Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Liquid Explosives on a Plane Feasible?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shaken-not-stirred dept.

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.

4 of 875 comments (clear)

  1. No need for an explosion by andrewman327 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here is another source on the issue.


    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.
  2. An even better article by jgs · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. That door is staying closed until you land by jgs · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not quite sure what your point was, but the idea of opening an airplane door in mid-flight has been thoroughly debunked. For example, see Patrick Smith's Salon Article on the subject (mind-bending advertisements or oppressive money-grubbing subscription may be required). In short, you can't open the door because there's a lot of air pressure holding it shut. From the cited article,
     
    At a typical cruising altitude, as many as 8 pounds of pressure are pushing against every square inch of interior fuselage. That's 1,152 pounds of weight against each square foot of door. Flying at low altitudes, where cabin-pressure levels are lower, even a differential of 2 pounds per square inch is still more than anyone can displace -- even after six cups of coffee and the frustration that comes with sitting behind a shrieking infant for five hours.

    Of course, if you don't believe him you can try it for yourself. Remember to pack a hydraulic jack in your carry-on.
  4. Craig Murray by replicant108 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.