethyl mercury while wearing highly resistant laminated gloves underneath long-cuffed neoprene or other heavy-duty gloves.
So your Israeli friend lives in constant fear? Of what, dying beacuse of a bombing? What are the statistics for being killed in a bombing? And what are the statistics for driving a car? Also, is he still alive? Perspective people. Get some.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Where's the "-1 Crackpot" moderation option?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This reporter talks about the science of using liquids to blow up a plane and how much it would take. It only took a few box cutters and knives to take out several aircraft in late 2001. It's not about how much is required to blow up the plane, it's about how much is required to get control of the plane, and in that case a .5 ounce can of pepper spray could do the job.
Were they really explosives? You can set off all the bomb alarms by having nitrates on your shoes just by walking through a chicken house or stepping on fertilizer.
This post is very interesting, I found it on Bruce Schneier's blog.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
I think somebody took the Purple Pill, and sees the real world and his personal Matrix all intertwined together.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It's an unpleasant topic, and you may not WANT to believe it, but that doesn't alter the facts surrounding the issue.
a rs-symposium-cspan-web.wmv
7 3848835726&q=9%2F11
9 024486145&q=9%2F11
0 02408586&q=9%2F11
6 180631815&q=9%2F11
5 910247150&q=9%2F11
3 921897950&q=9%2F11
And there are several straw men already leaned up against my initial post:
Yes terrorism is real an Israel, where they have been oppressing muslims for decades. How does that change the facts surrounding both 9/11 AND 7/7?
Adding your personal opinion (especially your uninformed personal opinion) based on the validity of my mental processes (Hitler's brain, etc.) is ludicrous. Please refute the facts surrounding the topic and stop trolling.
Here are links to several videos that you can view online, and better inform yourself:
http://www.myspace.com/wtc_7
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/american-schol
http://americanscholarssymposium.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-59465939
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=879752597
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=654531304
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=324971467
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=695210226
At least attempt to inform yourselves before you jump into a discussion and throw your political/personal views all over the place with no basis in reality.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You know, I've read several articles now talking about the potential difficulties in mixing a binary explosive on a plane. And you know, I'll buy that. But, for my dollar, and ease of use, why not just carry on some bleach and ammonia? When mixed they do some pretty nasty stuff. And there's no concern about explosion beforehand, and no strange requirements for mixing them properly. Plus, once you mix them, you can't stop the reaction. The end result is the same. Everyone on the plane dies, and it falls out of the sky. That was the whole point, right?
--Brian
Now I know what that Iraqi guy is doing while LOST is on hiatus...
There are 3 stories above the fold that have this. New slashdot policy or something?
Of course, if you don't believe him you can try it for yourself. Remember to pack a hydraulic jack in your carry-on.
What I see there is a Pakistani woman caught with a water bottle full of "possibly explosive" material. They don't know what the material was yet.
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 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" and then it turned out she had nothing of the kind 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 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".
the terrorists aren't planning on surviving the attack. That is what makes dealing with them nearly impossible. It is not possible to reason with the unreasonable.
As my boss told me, Vietnam ex-SF, taking down an airliner isn't difficult. Combining two seemingly innocous materials is easy and will work especially if your not worried about the results to yourself. Its only difficult if you want to survive the issue.
I like all the people making it out to be a conspiracy on the part of the US. Look, the terrorist already killed someone in flight over the ocean in the Pacific with a scaled down version of the bomb. worse they weren't themselves on board when it detonated. Since they are willing to be on board when it does detonate they are much more capable of making sure it goes off where it will do the most damage.
These guys will glady kill one for one, but they are after the big score. Face it, they will succeed again. The only problem is that we continually hamper the efforts of the governments trying to stop them but I damn well am sure those trying to stop them will be first in line to assign blame when it happens.
The question you need to ask yourself is, just what in the hell do you expect them to do? As before, you cannot reason with an unreasonable enemy. The only things you can do is remove them as a threat. Either do that by thwarting their every effort, which will continue until they do succeed, or contain them so they never get a chance. Neither way is 100% guaratneed to succeed but we sure don't need to be making their jobs easier.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Bruce Schneier, the dean of crypto and security processes generally, yesterday debunked this plot as "implausible".
A British diplomat (to Uzbekistan, an actual center of the Qaeda War) warns us to be skeptical of the plot. 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 that drew defensive scare propaganda from Bush and Cheney even though it's a Democratic primary.
As we see more and more of our Republican government terrorizing us on their campaign schedule, 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 and 1/3 of the Senate.
--
make install -not war
The article quoted is by Craig Murray - an ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan, who gained notoriety by blowing the whistle on the UK's support for Uzbekistan's torturers.
Needless to say, Mr Murray paid a heavy price for his candour.
Read up!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
There's reality-based experience that says cabin de-pressurization won't have anything like the effect you describe. Doesn't anyone remember Aloha 243? The top of the plane peeled right off (not just a wussy little window blow-out) at altitude. There was one fatality, a flight attendant who wasn't strapped in. The pilots landed the plane safely.
As for mixing the explosives being "certainly possible" I think you should look at the Perry Metzger article I've also cited elsewhere.
That is scary stuff.
No, scary stuff is asking yourself what is the percentage of recent attackers (you know, people who have actually killed trainloads of people) in Europe were Muslims? I'll venture to say: close to or exactly 100%. Don't you think that might have a little to do with the demographics within which investigations are being done? Maybe just a little?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
per the OK city bombing which i believe used maneur, could enough human feces be used as an explosive?
Hey you need to treat this more seriously....Everyone knows there is no such thing as Mole Men....Geez
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
And maybe he knows something of the chemistry and application of high energy compounds from his rocket work:
a rmack
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view427.html#C
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.
How amusing that you were modded 5,Informative- for essentially doing what our "homeland security" officials have been doing. SPECULATING WITH NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. That was the entire point of the article- that the scenarios provided by "unnamed security officials" are absurd, and bear closer resemblence to a Hollywood movie than reality.
Please help metamoderate.
Not only is liquid explosives on a plane not feasible, but ordinary terrorists amongst us having the technology to produce liquid explosives is simply not feasible either. You need some pretty serious skill, equipment and expertise to produce liquid explosives that are going to work and be stable long enough for you to get them on a plane in a reliable way.
Needless to say, neither my Government in the UK, their police or security services has found any evidence whatsoever that they had this equipment or expertise, or that they bought them from anywhere. All they've found are some cakes in a van (some of these terrorists ran a bakery) and - what for it - shock and horror - a couple of hand guns! Not exactly unusual in the UK today. That's not a conspiracy theory - just facts. No one has been charged, certainly no one has ever been convicted and it looks as though the 'suspects' will fade into obscurity like the countless others.
I know it's difficult for some people to accept without thinking of some mass JFK style conspiracy, but facts are facts. This stuff stinks.
Gee aren't we all so smart and smug, because we grew up in the Civilized World!
Just because one guy (Thomas Greene) writing for an electronics industry news web site can't think of a "practical" way to blow up a plane, does that mean we should put our collective heads together to discuss publicly the myriad possible ways to wreak havoc?
Take the challenge! Let's everybody prove how smart we are and provide examples!!
There is really no need for a would be terrorist to mix their own explosive compount mid-flight. Solid explosives (dynamite, tnt, c4, rdx, tatp, ...) are easier to transport and are generally more stable than liquid ones. Niether solid nor liquid explosives can be detected by the metal detectors that are currently used for airport security. Any explosive compound that can be detonated with a non-metalic primary charge (blasting cap) would be easy enough to smuggle onto a plane taped to a passengers body (under their clothes). Such a device is easy enough to procure and would be quite effective at taking a plane out of the sky. Any terrorist who plans to set up a chemistry lab onboard an aircraft is a hack.
Everyone keeps saying this stuff about "passengers won't comply" in the aftermath of 9/11.
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 categorically say that this will happen. I think it's a fantasy to pretend otherwise.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
it might have been Magneto, I'm not 100% sure.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
You just need a sealed unit, so that any odors don't escape, it's not that difficult.
However, depending on your mixing process, you might set it off if you're not trained in proper handling. But, from every account I've ever seen, they appear to be well trained and versed in how to use explosives.
That's the problem, quite frankly.
Now, all that said, you're still safer on a plane than in a car, even with all these risks, and you still should refuse to live in unnecessary fear. Most such problems can be handled by tossing a blanket or a thick coat on top of the terrorist and pinning him down until he's subdued by the flight crew.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Here (long, funny, interesting).
you had me at #!
They just need to crush the planes like soda cans.
The terrorists want to _inconvenience_ the world into adopting Sharia law...
And how is he related to Richard Reid?
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.
Ok you do it an a plane washroom that is bouncing about the sky and that every one elas is trying to get in. But then you can probably pee statnding up in said washroon too and hit the bowl every time.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Note also that the Bojinka bombs were designed for non-suicide use. Without that, all you needed to do was fill a bottle full of something nasty and slam it against the inside of the plane.
People keep saying "they couldn't use nitroglycerine," but nitro is actually *less* touchy than TATP, and is pretty stable if you keep it cool enough (freeze it and pretend it's water ice, then let it melt on a long flight). It's just harder to make correctly, which is why TATP is the choice of so many bad guys. You can also dissolve TATP in some liquids, but still keep some of its power, while losing some sensitivity.
Generally, if you treat the sensitive explosives like you treat a new laptop, you're safe enough. Relatively speaking.
The other binary explosives also tend to have at least one component which sets off scanners, or which is banned already (acetone has been a banned substance for years, for example).
Well, I'm not going to go into specifics but liquids are in fact a feasible option and we have known about them for a considerable amount of time. That said, it is not the only security hole that exists. There are quite a few ways to potentially breach security.
Unfortunately, this is not going to get resolved until some people sit down with a cool head and focus on both macro and micro level solutions. Nothing will ever be full proof, but relying on prohibiting item and developing EDS systems isn't the most effective approach. Security models that work involve international diplomacy, border security, cognitive psychology, money, etc.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Are you serious?
"Except Nitro Glycerine would most likely detonate the second you had any turbulence, or even upon takeoff, given how unstable it is."F light_434
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/17/airport.evac.ap/i ndex.html
leave the hillbilly jokes out, please.
"One man's "magic" is another man's engineering."-- Robert A. Heinlein
"Except Nitro Glycerine would most likely detonate the second you had any turbulence, or even upon takeoff, given how unstable it is."
Nitro, while not being something you'd want to carry around, isn't as Hollywood-dramatic touchy as people seem to think. Keep it cool enough or even freeze it, and you're not going to run into anything in flying that would set it off. Unfreezing, of course, can make it detonate, but that's not a problem for this use.
People who are used to handling TATP wouldn't worry about using nitro. It's just a lot harder to make and store.
"Feasible"??? Maybe the reporter would like to board a plane with terrorists having the same equipment as the ones who were caught? I sure wouldn't.
you don't need liquids to cause very serious damage to an airplane. It is actually possible to just bring some aluminum oxide or iron oxide (rust) powder onto the plane, a small piece of magnesium for ignition and you can start a thermite reaction that can burn the airplane into soot in no time. Use 25.3% of aluminum and 74.7% of iron oxide powder (thermit used for welding.)
You can't handle the truth.
Ok you do it an a plane washroom that is bouncing about the sky and that every one elas is trying to get in. But then you can probably pee statnding up in said washroon too and hit the bowl every time.
Actually, it's fairly simple to do that. Just use your legs so that they are firmly against the side walls (feet) and lean forward with your palm (non-holding) forward so that you're at an angle. Then use the other arm to properly aim. Works like a charm.
Yeah, learned it in the military, having to p out that small hole they give you there. Fun being strapped into the webbing though.
I said, properly trained. That's why they were doing a dry run.
Now, for fun, want to guess how you do it upside down?
To an engineer a technical problem is fun. To a non-engineer a technical problem is impossible.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Occam's Razor argues that the "best" explanation is the least complex, and by "best" is meant the simplest to validate, not the correct one, even so, consider. Two heads of state are in real political trouble and want their people looking elsewhere. Twenty-odd chemically naieve "terrorists" want to use a method seen only in movies to blow up aircraft bathrooms using "household" chemicals - which BTB is a crock. Hydrogen peroxide in the concentration available publicly can be used to put fires out, even though it is classed as an oxidizer. Given that which is simpler? Which of those is most likely to be valid, even using Occam's Razor?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
but you make the point for low taxes and very little government involvement in any part of our lives
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 canned that, let's look at those eyesore highways, more government clutter. Who needs to travel anyway?
With the breakdown in travel and communication, there is no need for government anymore, so we can just live in communes and grow our own organic veggies powered by happy sunshine and vegetarian hippie poop.
peace
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Heh, that post made my day, thanks.
Unfortunatly, the flight attendents will deliver half our your concontion to you, and they have a device in the onboard bathrooms that will deliver very large quantities.
Well, at least then he would not have to worry about persistent heartburn so much.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
"it has already been done on a plane, years ago."
Surely you mean: some people planned to do something similar but the plans were thwarted after they tried to make a bomb and accidentally set fire to their own apartment.
Someone else said this but its fairly easy and true. liquid explosives tend to be unstable (movment/friction triggers explotion)
however some raw sodium/ potassium in a dry vile or in a gel cap/ in medicine jar, would stay dry enough to get on board and then just mix into any water vapor... breath on it with enough spit.
it doesnt take much... hell some of the most forceful explotions happen because of an atom splitting, think of that.
just because the splitting agent is big doesnt mean technology cant shrink it.
Mole Men.
Ah, that delightful TV leprechaun!
It if has happened, it is possible.F light_434
Not the actual creation of the explosive on a plane but the creation of a liquid explosive and the smuggling of it on to a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_
Frankly I can think of a few explosives that could be made in an bathroom on a plane.
Thermite while not an explosive could take out a plane.
A fairly pure from of H202 and any flammable substance could be combined in a bathroom. Yea it would probably kill you but that is why the are called suicide bombers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Or maybe it's all the conspiracy theories. Come on people. The fact is that Hydrogen Peroxide is actually very easy to come by in food grade on the Internet. This stuff if 35% strong. That is pretty good. Now the next straw man the article throws out is how difficult this stuff is to combine. But why waste your time if this crap is so unstable. Just dump it down the toilet and it is bound to cause serious problems maybe to the point of even causing the plane to crash. Maybe that's what the test run was for?
What do statistics have to do with it? I can control the way I drive in order to avoid getting into accidents. Yeah, there's still a possibility that I'll be involved in some freak crash that I had no control over, but I can limit that chance to almost zero simply by not speeding, observing the traffic around me, and maintaining a safe distance between my vehicle and the one in front of me. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, I have absolutely no control over. There's nothing I can do to decrease the chance that I'll be the victim of one, short of avoiding all public places. So the statistics really don't matter. It's about what you can do to make yourself safer, and how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that level of safety.
Sounds like it would be pretty hard to contain in an inconspicious container. I doubt a suntan-lotion bottle or a baby's milk bottle would do the job.
If the snake was "sedated" you could just carry it on as a "trouser snake" since it won't set off the X-ray.
Do they have ANY idea what a trouser snake is? They don't think that airport security would get suspicious if somebody had a metre-and-a-half-long dick hanging down his pantleg?
The one thing that this article points out is that it's very difficult to do this on a plane. But they offer no argument to the fact that one could perform this in a restroom at the airport, before they board the plane. There are more possibilities than this article explores.
i don't think it will last, they'll get rid of it.
Shoe-bomber boy couldn't even get the damn thing lit and current X-Ray machines can't detect show bombs anyway (according to recent news), yet we all have to removed our shoes and get them scanned.
If someone figures out how to put liquid explosives into their bladders, or solid explosives into other body cavities, we're all screwed... Not that anything will explode or anyone will die, just no one's getting on the plane.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It talks about the likely effects of chucking the stuff down the toilet and explains that you'd likely get a violent reaction, but not an explosion.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Samuel L Jackson! Otherwise who would say your quotable lines? I can just see Woody Allen in his role.
... could you umm.... Well the plane is.. " *Snake eats Woody Allen whole.*
"Well you see
On second thought I would pay to see that.
It talks about the chance of depressurization as opposed to the destruction of the plane.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Conveniently your odds of being killed by a terrorist START at almost zero! Even closer to almost zero than your best hope for protecting yourself against freak car accidents.
Terrorists have almost exactly the power we give them.
Been there, done that, done that lots (nice thing about the long webbed seats, you can actually lie down and sleep if there is room).......now braced like that... having only one free hand mix volotile chemicals together.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I'm not sure what to make of the possibility of "liquid-explosives" on a plane. As many have pointed out it seem impractical, especially the binary agent type liquid explosives.
If you rule out binary agent type bombs, then I suggest screening liquids becomes MUCH easier. If the liquid is composed mostly of water -- it is NOT an explosive. Rather than some expensive Mass-Spectral analysis type devices that the FAA might be considering for airports, how about a device that just verifies a liquid is mostly water? Might this be easier, cheaper, and subject to lower false positives?
This might be possible done non-invasively with microwaves on non-metallic containers to see if there is an infra-red signature return. Pop in metal cans would still have to be opened or banned -- though passing sealed metal cylinders thourgh screening might not be good idea in the first place.
Letter To Iran
The article talks specifically about creating TATP in a toilet on an airplane. TATP is even in the title of the article.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Seems funny that this happened closely after Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman... A Pro-War politician is outed, so we needed more fear to further the cause.
I didn't see it mentions many places, but maybe I wasn't looking very hard.
Is there much practical difference between a terrorist scheming an effective bomb attack so that he can get props from Allah and a /.er scheming an effective bomb attack so that he can get props from geeks?
I'm sorry but none of the things you mentioned sound that complicated to me, but the actions required to pull off a liquid explosives attack on an airplane do.
I'm sorry but can you honestly say there is no difficutly in taking over any given airliner and flying it to a specific destintation?
I like flight simulators but I have no illusions that I would be able to do this easily at all, even ignoring the difficulty involved in taking over the cockpit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You just ridicule them for crying conspiracy.
"What!? Next you're going to be claiming Bush killed JFK!"
Why is being skeptical a bad thing?
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 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.
but why even bother blowing up the plane? The security lines at airports are going to be incredibly dense and an airport has plane-loads of people in it. A coordinated simultaneous detenation of something inside the airport would work just as well.
When was the last time you went through a security checkpoint to get IN the airport?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Flight 93 shows that only hours after people learn that they are probably going to die, they cease to worry about themselves and instead stop the attack by any means nessecary.
The Ried incident with the shoes repeated this lesson as passengers rushed to subdue a man lighting matches and attacking a stewardess.
What is your problem in retaining these lessons? Why is it so hard to belive that knowing you are going to die shortly to some degree frees you from the worry about dying right now?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dude, when even the slashdot crowd thinks you're crazy, it's time to re-examine your life.
Yes, because we have policies in place to ensure that terrorism fails most of the time. So what are you suggesting, that because they keep failing we should just say "screw it", and not bother trying to stop them? That'd be the equivalent of reducing the fatality rate in accidents due to seatbelts and airbags, and then saying "oh, well, not that many people are dying, let's make seatbelts and airbags optional". Or saying "hey violent crime is pretty low these days, let's get rid of the police!".
Am I the only one a bit wierded out by the fact that slashdotters, self-proclaimed nerds, are criticizing the government because they don't think you can make an explosive out of liquid chemicals? For a bunch of nerds you are all seriously underestimating the power of chemistry. Hell, one need not make an explosive to cause a plane to go down; poisonous gasses would be enough.
I think the real fact is that most people are on this "Bash Bush and Blair" mode where reason is thrown out the window. Reason and logic have gone out the window and crazy conspiracies that don't follow the scientific method are the new religion.
With everyone discussing how unfeasable it is to create a bomb with nitro on a plane, why has nobody explored the possibility of Diet Coke and high-powered Pakistani Mentos?
If it was a bottle of "liquid explosives" why didn't she detonate it as soon as they started questioning her?
At that point you have no access to the bag, a lot of people to tackle you if you try.
I have no idea what was really in the bottle, just providing a reality check on what would or would not be possible at that point in time for the woman were that actually an explosive.
Remeber to that a variety of potential liquid explosives beign talked about would require some mixing or other preeration before detonation, so even if she could reach her bag for an instant she could not "set it off".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Common sense and reason have no place when talking about preventing terror. Or, for that matter, during an election year.
Please, the RNC needs as many fear induced votes as it possibly can get. Don't harsh their mellow.
(Of course, by writing this, I'm now on a Persons of Interest list, and will never fly on time again. The bastards.
nitromethane liquid explosivs are relatively safe to use, even when mixed, a colourless liquid that produces substantial explosive force from 2 fairly innocuous compounds, a wine bottle can be used to create a shaped charge. Whilst other liquid 2 component high explosive mixtures do require care in handling both before and after mixing, nitromethane based liquid explosives are amongst safest in use and have been around for decades. bring bak the ponies!! :)
bring bak the ponies!!
Okay, I'm confused-- craigmurray.co.uk is Craig Murray's blog, right? So why do all of the posts there say "posted by andrew"?
Just need some Diet Coke and Mentos.
Thou shalt not begin a subject line or post with the word "Umm".
An interesting article but the repitition on airline bathrooms being shaky is wrong to my mind - in all flights I've been on pilots go to pretty good lengths to find the smoothest crusing altitude. I could have built small card houses before on many of the flights I have been on.
As for cooling, presumably you could just bring a bag of ice and a small soft-sided cooler as a carryon (before). Not to mention you can get all the ice you want from stewardesses.
Time is the main factor, I'm not sure how long it would take before someone would start to wonder how to rouse you out of the bathroom but I'd say 20 minutes max (especially since other people would want to go). Then again internation flights have a lot of bathrooms so it might go unnoticed for longer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
they won't let you bring long water hoses on planes either because you might run them to the planes gas tank and use it as a siphon.
Well I guess someone thinks liqued bombs on a plane might work: A Pakistani woman just tried boarding with bottles that MIGHT contain explosive material: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/17/airport.evac.ap/i ndex.html
The problem is.. they say in the article that the womans bottles were
detected by way of a canine hit.
TATP is peroxide based and dogs can't sniff peroxide based explosives...
Emergency oxygen for airplane passengers is typically generated by combustion of solid chemical mixtures based on sodium chlorate decomposition. Relatively low combustion temperatures and slow front propagation are characteristic features of these low-exothermic systems.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Drugtrafficing is done by swallowing things. It is also a known fact that you can analy hide things. Would it be possible to have enough explosives hidden, perhaps together with a match, to go to the toilet, pull or push it out and let it explode?
e.g. just a stick of dynamite up your ass, although I am sure there will be better solutions. Explosives in the form of a cast around a leg?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This one is great:
7 3848835726&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-59465939
Reason they are all ready proven to be able to crash plans. Now in laptops they might be not be better in the cargo hold. It all depends what they are packed with for how much damage it can do.
A flame with out exposive force is a minor problem. Internal systems of plan should handle minor flames or small explosive forces. Checking only carry on is a flaw. Cargo contains are built to take a lot but even them can be overloaded by the right kinda of charge from the right source.
Laptops do have the right ammount of explosive charge in battery to cause big problems. One going off alone most likely on good airlines with explosive protected cargo containers might not a big problem. Mult being packed in the same cargo container and setting each other off most likely will not hold.
Note this is not something terroist can do unless they have control of the ground staff.
Basicly we need to broaden out assessments of problems. So far Laptop batterys and there class of batterys have only taken down a cargo plan with crew. We are lucky that was not a passager plan or everyone would be looking at it as a terror attack. Combindation packed into cargo or in carry on is just as important to think about.
Slashdot, Fark, whatever, what does it matter when both sites are full of clueless retards?
...but there are explosives that could likely be mixed from common ingredients aboard a plane and detonated. Once such might be Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD).
Its ingredients are 6%ish hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), Hexamethylenetetramine (available as the camp fuel Hexamine) and citric acid. (The citric acid is where the much-touted sports drink comes in -- most sport drinks contain a fair amount of the stuff.) According to recipes you'll find online, it only takes about 30 minutes to mix the peroxide and hexamine and needs only to be kept cool with water while mixing it. After that, the mixture can sit at room temperature to dissolve in the citric acid. It'll take 8-24 hours for the explosive to completely precipiate out of the liquid, but I would imagine that 11 or so hours into a transatlantic flight, you'd have a goodly amount to play with, just in time to blow a hole in a plane when it's over land again.
I would doubt that a terrorist would be overly concerned with the quality/purity of ingredients, (which is why a sports drink is a kind of an elegant solution) or with the mixture exploding early, or not going off at all. If it goes off early, the plane falls into the ocean and the mission's still mostly accomplished. If it doesn't go off at all, the terrorist simply gets off the plane with his sports drink bottle and lives to try again another day, much to his 72-virginless disappointment.
disclaimer: I'm not a chemist (or a terrorist), but the above certainly does seem feasible to me after reading a couple of recipes for the HMTD.
secondary disclaimer: don't try this at home, folks. Or on a plane for that matter.
The moral of this story: even The Register can be wrong from time to time. (And hey, for that matter, so might I.)
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
this sound like some thing that the myth busters should try out.
You can kill a plane full of people with liquids that aren't explosives, you might even kill the pilots and crash the plane into the ocean. Put sarin in a thermos and just throw it down the isle mid-flight. Look at what happened in Japan on the subway with a couple small bags of nerve agent. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on a plane with that stuff.
It's funny that terrorist == bomb to everyone.
Explosions are more dramatic, but not the only way terrorists can operate.
Bzzt Whir Click
Reason they are all ready proven to be able to crash plans.
In that case, we'd better ban Microsoft altogether! They crash my plans all the time, especially when I'm working on making music! Those fucking meddling software designers and their ever-timely BSOD!!! *shakes fist*
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
use your elbows. or just have a plastic pop bottle, take a small plastic see-thru insert, pour in.
not hard, try doing upside down in a severe wind on top of a mountain. now that's fun.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hmm... seems like we have to call in the Mythbusters on this one...
There is more than one way to stablise it.
It is possable to stablise nitroglycerin while keeping the appearce of a liquid. Please note Keeping the appearce of a liquid. One of the stable forms of nitroglyerin is a gel. It was used for shapable explosives. Dynamite is not shapeable. Trying to shape Dynamite can set Dynamite off.
Gel form has more force than Dynamite because the Gel adds to the explosive force because it does burn in the explosion.
Reason why lots of Gel form don't get made. The process of making gel form is alot more dangous than making Dynamite.
Run the scarry risk of making nitroglycerin. Then mix it with other componds to turn it into Gel that require a minor ammount of heating and cooling to set correctly. In the process of making the Gel you can blow it up there and then. If you get the Gel it is as stable if not more stable than dynamite and could be placed in bottles and the like with the same ammount of risks as dynamite.
Ie dynamite is simpler to make no heat and cooling required to set it.
Basicly Gel form has been replaced with stuff like C4 and Plastic explosives.
Now if the terrist are mad enought to be making Gel form nitroglycerin they are going to do some of there chemists without hiting targets.
I foed you for this.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
These guys actually blew up the bathroom in a plane with a cut down bomb for testing. After blowing up a movie theater seat.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Actually mixing volitile liquids is a lot more complicated and harder that just pouring liquid A into bottle B. It is hard enough to do in controled conditions (been there done that) let alone in a moving aircraft.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
...so I dont think they mind mixing up something terribly nasty or unstable in the lavatory. There are loads of neat reactions like alcohol polymerization reactions for instance that only require a drop of one acid or another to start a nice fire or nice explosion, or peroxide reactions, or hydrogen gas generating reactions. Heck, flush a pound of metallic lithium or sodium into the lav holding tank.
Remember, the planes would be over the Atlantic ocean so they would have to fly a long distance before being able to land. A damaged airplane may not make it to shore. And personally, I just dont see howprobable it is that anybody is going to have time to open the doors, deploy the emergency ramps, grab their seat cushions, and finally calmy file out of the airplane when there is a huge hole in fuselage underneath the lav. And if they just decide to set a nice little blaze, depending on its intensity and toxicity, it could either kill lots of people on board or weaken the structure of the plane or burn holes in the fuselage. It is still a long way to shore, and I dont know how long an airplane is supposed to stay afloat, but Im sure the floating time is a lot less with big holes in the bottom.
why do you think I mentioned the plastic insert?
it's easier to have it be behind the label actually, with the secondary chemical there in a wrap bag, then you have a transparent tear tag you pull up gently. depends on the chemicals, though. some are semi-stable, and you then put an ignitor in the cap (perfect size), with a tear tab top and it sets off.
again, there are many ways, I tend to prefer gels in toothpaste myself. brings new meanings to the phrase, brushing your teeth.
as I've said, the main thing is that: a. they are trained b. they know what they're doing c. there are many ways to do this d. noone is checking the checked luggage even today e. no port security f. waste of fricking paranoia IMHO.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's pretty much impossible - while techincally feasable - to do what has been described as being planned, on a plane. It just wouldn't work, and at worst, the terrorist would probably cause a small explosion killing himself in the bathroom or suffocate (which would also be a "best case" scenario, of course).
Now, bombing a subway or some other situation where the binary agent has already been mixed would be plenty possible. It'd still be dangerous to the carrier (ie, volatile), but the explosives could be mixed in a relatively safe a
Here is a fairly through analysis by some chemistry-oriented guys. In short, they were either bloody idiots, or they never really intended on blowing up the planes but to do something else.
(My guess: it was either a diversion to distract our intel guys while they plan something eles - wihch is bigger in scope - or they're mainly just trying to inconvenience us and put us into a panic gridlock.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
It's pathetic that people are so anxious to waste their time writing and publishing things, such as the original article and the responses here that I've read, with seemingly no desire to research the facts which would be a necessary basis for any intelligent expression of an opinion on the matter.
The terrorists had planned to prepare a gel of TATP, and conceal it inside a bottle of gatorade, which, besides concealing it would help protect it from both heat and shock, and ignite it with a disposible camera flash. Leaving further details aside, there's nothing even remotely infeasible about that plan.
That "planes could bring down the towers" is something that an expert never would have predicted, because the towers were engineered to take a 707-strike, and a 767 is not a whole lot bigger, nor does it carry significantly more fuel. In fact, one of the designers has stated that they believed the towers could've taken multiple 707 strikes.
No, when you get down to examining the details, Nothing makes sense about the official 9/11 fairy-tale.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
...because bleach is already banned from flights. It has been for some time. Not sure about Ammonia though. I would guess anhydrous ammonia is a no-no simply because it can kill you even without the bleach.
The only reason to be scared to post anything is if you either support Bush in some small way or have an opinion, no matter how eloquently put, which is at odds with the majority of slashdotters. In that case, your Karma is taken out into the woods and shot.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But "liquid" was perhaps the wrong term.
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 could easily be wrong. That's why I found the slashdot post interesting (although I didn't read the article, as I don't read the Register anymore due to rampant BS from them).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
TFA suggests that the plane may have blew up if the fuel tank was positioned where he usually is on other boeing models other than this one. There was a hole in the floor to the bagage compartment where the oil should have been.
I would even say it is impressive, it kinda looks of an elegant solution to blowing up a plane, i mean the technical side of it: little firepower + you don't really blow up yourself as any other yousef wannabe bomber type.
i don't doubt that someone enough clever setting his mind to it can discover any ingenious way of blowing up a plane that can pass the security.
... planes on a snake? [grin]
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
In this age people become state governor because voter think they might act like their movie characters, or reality & soap TV are more real to people than real life. Joe & Jane 6-pack see the movies, then they get worried that the authorities are not protecting them from these obvious threats. By responding to these threats (even though ficticios), the authorities are sending the message that they're in control. It also does not hurt those feasting on the homeland security machine (for money, votes etc) to keep the "threat" alive.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Strip every body naked and put them in handcuffs. then shackle them in their seats. No carry on baggage alowed.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
But do you really need an explosion to destroy a plane? How about burning it, in the middle of the Atlantic where the nearest airport is hours away? You can do that with a newspaper, which airlines supply to you, and a fire source, which could be two sticks rubbed together.
Don't you get it! It's WATER! That damn stuff is lethal to the extreme!
Iv'e heard that they even use the stuff in NU-CUE-LAR FUSION REACTORS as FUEL!
And what's water made of? HYDROGEN (Can you say Hinden-BOOM-burg?) and OXYGEN, the same oxygen that makes FIRE come out of an oxy-acetylines TORCH! And don't be decieved, that H20 formula means theres TWICE as much hydrogen in there. Even more dangerous.
Damn, keep that shit OFF THE MUTHERFUCKIN PLANE!
And besides, do you know how many people are killed with water every year even without making it blow-up? Just put some of it in your lungs and see how long you live. Damn.
"Possibly explosive"??? Hell yea it's possibly explosive.
Can we get a racial profile on spontaneous human combustion too please? I don't want any of those folks on the plane either! Go Bush! Make the world safe for us! We'll give you ALL our silly liberties! Please help us! PRAISE ALLA... I mean PRAISE GOD!
Maybe we should just wait and give the animals a chance to make it work! After all, they attempted the same thing in a dry run with another explosive in 1998 and only killed one and wounded 10. Next time they'll get it right. Just keep ignoring them and telling yourself it's all a conservative conspiracy to keep Bush in office and soon you'll be wearing a rag on your head chanting Alah Akbar.........
Yeah that's what we should do. Hopefully the folks that doubt the reality of the threat will get to experience it first hand so we don't have to argue about defending ourselves anymore!
I work with a guy who has to carry nitro with him due to a heart condition. The funny thing about this is that he's no longer allowed to carry his nitro spray with him but can carry the pills. I would think it would be easier to do something nefarious with the pills.
And speaking of oddities, what's up with having to drink breastmilk and formula? I don't know about you, but if I were planning to blow up a plane I don't think having to quaff a little bit of the insidious chemicals would deter me.
SYS 64738
I'm holding out for explosive liquids on a snake.
I mean, let us not be ridiculous.
"You will soon be more aware of your growing awareness." - My first recursive fortune cookie!
All you need: rust, aluminum, a strip of magnesium foil as a fuse, and a lighter.
That gives you thermite. Below your seat is some flammable stuff including the content of a very large fuel tank.
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.
You'd think a suicide bomber would have an easier time just (taking a page from the drug mules) swallowing a large number of condoms full of plastic explosives, timer, and detonator. This is a rather obvious solution: no carry-on, no luggage, no hassle.
How would you prevent this sort of attack? You could try to find traces of explosive on the bomber's person, using swabbing, some kind of breathalyzer, or more invasive procedures. More pragmatically, you could try to disrupt the network of people who procure the necessary supplies. I suppose that is the purpose of our intelligence services.
"Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
So there is TATP and thermite... what else?
I'm thinking phosphorous and perchlorates.
I've been trying to explain along the lines of TFA ever since this supposed terror plot came to light.
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.
David Farber explains that from a chemistry point of view, it is almost impossible. He also lists some solid stuff that can be used. I list where this progression will lead ...
More on liquid explosives on an airplane.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
The media suffers from a very severe lack of knowledge about general chemistry. Even the writer of this article has no clue what he's talking about.
First of all, 30% hydrogen peroxide is OTC at many hair places. It's not available everywhere, but if you really want to blow up a plane you'll find it.
Next, tricycle-acetone peroxide has a simple synthesis: mix the ingredients, stir, wait, and detonate with a blasting cap. The trick is to keep the temperature low to prevent the formation of the slightly weaker and highly unstable dicyclo-acetone peroxide. This is a much smaller, more strained ringlike molecule.
Wait a minute, why the hell wouldn't a terrorist skip the cooling and produce the much more volatile DCAP instead? It wouldn't even need a blasting cap to detonate, just a hard knock. It wouldnt detonate from the heat of the reaction either. That's just more misinformation.
And what the hell do you need a stirring rod, beaker, and thermometer for, FFS? This reporter is an idiot.
So there you have it, you'd need acetone, hydrogen peroxide, and a little acid (catalyst). No ice, fancy glassware, etc. If you were really concerned about the temperature you could tone down the amount of acid used. Less catalyst --> slower reaction --> easier temperature control.
About the JACS article that says AP is an entropy-driven explosion...So what? A high explosive is a high explosive, end of story. And blowing out a few windows at that altitude would certainly kill the passangers.
One article talked about how a sulfuric acid - peroxide "pirrhana bath" was extremely corrosive to organics. In a 1:1 mix, yes. The synthesis of acetone peroxide is more like 100:1 because the acid is merely a catalyst. Again, a stupid reporter.
There are plenty of premixed liquid explosives that are practically undetectable now.
The Feds know this. They've been doing FAA studies on explosives since Locherbie.
We're just lucky that the Jihadists haven't gotten the wherewithal to make them yet.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/15 299339.htm
Wonder how you're going to feel when you realize that the so-called "crackpots" were right all along...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Authorities aren't gonna make people get on planes naked
Why not? It's a final and effective solution to a suicide bomber (which liquid-banning is not). Naked and cavity-checked. Those who consider nudity a sin could receive airline-issued blankets to cover it. More than that - no luggage should be allowed on a passenger plane at all. Why do you need it anyway? A week's supply of clothing and other small items can be purchased at the destination airport. It would be less than 10% of the cost of the plane ticket.
Really rich can pay for delivering their luggage on a separate, luggage plane. But say, if you convert one plane to hold extra passengers and no luggage, and other - to hold more luggage, no passengers - will the separate delivery of both a passenger and his luggage be much more expensive?
Score:4, Insightful? Come on.
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 influence, and lifestyles unacceptable to orthodox Muslims), but other Muslims, is because of one thing: the "plague" of material goods. This political philosophy was strongly advocated by a person named Sayyid Qutb). The line of reasoning is that anyone "infected" by the obsession of ownership will fail to remain a Muslim because they will do anything in order to fulfill their desires. Community and tradition fall apart. Qutb argued that leaders who pushed for Westernization, mainly in the form of economic reforms, were secretly (or perhaps unknowingly) destroying Islam. Therefore, those leaders could be, in good conscience, put to death. Later followers of Qutb's political theory, like Ayman Zawahiri (mentor to Osama bin Laden) expanded on that theory, saying that anyone who follows the Western model of capitalism can be rightfully put to death. Hence, death to other Muslims, death to the people working in the WTC.
But I doubt there is one, pervasive political philosophy throughout the Middle East. There are many different tensions, the result of many different historical conflicts. Part of the reason why there is so much fighting is that Muslims tend not to forget about those conflicts (tradition is important, remember?)-- another is the continuing destabilizing force the West has been throughout the years, playing those historical tensions against each others, for poltical and economic reasons (read: oil & power). Certainly, though, Qutb/Zawahiri's philosophy is the view held by Al Qaeda. So far, they're the only terrorists who actually seem to want to expand the conflict beyond the Middle East.
My question is this, if Al Qaeda is really composed of as many smart people as our government, media, and terrorism "experts" say they are, why haven't they realized that a few dozen bombs ain't exactly going to halt the massive machinery put in place by the military, industry, and politicians? It seems to me that "world domination" isn't their goal. Fear of "world domination" is just the boogeyman that our media keep throwing out at us to keep us happily supporting the $80 billion/yr money pump to war profiteers.
The 707 was slightly smaller than a 767, but was also slightly faster. If the WTC towers could take multiple fully-loaded 707s, as Mr. DeMartini believed, it surely could handle a single partially-fueled 767. With this information, now you can apply Occam's Razor to deduce that explosives (Stephen Jones says it was Thermate) must've taken down the towers.
Would've been nice if they'd done a failure analysis on the steel so we'd have the evidence to prove who's right. But like the Fire Engineering guy said, all the steel was disposed of as rapidly as possible. Maybe you can tell us why that was necessary.
Your post set of my "false beliefs" detector. You desperately want to believe the official 9/11 story, and your filters prevent you from groking evidence that contradicts your pre-held beliefs. Good luck making sense of your "flat earth".
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
yah because all the companies that now control those industries got government funding when they really didn't need it. Seed money perhaps but not full funding. They buy the Republicans and Democrats and get to take societies money. I say help the poor and keep university students from going into debt for life instead of giving our money to corporations to make billions and then charge me for the airwaves, outragous international roaming, the internet etc...or bombard me with banner ads, video ads that make noise and the like. How about paying society back in the form of a rebate to me or a massive tax to the government. It is a transfer of wealth from working people to the owners (shareholders) of these companies and their suppliers.
Governments wage war, hmmmm if we demanded nothing but basic defense, education and a safety net (not welfare) and nothing more I would not be paying the telecom execs salary or the oil exec salary and their shareholders wealth with our tax money subsidizing them.
Oh yah and the government wouldn't have the money to wage war!
While it might not be plausible with peroxide based stuff, I can think of a couple of things you could cook up in the sink in the bathroom, particulary if you weren't overly concerned with your own survival.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
It's not necessary to "blow up" a plane to "bring down" a plane. Anybody remember the ValuJet crash in the Everglades? That was "just" a fire. An improperly stored oxygen generator discharged. If you bring an oxidizer, there's plenty of "fuel" on board the plane. I'm not gonna name chemicals, but there's a number of options. There's a variety of household items that are dangerous to mix together. I am avoiding going into more detail for obvious reasons. (The terrorists probably already know what I'm talking about. I'm more worried about some brainless kid reading this and trying....)
Am I missing something or why would they have to actually mix them on the plane? Once your past the security screeners you have a very large airport terminal and plenty of time to do all sorts of chemistry tricks.
In other parts of the world personal wealth isn't the only thing important in life.
It's good to know that most - although they said "most," not all - explosives can't be made using the ethanol found in perfume. They made this big deal about not bringing liquids on board the plane and then sold my wife a bottle of perfume during flight. Of course, if the idea was to prevent bringing dangerous substances under the guise of perfumes or some other innocuous item, then it's not a big deal. I found it very enlightening that they said that the government is taking their cue from Hollywood, though.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
There was a good post by a chemistry student on this subject on Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list.
s ting-people/200608/msg00087.html
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
There were countless attacks like this (in the line to security) in Israel until the wall was built.
I've read quite a few news sources on this event. I've read a lot of blogs talking about it. Only the latter seem to be talking about mixing the explosives on the plane. Any idea where this idea originated? Because I'm pretty sure it was nowhere official. It's just a stupid meme that's propogated from one site to another until people started analysing it and destroying it. No, that was never the plan. The plan was to mix the explosives in advance and smuggle them onto flights in drink bottles with false bottoms. The *detonators* were to be constructed in flight, but that's a substantially easier process.
Unless of course they decided to use the same day passport service..
From the uk passport site: "This is a guaranteed service whereby you deliver your application and collect your passport later the same day.."
Indeed be sceptical, but don't bury your head in the sand.. sometimes bad things really do happen.
Apparently Karl Rove and his mind control lasers are SOOOO powerful that they can get the UK's police, Scotland Yard, Pakistan's military, and NSA to all work together quietly for months then suddenly start a bunch of arrests the day AFTER Lieberman loses a primary.
You sir, are an idiot. How many people would need to be involved in such a conspiracy? And this just to make a loss less painful? Come on, if someone was really to go to all of this effort don't you think they'd make sure it happened BEFORE the vote?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If I remember right D.B. Cooper was able to get a rear stairway down on a Boeing 727-051.
He didn't live to tell about it but it was possible to get the rear stairway down until Boeing retrofitted the airplanes with the Cooper Vane that wedges the stairway shut during flight.
First of all, a terrorist will have access to the information regardless. That group appearantly knew how to make it, and I doubt they had the bright idea and if they did, that they didn't share it.
A "normal" person, even equipped with the info, would not go ahead and say "oh, it's a nice day, let's commit suicide and blow up a plane". Would you? I wouldn't.
What it comes down to is that when a government lies, blatantly enough that it's obvious at least to a small group of people, conspiracy runs rampart. The group will say "ok, what the feds say is BS because (insert info from TFA here)" and the next group will go "they lied! They're hiding something! (insert some conspiracy here)".
What it comes down to isn't more safety. The only thing accomplished is that the government becomes less trustworthy and less credible. People read the 'net, they don't rely on CNN alone anymore. Actually, the more faith is lost in the official information, the more people will turn to other sources, often enough those sources are even MORE unreliable than the official ones, but become more credible simply by the fact that they are NOT official.
For reference, see the former communist states. Everyone there believed what the west media said, simply because it was forbidden to hear them, because they knew their own media were lying and thus everyone who said anything else was automatically credible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Evidently? Like you fucking thought this was really a bomb. Did they check her for Anthrax as well?
Keep suck Bush's Fear cock.
Many of these posts mention alternate ways to get weapons onto a plane...
;)
I am sure lots of us remember the laptop gun from Perfect Dark right?.. Damn good thing the terrorists haven't had *that* idea yet
If they now went ahead and said "Got 'em, nobody's harmed" the media would rip them apart for being careless, 'cause it "could happen anytime again", blabla.
So we overreact. And it's also a convenient way for airlines to sell you their overpriced crap because you can't do what everyone did finally when they stopped handing out coke cans as freebies: Bring your own beverage along. On the other hand, you must drink in an environment with heavy air conditioning that invariably dries out the air and (since you're breathing and thus losing fluids) you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Quote: Now you may protest "but terrorists who are willing to commit suicide aren't going to be deterred by being injured while mixing their precursor chemicals!" -- but of course, determination isn't the issue here, getting the thing done well enough to make the plane go boom is the issue. There is also the small matter of explaining to the guy next to you what you're doing, or doing it in a tiny airplane bathroom while the plane jitters about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Seriously. I've been saying that time and again, but appearantly people want to be afraid. If you spent at least a few moments to ponder, you realize that dying in a terrorist attack is even less likely than winning the jackpot in a lottery.
Well, granted, people believe in it and play, but you get the idea...
What it comes down to is statistics, and funny enough, none of the "officials" even attempt to pacify the population by giving them some credible statistics that would prove without a doubt that your chances to die from any other means are significantly higher. If you're afraid of terror, you should never take a bath, never use any electronic devices, never go across a road (not to mention that you better never even think of driving a car), never eat out in a restaurant, never make a cell phone call, never eat chocolate, never drink coffee, never smoke a cigarette and never engage in any kind of sports.
Why? Because your chances to die (or at least get seriously injured to the point where you cannot be restored to your former condition) in any of those activities is by magnitudes higher than dying from a terrorist bombing!
Funny enough, this is never ever mentioned.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The trojan horse was a huge success and it worked. But it has never ever worked since. Why? Because it requires the assistance of your victims. The same applies to the stunt pulled on 9/11.
Before 9/11, plane hijacking was a hostage plot. They'd fly you to some airport in a country nobody could pronounce properly, request the liberation of some "political prisoners" in exchange for the passengers and everyone goes home happily.
My guess is that they pulled their knives and threatened to kill passengers if they didn't get access to the cockpit. Now, what would happen if that threat was called today? Would they open the cockpit doors? They would sacrifice all passengers if necessary but they would certainly avoid another 9/11. It would simply not work anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This article read like a paraphrased version of David Farber's article yet there's no reference to it as a source. Plagarism?
This is only slightly off-topic, but I want to comment on one line in the parent post: that "public education of science is in BIG trouble."
There are many more problems with public education than that, but general illiteracy in science allows the propagandists in the media to cause people to believe such things as the feasibility of liquid explosives in the plot in question -- or that WTC building 7 could have collapsed after not being hit by any debris from WTC towers 1 and 2, and falling straight down at free-fall speeds. Without the total absence of support columns (like say, from demolition charges?) a building of that size cannot fall to the ground that fast.
Or if you prefer a non-9/11 topic: try asking any Greenpeace drone why they are opposed to nuclear energy. If you ask 100 of them you might get one that actually understands the essential basics of nuclear fission, and I've still not met one that understands the difference from reactor grade fuel and ultra-enriched uranium and plutonium used for atomic weapons.
Education just ain't [sic] what it used to be...
early on in the article in the Register, they talk about hydrogen peroxide - h2o2 - (normally) being 3% strength and the problems involved in making it stronger / strong enough - and in large enough quantities - to use for anything dangerous, such a bomb making -- the article pretty much builds from this foundation as if it were in fact truthfully the only method available for terrorists to obtain strong(er) h2o2 in large enough quantities.
;)
:o/
but the author has failed to do some important research here.
i would like to point out that if one goes into any (half-decent) hydroponic gardening supplies shop in the uk (and elsewhere, i guess), h2o2 can be purchased off-the-shelf at a strength of 17.5%, bottled in quantities of up to 5 litres. it's cheap -- and it's not a controlled substance. (For example, see here, here or here)
the 3% strength h2o2 is what you get from a chemist, and it probably isn't sold in quantities over 500ml - and, when purchased, the sale of the product will be called out by the sales assistant and authorised/allowed/acknowledged by the head-chemist(?) type person behind the counter (i believe this is normal practise in any english (british?) chemist, and applies to a lot of things that can be purchased at a chemist).
whilst i have no idea about explosives and their construction, it is certainly weak to build one's argument on flawed assumptions/research about the availability, strength and ease-of-handling (or otherwise) of h2o2 - if the article's author has researched the availability/strength of h2o2 so poorly then what about accuracy of other points made in this article?
it is also worth noting that dairy farmers also use h2o2 in larger quantities than one could buy from a chemist/pharmacy, and (whilst i know nothing about the practise of dairy farming) i assume their h2o2 is stronger than 3%.
i guess that it would be harder to obtain h2o2 through a dairy farmer's supply chain (i.e. from an agricultural/farming supplier - ?) than by just walking into a hydro shop -- but it's still another source of strong h2o2 in larger quantities, and if terrorist bomb-makers (wannabe or otherwise) want h2o2 at a strength greater than 3% it is very very very easy to obtain.
maybe an explosives expert - or a good chemist - might state that even h2o2 at 17.5% strength isn't good enough for bomb-making either, in which case we'll all have learnt something (especially me), my point will be moot and i will shut up.
but reporters simply aren't experts in chemicals - and nor, it seems, are they are even experts in research (if this flawed article is anything to go on!
sure we're all sick of terrorists, we're sick of all this talk of bomb making and, of course, we're sick of the actions put into play in the name of anti-terrorist measures - but an ill-researched article wherein a reporter claims it is too hard to work with off-the-shelf h2o2 when bomb-making is only further adding to all of the dis-information that's already out there.
don't believe the hype - not from the terrorists, nor from our government -- and certainly not from ill-researched reporters.
think for yourself - take care, and (try to) have fun.
The article in the register is way off the target. Nobody suggested that the alleged recent plot involved manufacturing explosives on board the aircraft. The plan was supposed to involve carrying ready made liquid explosives onto the aircraft disguised by innocent looking packaging. The suggestion that hydrogen peroxide could be concentrated by boiling off the water shows that the writer has little or no knowledge of chemistry.
I'm more worried about snakes on a plane
When I was a senior, the most spectacular lab accident of the year was a peroxide explosion. This was not a terrorist attack, of course, but routine stupidity. The faulty plan was to purify the peroxide via evaporation over an open flame. A minor distraction occured as the boiling point was reached and the boil-over hit the asbestos pad, setting-off about a liter of the peroxide. The blast took out a wall of reinforced concrete in the Great Court (infinite corridor) complex. The other side of the wall was shelved with many jars of misc chemicals. When the sprinklers added water to this mess the result was the most amazingly bad odor ever. Okay, that smell was a bit off-topic, but the entire Institute was forced to be impressed with the explosive potential of peroxides. The second most spectacular lab accident that year was ... no, that would be too far off-topic, but also cool - an unchained gas-cylinder becoming an inadvertent torpedo.
On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.
source
[April 30, 2003] Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday. Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some--including Osama bin Laden--had used this as a justification for terrorism.
source
One media report carried on CNN and major TV networks, and later denied, said the woman had Vaseline, a screwdriver, matches and a note on the Islamic militant group al Qaeda. The FBI's Day said a search of her belongings produced no dangerous materials and no note from al Qaeda.
She had hand-cream and matches in her handbag, no screwdriver. Also, neither article mentions her being Pakistani, perhaps you're confusing it with another article?
We have the swabbing system, the air puffer and neutron bombardment systems now.
He wouldn't get the nitrogen-based stuff through now.
Additionally, you'll note that he didn't bring down flight 434.
It'd still be easy to get the wire through. The current equipment and the current process (which is the important part) of screening is still mostly effective on larger lumps of metal than small threads. You'd take a risk now of being caught, but pretty damn small. As the Israelis point out, you're probably more at risk of the screener noticing you are extremely nervous than them noticing your wire (if you hid it correctly).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
...in the little bottles? Makes me explode, every morning.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
When you have the leaseholder admitting that WTC7 was 'pulled', the next logical question is: "How?" It takes days or weaks to set up explosive charges in advance. Therefore, they were setup in advance. If they were setup in advance for WTC7, it's not hard to realize they were set up in advance for WTC1 & WTC2 as well.
Remember, the administration knew this attack was coming. Condi Rice submitted a report basically titled "Al Queda plans to use planes to fuck us up". Okay, that's not the real title, I'm too lazy to google, but they knew this would happen. So, they planted some thermite. Osama Bin Laden was quoted saying he was surprised the towers full. Of course he was. What he did would not crash the towers. Our adminstration wanted to make the attack worse, so that they could push their agenda, make blood money, and take away our freedoms. George Bush is a greater threat to the average american's freedom than Osama Bin Ladin ever was.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...just blow up the waiting lines at the passport checks
'So they planted some thermite' ,and when it burns through, it's still going to fall down, not burn sideways. Look at the footage again, the WTC 1&2 collapse started in the impact areas, did your conspiritors just get lucky & put thermite in that area - or did they put enough thermite on every floor to start a pancake?
That's the issue. It takes hundreds of pounds of high explosives to 'pull' a building the size of WTC 7, strategicly placed in cuts on the support posts.
Thermite is not an explosive, it is an extremely exothermic Red-OX reaction - a hot burn if you will, and fast - but not explosive. You are looking at trying to cut 25-75 vertical beams (conservative number), each over an inch thick, with a material that's going to try to fall as soon as it melts the surface of the beam you've attached it to. OK so we just place it where the beams join the floor - except don't you think someone would notice people ripping up an entire floor - clearing the concrete/matrix from around those joints, and carting in cases of thermite. Oh
I stand by the statement, you don't use thermite to bring down a building. Not by burning out it's supports anyway. It's not the right tool for the job.
(I apologize for not being able to explain this better.)
Also -- maybe it wasn't just thermite. Maybe it was something completely different. It's kind of hard to tell when the government disposes of the evidence right away. They carted all the steel out of there and sold it as fast as possible.
One thing I would definitely not agree on is that "the collapsing started where the impact was". That would mean that floors in the middle started falling before the very top floors, and the top floors fell at the same time. The entire thing roughly fell at the same time. Many people think the pancake theory is bogus. Why would a floor collapse, unable to hold up a weight that it had been holding up for decades?. Furthremore, watching the collapse from all angles (i have videos of all angles for both towers) simply doesn't seem to show what you're saying you saw.
If the government was more forthright about things, we would not have any of these questions. But even the 9-11 comission believes the pentagon lied about the events! Damn I wish I'd added that article to my links when I read it ( http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/911 ), so that I could give you a link to it. NOW I'm frustrated!
But anyway, you made some good points about thermite. That doesn't disqualify all the other interesting facts and situations surrounding 9/11...
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Apparently not everyone knows reality has a liberal bias.
Go live under sharia law you moron and when you headless corpse or corpseless head is returned to your country of origin, we'll all know differently. I'll even nominate you for a Darwin award, along with the "Peace" activists who were kidnapped in Iraq...
The govt is run by a bunch of psycho paranoid shits.
Yes many people on many levels are just pawns and do their job as their boss tells them, but
the real people who pull the strings are crackpots, on par with the otherside, the rebels
from arab lands.
What is wrong with em? did they get beaten up by their mothers? or mollested by their fathers or priests?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
definitely a valid point this is, i ask that all voters read.
Read radical news here
you COULD put either Snake onto a plane, however it is far more likely that Solid Snake would be almost undetectable and much more efficient (unless of course it happened to be snowing on the plane, in which case the guards would undoubtedly notice his footprints and follow them to their vertabra-snapping death). Liquid Snake could get the job done, however he'd probably get greedy and attempt to utilise the plane to carry out his own insane whims...we may only hope that the plane in question is incapable of launching a new stealth warhead with and integrated rail gun....
Although my personal opinion after much research is that both normal thermite to cut/weaken supports (using the patented device in the linked paper) and nano-thermite as an explosive to bring down the weakened building was used, there is no reason to assume that no other explosive was present, although given no-one has admitted picking up residue from explosives apart from nano-thermite, this would seem to be unlikely.
There was some speculation that thermo-baric (fuel air) bombs were used, since they seem to be one of the few non-nuclear devices capable of being both compact/portable and creating the huge overpressures needed to pulverise an entire building to dust floor by floor. I would be interested to hear just exactly what fuel is used in thermobarics and what explosive charge to start the shockwave, and what residue would be expected from them? (though I imagine it's probably classified :( )
oh and for those 9/11 newbies, YES there was opportunity to pre-plant all these devices, the towers underwent a 36 hour powerdown over the weekend before 911, with security cameras and locks not working, and "engineers" going in and out. Also the security for the WTC, the dulles airport (where one of the flights took off from) and one of the airlines involved was stratasec/securacom, run by Bush's brother! Not hard to bypass security when you ARE security. I would imagine that they had preplanted what they could in hidden spots weeks prior to 9/11, awaiting a favorable weather report (see here for why) then it seems on the 6/11 they got that report, so suddenly the booker primary school visit was finalised, among other things, and they set up the powerdown to plant all the rest of the esplosives and cutters necessary.
oh and by the way, there were 47 very large steel box columns in the core, and over 250 steel columns round the edge, all starting extremely thick in the basement and tapering towards the top, and as you say, they where over an inch thick. Actually near the base they where over 4 inches thick! This tells you just how stupid it is when people suggest that the jet fuel made much difference at all to them. Each floor contained over 1000 tonnes of steel and concrete, the jets dumped a maximum of perhaps 5 tonnes of kerosene (jet fuel) on each floor (probably less than this), while the rest burned up outside in a giant fireball (which seemingly exceeded the size the amount of fuel present should have created, though I've only seen this theory one place so far and havent verified the calculations yet). When was the last time that 1Kg of kerosene contained enough energy to noticeably weaken/heat 200 kg of steel and concrete? even more so since that steel was connected in an unbroken column to another 100 floors of it, like a giant heat sink (although admittedly the heat would not have had time to travel all that far in only one hour with the pissy little heat gradient present ...
again, for newbies to the scene, NIST could not find steel from the crash/fire area exposed to temperatures higher than 300C, and most was exposed to a fair bit less than this. (ignoring for the moment, as they did, the "partially evaporated" steel beams). As to people claiming the "jet fuel cant melt steel" argument is a strawman since it doesnt need to melt to collapse, it would be, except MANY WITNESSES REPORTED LITTERALLY DRIPPING MOLTEN STEEL BEAMS in the rubble, and there are pictures and video available showing yellow to yellow-white hot molten metal, far hotter than should have been present (again see the attached paper for pictures, or watch any good 9/11 CT film, they will probably show one of the clips)
watch "the money masters" on google video
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Mixing a two chemicals on the plane instead of carrying an annoyingly unstable explosive through airport security seems like an attactive idea, if you can do it. Using TATP instead of smuggling liquid nitroglycerin is also attractive, because current chemical detectors will pick up nitro, at least if they're being used frequently enough. So one question is whether you really need to do the low-temperature sulphuric-acid method to make your TATP; I'll leave that to people who know the substance in question, and reserve skepticism for the press reports that think it's easier than that.
But there have been other chemists mentioning liquid+powder binary explosives, which are easier to mix than liquid+liquid+ice+acid. I don't know if they're realistic or not - they might be.
And of course, it's easy to find binary mixtures to generate poison gas, if you want to take out the plane by killing the pilots instead of blowing up the plane. And fire's pretty easy, even though planes have lots of fireproof material - if you don't want to smuggle petroleum distillates, high-test ethanol is a good start, and you can easily disguise it as gin or lower-proof vodka(*).
--
(*)This is currently personally annoying to me - California forbids sales of 190+proof Everclear, and I was going to bring some back next for making herbal-extract liqeurs with the next time I was somewhere that sold it; the 151-proof just doesn't work as well, and now the Airplane Security types won't let me bring flammable liquids. Maybe in checked bags?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you can find me a structural engineer anywhere on the planet that can explain with real math what happened to the 47 enormous steel beams in each of the WTC buildings, without a scenario that involves both incindiaries AND explosives not provided by the chemical and physical reactions of a building to a plane collision, I'd LOVE to hear them.
Granted, the buildings might have come down due to plane collision. But straight down at free fall speed? Watch the videos again. It is CLEARLY a controlled demolition, either that or the law of conservation of energy is wrong, or the law of conservation of matter is wrong, or both.
Just get me one reasonable equation regarding the pancake theory that takes into account the known constant of gravity and I'll reconsider my whole reality for you.
Free fall is free fall, and there's only two ways a steel building falls at the speed of free fall. Obviously neither of the buildings were dropped intact from a height, so we can eliminate one of them. Care to explain the other one without explosives?
Is this really the way for the criminals who have taken over our government illegally to maintain power? Completely eliminate science from the schools and then make up new laws of physics and chemistry at will? Are even slashdotters going to fall for that shit?
I'm embarrassed by the lack of knowledge the american public (and slashdot in particular on this issue) clearly has in science if it as a whole wants to embrace the "pancake theory" of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7's collapse. Especially since nothing even happened to building seven. No plane, nothing.
Wake up people, do your god damned homework. Steven Jones is a well respected academic, and all of you are just slashbot trolls putting emotion before reason.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Would you care to explain how ANY building can fall at near free fall speed besides either being dropped in it's entirety from a great height or explosives?
Yes a plane can bring a building down, but at free fall speed? After burning at temperatures far too low to melt steel for only about 45 minutes?
Did you even take a rudimentary physics or chemistry class as any part of your education?
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Please re-examine the facts concerning the case. I'm not a detective, but watching the incident on the day it happened triggered many alarm bells with me, and I still don't have concrete answers that make any rational sense being provided either by the media, or the government. I think it's important considering that as a result we're bombing the fuck out of the other side of the planet.
Would you care to explain how ANY building can fall at near free fall speed besides either being dropped in it's entirety from a great height or explosives?
Yes a plane can bring a building down, but at free fall speed? After burning at temperatures far too low to melt steel for only about 45 minutes?
Did you even take a rudimentary physics or chemistry class as any part of your education?
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"I'm tired of these mutherfucking snakes in my mutherfucking Ireland!" -- St. Patrick
Excellent list. I'm hard to persuade at an emotional level, but my arguments have run out now, I must admit.
But one thing is left to point out, though: terrorism is not caused by something, I seriously don't think so. Many many terrorists had no explanation other than their own loony excuses, even if some of them were based on understandable situations. I don't think it would be far fetched to say McVein and Klebold/Harris had no basis for their actins. And neither had Atta et al. or Osama himself. There's an ideology behind that which I seriously detest.
Going therrorist is an option that defies any real attempts on changing your situation for the better. As long as oppressed Palestinians commit anything against Israel soldiers actually oppressing them, were in a tit-for-tat situation. Which doesn't change anything, but at least real victims retaliate against their perpetrators. Who is who in the Middle East is still up to debate, but at least there's a point in there somehwere.
But most Muslim extremism is not directed towards retaliation, but an attempt at intimidation and coercion of their values to unwilling third parties. Most current attacks happen in Thailand, Indonesia and India, not to forged the south of Sudan. Those aren't retaliatory attacks, it's jihad to broaden the footprint of Islam there.
And if attacks in London, Madrid, New York and Washington were retaliatory in any sense is heavily disputed. Civilians were exclusively targeted with no attempt made on anything of strategic value. Just maximizing the body count. Not to forget that this was before Iraq and Afghanistan, when Iran wasn't even on the horizon and North Korea seemed to be the only military problem to the West. We don't talk about if Bush's course of action worsened the situation or not as the problem was existent and grave way before all that, even before the massacre of Munich 1972. Our views on radical Islam, our questions on the mere existence of really moderate Muslims took place after9-11 and I won't let the political left turn around the facts. Killing civilians is always to be avoided, we vowed and try to, but it happens anyway. Unintentionally. They, to use this word, do the opposite: only civilians, as many as possible, anywhere they are. We cannot allow this to continue and I'm sure you know it yourself. We cannot reasonably condemn Israel when one in every ten Smart Bombs hits only innocent civilians and the other 9 also kills civilian bystanders and be apologetic to Hizb'allah, who fires on anything but clear strategic targets, with metal parts in their munitions to maximize collateral damage. The mere fact that Hizb'allah can't do any better because of a lack of smart bombs doesn't allow them to use the dirtiest tricks they can think of and get away with it. Trust me, if Hizb'allah had carpet bombers, smart munitions and all that, they would use it for maximum casualty producing effect. They have a puny military basis, but their intentions are clear, their actions are clear and they leave nothing out to kill anyone they can possibly reach. Which is the clear antithesis to anything "military", hence "terrorism".
The intentions of most military forces around the globe is securing of something, even if it were "securing" the assets of a neighboring country (for themselves). The intention of Hamas, Hizb'allah and Islamic Jihad something entirely different, not power, money, influence and not peace, freedom, not not even Lebensraum for their race, but clearly stated genocide. Chapter one of all their charters: "itbach al-Jahud", slaughter the Jew. They don't dream of a free Palestine, which they rejected when given the opportunity, but about Khaibar II, an epic mass murder of Jews. Germans for example still get pats on their shoulders when on vacation in Arabia, I've experienced for myself. You know why.
If you have even a freshmen college level knowege of chemistry you'd know this story is bunk. It would be impossible to sneek enough raw ingerients to make a bomb powerfull enough to bring a jumbo down. I think some one mxing several gallons of rather noxous chemicals to produce several pounds of HE would be kinda hard to miss . Also all the compounds I can think of also would require hours of reaction time at room temps and would require drying before they can be used. Also large jet aircraft are more robust then most people think a good example would be to watch the myth busters episode on explosive decompression. It took 2lbs of C4 to make an explosive decompression event occur which isa far more powerfull explosive then the acetonepreoxide british and pakistani officals were talking about. So the reaction by DHS and the TSA is totaly unesscary and only shows how incompetent these organizations truely are. Their banning drinks from people in what is an extremely dry environment is a greater danger then any mixed onboard bomb. The humditity on the average airliner during flight is around 5 to 10% which is dryer then the sahara.
Authorities aren't gonna make people get on planes naked,
Why not? That could be an interesting business plan.
Especially in Europe where the majority of the population is not overweight.
If thermite is mixed with nanoparticles of aluminium, it can be used as an explosive.
Thermite is powdered aluminum mixed with iron-oxide (rust). In order to be explosive, you have to create a fine mist of both the aluminum and the iron-oxide while keeping both in contact with each other. Remember, this is not aluminum burning, it is an Oxidation/Reduction chemical reaction between the aluminum and the iron-oxide. It certainly can be done, but not by sticking a box of the stuff in a corner and lighting a fuse.
Almost any combustable will explode when dispersed in a mist with sufficient oxygen. It's what causes silo's and coal mines to explode. IIRC the technical name is a Fine Particulate Dispersion explosion, and it's what they are talking about when they say a 'coal dust explosion'. When trying to do this with thermite, you need to have a dispersion of your 'combustable' -aluminum - in contact with sufficient iron-oxide - not oxygen to get the explosion. The only way I can think of doing that off the top of my head would be to create a bi-metal sheet of iron/aluminum powder it, and then allow the iron to rust. Now you just have to disburse it throughout several levels of a building - in a fairly small PPM range that's difficult to achieve in a lab on a room scale.
Again, thermite has no significant advantages in this scenario, and a large number of disadvantages. Even creating a FPD with thermite, you'll get less concussive force than with typical high explosives. If you, for some reason, want a FPD type explosion, gasses are easier to work with.
here I'll link it again. Make sure to read the pdf linked near the top, as it is in this that the Prof. goes through the chemical analysis evidence for thermite use and information on current nano-thermite tech and also a link to a patent for a device for using thermite to cut vertical beams, not just horizontal ones (patented early 2001 interestingly)
paper showing why we know the towers where explosively demolished
pdf linked showing latest results, including strong evidence of thermite usge in the analysis of the molten metal from the ruins
watch "the money masters" on google video
No mod points, but double arcane creativity ponts.
Just for the record, I was trying to show this article to my wife who was complaining about the fact that you can't take fridge packs on airplanes which makes flying with little kids nearly impossible. I can't wait for some people with badges to show up at my house because I searched google for airplane bomb and airplane security.
To be realistic, if major crime was rare, and police could effectively handle all the cases, wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller major crime unit?
However, I'd never suggest completely disbanding the major crime squad because it seems like a bad idea to have any laws go completely unenforced, especially important stuff like murder.
Similarly, I'd never suggest a completely "hands off" approach to terrorism, I'm not suggesting a "come to our country, we won't even try to stop you bombing us" advertising campaign. We should obsolutely attempt to stop terrorist plots if possible and catch people who've committed crimes. I'm just saying the whole "lets bomb/invade countries to prevent terrorism" is a pretty shitty plan.
Many people don't know it, but there is a
system of "youth hostels" around the world
that charge a pittance for any overnight stay.
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/hostels-uk.html