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.
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
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?
Christ, this has .
Except Nitro Glycerine would most likely detonate the second you had any turbulence, or even upon takeoff, given how unstable it is. Now if you wanted to make a bomb out of liquids - why not just bring a bottle of water and a piece of rubidium or cesium? Remember what happens when alkali metals hit water? BOOM! Two grams of cesium and a quart of water is enough to make an explosion roughly equivalent to about three or so hand grenades going off. Water and rubidium can blow apart a bathtub. Cesium is far, far more reactive.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
You mean as Brainiac shows in this video.
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
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".
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.
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.
"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.
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
Because the detectors are sensitive to incredibly small quantities (hundreds or thousands of molecules/parts per trillion when airborne). As in: you'll need a truly great seal on the bottle, two clean rooms and a remarkable cleaning protocol to make sure that the remaining residues are below the detection threshold.
Not that it can't be done, but the cost is unbelievable (and the number of people that need to cooperate increases the risk of detection). Someone from the first room being within several feet of the bottle for a few minutes after cleaning would leave a detectable explosive residue on the bottle's surface.
Regards,
Ross
As a follow up, some people aren't realizing that it isn't necessary to actually have a chemical reaction and form an organic peroxide molecule to make an explosive. A solution of oxidizer and fuel can easily be a shock sensitive explosive. This requires higher concentration peroxide than is available off the shelf, but concentrating a modest amount is not very challenging.
The feasibility of this really isn't open for debate. There is no doubt that you can reliably mix two liquids and produce a high explosive that can be detonated with a sharp impact.
A quest for perfect safety from all conceivable threats is, of course, ridiculous, but I'm sure there will be many more added security measures thrown in as a result of this, to little real benefit and much general annoyance. Personally, I would have been completely comfortable flying immediately after 9/11 with absolutely no additional security measures. Statistics and probability leave me with no fear of terrorism.
John Carmack
How is that relevant? The Wikipedia article clearly states that he used liquid nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin will be easily detected by regular modern airport explosives-detection means, which puts nitroglycerin out of consideration. The whole point of The Register article, if you read it carefully, is to research the possibilty to create explosives from apparently _innocent_ liquids.
Sooo.. Roll back to the 90'ies. Research facilty for Norwegian Oil company Hydro in Oslo. They're handling lots of nitro-glycerin and various high-explosives.. and they have all these safety measures, because for some reason, people don't like being blown up,
So.. one day, one senior researcher, fairly hung over, is handling a glass-tube (shut) with the nitro-glycerin.. and drops it. So, the guy sees his life pass by in slow-motion, curses a little for not having had sex with his wife this morning and closes his eyes waiting to die.. Except nothing happens. So, he runs out and calls for evacutation. Eventually, they clean the mess up and everybody gets back to work. Turns out, the container didn't break, and the nitro-glycerin was still lying happily on the floor.
Now, the leading researcher and head of the facility was a really hands-on-guy. He knew all the theory and stuff, but he was really hands-on. So.. they had all these tests on how much pressure it takes to make nitro-glycerin blow up, but how do you test how much turbulence it takes to make a closed container filled with the stuff blow up? You could probably put it in a shaking-machine, but that'd hardly be realistic conditions now would it?
Now, the rest of this story is verified. This guy fetches some containers of nitro, drags it out in the woods behind the factory along with a fishing rod. He finds a big ledge, when at the bottom, he ties a container to the line, and being carefull not moving the nitro at all he walks up the top of ledge, and using his fishing rod hoists the stuff up and starts swinging it around wildly.. without hitting the rock ledge of course.. He stood there for 10 minutes just waving the stuff around.
Sadly, or maybe luckily for him, he was not able to make it explode as long as it was within a closed container. The scientific, now empirically tested, conclusion was clear, the risk of explosion within a closed container was grozzly exxagarated.
(This guy also ran an experiement with was I think was paint-thinner(not sure, it was poisonous atleast) and a sealed off cabin. Himself, another researcher acting as a secretary and a psychologist locked themselves in the cabin to find out the effect the stuff had on human beings, all the while writing logs of what they were experiencing. Reviewing the log-books the day after, they found they had started drawing stick-men instead of writing logs after three hours)
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
This actually isn't as stupid as it sounds. Had the explosion gone off properly, the truck (meaning the identifiable marks of the truck) would have been vaporized and buried. The truck wouldn't have been identifiable for months, at least.
That being the case, it would have been suspicious not to report the truck stolen and claim the deposit. Imagine you're the rental agent. The WTC just blew up, and an appropriately sized truck that you rented out has had no one claim the deposit. That's a direct line to the renter, which is how they actually caught the guys (but only because they identified the truck almost immediately).
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.