Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Evan Booth: How To Weaponize Tax-Free Airport Goods
New submitter MickeyF71 writes "At the Hack in the Box security conference security expert Evan Booth shares the results of his two year research on the effectiveness of airport security. He demonstrates how easy it is to produce lethal weapons from goods easily bought from the tax-free section at most airports."
Google's translation of the Dutch in that link isn't ideal. For those who prefer English to Dutch, Booth's presentation at CarolinaCon 2013 (YouTube video) may be a better bet.
I'll be reading TFA while standing in the TSA security line at the airport.
Have gnu, will travel.
Go into any duty free shop and make a bee line to the liquor section. There's something wonderfully flammable stuff there.
Although, for some of those Scotches, if a terrorist were to use them, you'd see Fark headlines like: "The Horror! 30 year old Scotch murdered in terrorist act! A plane and people died too."
eapons in airport stores? Tax or no tax, it's a potential problem.
You've never been in an airport have you?
Because for instance, the amount of liquids per bottle you can bring from a tax free shop at the airport through security is not limited to 100 ml.
Using whatever is at hand, in MacGyv^H^H^H^H Mythbuster style, and make stuff that goes boom! (among other things)
I salute thee, mr. Booth!
As far as the article, this is not surprising given that security theater dominates our security policy. Look at school shootings. Evidently from what I have read, professors do not have the ability to lock many university classrooms, so they have to barricade of sacrifice themselves. I read this week that the police are now recommending that we take defensive action when someone tries to shoot us. What were school doing before, opening all the doors and lining the kids in the hallways to be executing? At school the policy is to lock doors, hide, and stay away from windows when a attack is announced. Which is to be done before the administration sacrifices themselves. Good defensive positions saves lives.
Of course the answer is always more guns, which is really going to some good when a truck full of claymores and fertilizer is driven into a school courtyard, or when some explodes their group 1 element on the plane.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The TSA recently changed policies to allow pocket knives, nail clippers, hockey sticks, and box cutters back on planes. Box cutters, you'll remember, were used on 9/11/2001. The reality is, many prohibited items pass through security on a daily basis. You've heard stories about people the TSA failing their own security checks (fake bombs, guns, etc). You probably haven't heard any stories about the TSA actually stopping a terrorist. This is not because they're too modest to tell anyone.
All is not lost, since cockpit doors are still locked during the flight and passengers know a plane hijacking no longer means "free trip to cuba" but "you will die" which changes the dynamic (c.f United Airlines flight 93).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Indeed.
I once had a transparent bottle with one finger of liquid left in it (clearly visible) confiscated because the bottle was too big. Even though bigger bottles were available in the shop behind the scanner (also clearly visible).
No sig today...
That guy is over thinking it. A wine bottle and a roll of duct tape can be used to make a good knife - and on international flights they serve wine in glass bottles. Credit cards can have their edges honed to the point of being as sharp as box cutters.
About the only thing worthwhile is using a remote controlled toy to trigger something.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Who wants to bet that the ultimate outcome of this talk becoming known to the public at large will be to close duty-free stores at international airports? Frankly, while I agree that airport security as it exists is basically theater which provides little-to-no meaningful increase in actual safety, I sort of feel like pointing out what you can do with items you're allowed to purchase on the "secure side of the fence" as it were, is akin to the people who point out that more murders are perpetrated with hand guns than assault rifles: they think they're making a logical point, but all they're doing is creating a causus belli for their opponents to expand their reach to target handguns, too -- NOT providing a rational argument for passing over banning assault weapons.
On the other hand, as a security industry professional, I'm naturally inclined to find things like this kind of cool. But seriously, I don't think anything good will come from this from a policy standpoint.
in the hands of an expert, a toothpick can be a weapon.. sheesh..
While cute, this is really overthinking the problem.
If you want to kill lots of people in an aviation related way, send a suicide bomber to the security checkpoint at Thanksgiving.
If you want to get weapons onto the plane, infiltrate someone into the cleaning staff or maybe the caterers. There are lots of people and vehicles who enter the airport without being rigorously searched. Have them leave a weapon for you in the airplane's bathroom or taped under your seat.
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
No-one will ever hijack a plane in real life again, at least in the west, because you can't get in the cockpit, and people will assume they're going to die anyway and will risk death from any hand weapon to stop the hijacker.
The only weapon of any real consequence is one which can puncture the skin of the aircraft, or kill everyone on board some other way. Other than this you might as well ban all these things from busses and trains etc. where they would have the exact same effect.
Sigh, you do realize that those bottles behind the screen are screened, right? And that they don't have the resources to test every bottle that comes through the security check point for everything they're worried about.
Of all the things that TSA does, this is one of the few that actually has any validity. If anything they should be far more strict about it.
This is one of the reasons airport security has bugged me so much - I've been inconvenienced over trivial things that don't really matter to security, whilst equivalent or greater threats just go unmentioned. I once had a cone spanner confiscated. That's a very small, thin spanner, suitable for adjusting bicycle bearings - and very little else - I'd lost it at the bottom of my bag and hadn't realised it was there (though I had flown the outbound leg successfully without security picking up on it!).
It was against the rules to let "tools" through the checkpoint - but couple of weeks later on a much larger, more significant flight, I was able to get a heavier spanner for free on the front of a biking magazine in the duty free area. Derp.
Other than distracting law enforcement officials for a short time, which could be done entirely non-violently, what could anyone gain from this silliness?
I GET it, checkpoint security could be toned DOWN a lot and still be effective, but it's hard to see how that message gets across by demonstrating all the other things you can do after the checkpoint. The other end of the argument could be "move the checkpoint up" and your message is lost.
Anyone who takes a self defense class (especially women's self defense) will learn how to "weaponize" ordinary objects that we all have at hand every day. Umbrellas and CDs/DVDs make vicious weapons when broken.
"That's my purse! I don't know you!" -Bobby Hill
This is why we can't have nice things.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Hard to believe that anything will change. After all, the threat of terrorism was out there and well-known prior to 9/11, but the airlines still shirked all defensive/offensive tactics (even basics like strengthened cockpit doors) in the name of profit - and they got away with it because they liberally dispensed cash to their lobbyists.
I daresay no one will argue an assertion that the liquor industry, as one example of an airport retailer, likewise has a significant lobbying presence in Washington, D.C....et al.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
You missed the point: you can bring in large empty bottles, or small bottles filled with liquid, but not large bottles with a small amount of liquid. The regulations are arbitrary and near-useless.
Researcher builds bomb out of articles from airport shops
To demonstrate the futility of current airport security, next week a security expert will demonstrate a remotely controllable bomb. All the materials were bought at the airport once past security.
The detonation mechanism will be presented at security conference Hack in the Box in Amsterdam. It is the result of two years of research by security expert Evan Booth.
“There are all kinds of things we cannot take with us and security checks for those. But it turns out that this doesn’t make much sense,” says Booth.
The detonation mechanism is the result of more than two years of research into deficient security at airports and available materials which are sold the in stores which are located ait airports behind customs.
Drone
To build the mechanism, Booth has used a Zippo lighter, disposable lighters, adhesive tape, dental floss and a remote controlled drone. “Which can be opreated with a mobile phone through a wireless network”, claims Booth.
He used the engine from the drone to operate the zippo lighter. With disposable lighters, it is possible subsequently to create a blowtorch. By doing this, it would be possible to cause a fire, but at the conference Booth will present a more developed concept which even enables the detonation of a bomb.
Simple
“The trick is to prove that you can have dangerous weapons on board without carrying any forbidden items with you”, Booth has stated to NU.nl.
Apart from a bomb, Booth also managed without much effort to create a bow and arrow out of items he had bought in a shop at an airport. For this, he used an umbrella, a hairdryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms. He did not want to further develop things were too obvious, such as using a lighter and deodorant as an alternative gas burner.
Also remarkable is a club he created out of a souvenir, some magazines, dental floss, a leather belt and adhesive tape. During a test, this club turned out to be so solid that a single strike sufficed to break a coconut into several pieces.
Profiling
“Airport security has not been done well for a while now. What annoys me, is that we spend a lot of money on it and, for example, violate people’s privacy with body scanners. In the meantime, it turns out it doesn’t work well”, explains Booth.
“It is a difficult problem, but I don’t know if this security makes any sense at all. I believe more in good intelligence and preventing the wrong people from coming to the airport.”
To pre-empt problems with authorities, Booth has contacted the responsible government agencies in the United States in February. “I have offered to demonstrate my research and provide explanations, but I haven’t received any response. In the meantime, I have continued my research.”
Did anyone honestly believe it was the opposite?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... a more powerful weapon. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and turn anything into a powerful weapon, including their own body. Anyone with a knowledge of chemistry of physics is more capable of making use of the things that they find around them. Anyone with a knowledge of psychology or security is better able to manipulate the mechanisms that are supposed to keep us safe. And the list could go on.
Antiquated rules on the requirements for how long people need to be there before the flight are maintained to ensure there is a large number of trapped people sitting about who want to buy food/drink and who get bored or are addicted anyway to buying things they don't really need in shops.
There are three sets of rules about when you need to be at the airport:
- Check-in time: Usually 30 minutes. This cutoff is to both give you time to get through security and the airline time to put other people in your seat if you don't show. But, since you can check in online anytime within 24 hours of your flight, this doesn't really put any requirement on you as to when you have to be at the airport.
- Back Check Time: Usually the same as the check-in time, and usually 30 minutes, although at some airports it's more. This is to make sure that the airline has time to get your bag to the plane and loaded on it. 30 minutes is pretty reasonable here (and the airports where it's longer, like Las Vegas, there's a reason.)
- At The Gate time: 15 or 30 minutes prior to departure, depending on whether you're doing domestic or international departure. As a practical matter though, this is really "before they are done boarding the plane". If it's 10 minutes to departure and they've still got a line of people getting on the plane, they won't know you're not there. But if it's 25 minutes before departure on an international flight and you're not on the plane and they are done boarding, they're going to pull your bags from the plane.
Why 30 for international but only 15 for domestic? Because the airlines are not required to fly your bags on the same plane as you domestically, but they are required to do so internationally, so they need the extra 15 minutes to get bags off the plane.
So, yes, there are rules about when you have to be at the airport and at the gate. But they have nothing to do with getting people to shop.
paintball
Since when can you buy lighters in airports?
And I wouldn't count making a bow and arrow as being successful at getting a (useful) weapon on a plane. A bow and arrow is a virtually useless device in the close-quarters of an aircraft.
paintball
Yes, and the last time a 9/11 style attack was possible was 9/11/2001. If a terrorist is going to stop passengers from fighting back, he will need a couple of guns, or a big bomb strapped to his chest. Anything else, and they will rip his arms and legs off after the first attempts of an attack.
Here's a clue: and dangerous mind and a pair of hands are lethal weapons. In any case, this guy is now on every watch list there is in the United States of Stupid/Paranoia.
Next headline will read:
TSA: How To Eliminate Researcher Evan Booth While Pretending To Be In Line With The Constitution
You can't handle the truth.
Indeed, you could have 1 large empty bottle + 2 small bottles as if it was impossible to fill the large bottle with the small one once you cross the checkpoint. But we know this is done to give an impression of security and not really provide much security.
Interesting. Those large polycarbonate bottles can hold well over 100 psi. Pump a two litre one up to max with acetylene, and it would still look empty. Unscrew the top and light a match. Boom.
This ought to teach us just how disorganized and scarce these "Al Quaeda" suicidal terrorists are. If there were that many of them, they'd have figured out how to make airplane assault weapons long before this guy's ideas made it into print.
We are being sold a bill of goods by contractors who want the government to buy their overpriced "anti-terrorist" product-of-the-month.
Every damn politician is now afraid of being perceived as "soft on terrorism," and we now have an Antiterrorism Industry intent on perpetuating itself.
This is getting REALLY stupid . . . almost as stupid as the internet bubble.
Gift the money to the gov't.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Yes, correct. And people on slashdot continue to post this on every airplane-related story, and continue to mod these posts insightful, and continue to agree with them.
Meanwhile, the TSA continues to get more funding, continues to grow in power, and continues to perpetuate its injusticies against innocent people both inside of and outside of airports.
Pointing out how wrong and wasteful they are, to an audience of geeks, accomplishes nothing.
Just at the moment they were relaxing the regulations requiring mothers to drink their own milk and fathers to drink their urine...
Privacy is terrorism.
One can easily pass through security with several little bottles of liquor (1.5 ounces apiece). They look at them but don't verify that the seal isn't broken (anecdotaly speaking, mine are always sealed but they always just received a cursory glance. Probably very common for flights to Vegas...).
BlameBillCosby.com
Once again, the Israelis have led the way.
Much of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport’s security protocol is achieved through a combination of comprehensive due diligence, common sense, and consistency – which, one would think would be the objective of airport authorities throughout the world. If more airport authorities were to adopt Ben Gurion’s approach, surely it would be more difficult for those intending to do harm to succeed.
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-israeli-airport-security-teaches-the-world/
Heh, the *boom* will be when you try to compress acetylene above 15psi.
A few liters of acet-oxy mix makes a nice boom but little damage, I've had a quart sandwich bag of mix go off in my hands, not even a tingle.
30 gal trashbag with a nice lean mix will audibly echo in the hudson valley for at least 190 seconds, assuming your ears were plugged for the boom.
I'm most familiar with Singapore Changi Airport, and security checks are done just before the gates. Whatever you bought at the duty free areas will end up being checked when brought through to the gates.
It seems like the most logical way to do it I'm surprised most other airports don't do the same. It is definitely more expensive though, requiring a lot more X-ray machines, personnel and terminal space.
REALLY? VALIDITY?
aaaghhhh my head.
LIQUID EXPLOSIVES ARE NOT AND WERE NEVER A DANGER, THEY ARE FAR LESS ENERGETIC THAN SOLID EXPLOSIVES AND FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO TRANSPORT.
Anyone trying to blow up a plane with a liquid explosive is either going to blow up on the way to the airport, or do just enough damage to hurt themselves and no one else.
The whole liquid restriction bullshit is just that, bullshit. And furthermore Susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that it was encouraged by the vendors on the 'safe' side of the security checkpoints. I can't fathom how much their sales of beverages must have increased..
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
There's no real danger from liquid explosives so I'm not shocked the agents don't much give a shit.
That's not a "oh the terr'rists aren't going to use them", that's a "oh, no, sorry but unless that liquid is magic it's not dangerous to anyone but you"
explosives explode because they break apart chemical bonds and form gases that occupy a larger area, by far, than the original stuff -- and get quite hot in the process, which also means more expanding. liquids aren't as dense as solids, there just isn't the energy density available to do much of anything dangerous with liquid explosives.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I don't really think telling an audience outside of /. won't be doing much either. I don't know anyone who doesn't think the TSA is nothing but a huge job-creation program, and that's if they think positively about it.
The whole "we protect you from the scary terrrrrrists" spiel doesn't impress anyone I know anymore. The reason why nobody really complains when more money is pumped down the hole is simply that people not only have other problems, they just noticed that they can't really do anything about it either. It's not like voting could change anything. If it could, it would probably be illegal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're wrong about the box cutters. Specifically called out and still banned.
http://www.tsa.gov/pil-sharpobjects
They do pay particular attention to foot and baby powders, but not for safety reasons.
Unscrew the top? You'd want to contain the expanding gases for maximum overpressure. Remember you want a bomb, not a bottle-rocket.
[Unless the bottle-rocket is the sprayer for a powdered dairy creamer fireball.]
Do they... allow... Chuck Norris? {boggles}
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Just that this bubble can't burst. It's not subject to the laws of the market, and everyone who can make a decision about it has an interest in it being kept afloat.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Get a duty free bottle of champagne, make a 100W heater element with some silicone sealant or an o-ring that you can insert into the top and lock in under high pressure.
Open bottle in toilet, insert heater, put in bag surrounded by insulating clothes inside a plastic bag to prevent release of burning smells. Hook into the onboard laptop power supply in your business class seat, wait about 8-10 hours.
Eventually steam pressure and temperature overwhelms bottle strength. Boom - equivalent of about 3-400g high explosive.
All airport security is obviously bullshit. Men can easily fit 1kg of high explosive up their arses if they are willing to practice, and women have more than one option for hiding such items beyond the view of all scanning.
Liquid explosives are not what I would be worried about, Bleach and Ammonia would be something I would be far more worried about. You mix those on the flight and then you have a toxic gas cloud in an enclosed space.
There are plenty of other two part chemical liquids that i would expect would be just as bad or worse in confined spaces. I don't expect it would be that hard to make mustard gas or some other nasty substance either. I expect that it would be relatively easy to aerosolize some form of biological agent as well from a liquid container, though you would first have to get that agent.
Basically, there is nothing that is going to stop a determined person, the best you can hope for is to limit the possible damage. By securing the cockpit doors after 9/11 and then the change in passenger attitude (i.e. fight back vs compliance) we really have done about as much as we can. They body scanners are worse than useless and the cost to return on them just shows what a waste they are. If the explosive sniffers actually worked well, then maybe those would be useful but I have heard very mixed things about that. At best they should simply be used to prompt a closer inspection of a person and not a OMG it's a terrorist! response.
I wanna hang out with this guy..
The cabin is a fairly large area and can take in air from the exterior. The risk isn't nearly what you make it out to be, unless someone's carrying a few gallon jugs onto the plane -- but realistically, without TSA and their liquid restrictions, *someone carrying several gallons of shit would never get on a plane anyway*.
Because it's strange, and someone would ask "why are you carrying 3 gallons of liquid" and the game would be over.
But, yeah. Cabin air isn't enclosed, it's not a tight space. There is air exchange taking place at all times during the flight.. just not much when at cruising altitude. It can be adjusted, though, and there's always those wonderful oxygen masks that can fall from the overhead bins.
Liquids have never been a danger, except in the hollywood-addled minds of people who make too much money for too little work to ever grow a working understanding of how the real world actually fucking works as opposed to their gilded fantasies.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I managed to get a leatherman with many many blades onto an international flight after 9/11, entirely accidentially. Forgot I'd packed it in my hand luggage, rather than the cargo luggage. That wasn't a flight into or out of the US though, so it didn't go via the TSA. Don't know how it got through UK security - blind luck, probably. All those layers of metal probably looked like a blur on the xray, and they only have a few seconds to look at each item.
As evidenced by TSA's recent and uncharacteristically sensible decision to ignore pen knives and other little sharps the agency has reaffirmed that they only care about stuff that can down the aircraft. No one can hijack any more by threatening the life of another passenger or crew member because since 9/11 the response to such threats has shifted from compliance to defiance. Armed with a bow and arrow made from an "umbrella, hair dryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms." a would-be attacker would receive a hearty laugh and a face full of mace. Emergency landing to treat passenger wounded by umbrella shaft? Yes.
I dare you to try to visualize the weapon in question and keep a straight face.
Joking aside, a determined group of attackers could create a lot of chaos with or without crap bought in duty free. In the right hands even a pair of eyeglasses is lethal. Godfather III anyone? But with the flight deck firmly locked the bird is probably safe.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I wanna hang out with this guy..
Bring ear protection.
one of these
http://www.swisstechtools.com/proddetail.aspx?pid=5
I have one - has made it through various security checkpoints and x-rays, including airports and courts - no-one has ever questioned me about it
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
As a result of 9/11 the cabin door is locked and besides at the first sign of trouble the rest of the passengers will just beat the perpetrator to death. There is no upside to trying to be violent on an aircraft.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Wow, I'm shocked that this hasn't been posted already:
http://xkcd.com/651/
Unscrewing the top is to let the gas mix with air so it burns, ie a fuel-air explosive. Burning acetylene in air gives off much more energy than the 15psig decomposition Bubbadave talks about.
You might be better with propene though. Vapour pressure of over 10 bar at 20C would let you get a lot more in the bottle.
So, which story is more likely, "overpowered and crashed by heroic passengers" or "shot down by the military"?
I've gone through TSA checkpoints repeatedly with a Pelco security multi-tool in my bag, which has a two inch blade in addition to other sharp points. Never had a problem carrying lighters, matches and glue. The things that they've complained about are 1) bottles of hot sauce (taken three times so far), 2) chopsticks, 3) a USB hub with a bunch of cables plugged into it. Drywall dust on the outside of my bag got it swabbed for explosives, too.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I once had to discard my travel shampoo and toothpaste because the zip-lock bag I was carrying them in was a gallon size, rather than the allowed quart size.
If you believe that liquids intrinsically have less explosive power then let me pour you a glass of nitroglycerine.
It isn't just energy density, but also how fast that energy is released. IIRC, explosive power* of a brisant explosive is proportional to the third power of the density: The explosive power is proportional to the energy released per time unit, which is proportional to how much explodes. In a brisant explosive, this is proportional to the density times the volume of explosive swept by a detonation wave. The latter is proportional to the square of the speed of sound in the material, which is roughly proportional to the density.
Last I checked, this was believed to be the reason why octanitrocubane had less explosive power than calculated before its synthesis, the density was lower than expected (but that was a long time ago, and I might remember wrongly).
*To the degree that you can quantitate explosive power
And really, if we're talking an organised holy war here, you simply bring 20 friends with you, each with small bottles of liquid explosives. 20 times a little bit equals one exploding plane.
If I end up on watchlists just because I watched this video, I am blaming you Slashdot!
It has happened before.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I'm still waiting on them lifting that ridiculous liquid ban.
Really, if they wanted to ensure that a liquid wasn't exposive, they should just make the passenger take a swig of whatever they're bringing in. If said passenger doesn't get horribly sick and unable to fly while waiting for their flight, it's probably OK.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Liquid explosives are also bloody near impossible to put together in-flight. They generally require a vibration-free environment which you're not going to get anywhere on an aircraft. The most likely scenario if anyone tried is a lot of smoke in one of the toilets and a badly burned would-be terrorist.
Yes, the BBC managed to synthesise liquid explosives for a documentary. They were working under controlled laboratiry conditions and treating the stuff with kid gloves. Not exactly something that's going to happen under real-world conditions.
I can recommend that you DO NOT shine your shoes before taking a plane as shiny shoes register as explosives.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
The Elephant in the TSA room is that on 911 many passengers desperately needed a weapon of some kind, and the day might have ended a little better if a few had them. The TSA nonsense really only ensures that 911 could happen again. OK: without the TSA theater, terrorists would have had better weapons, but this would be cancelled out to a large degree by passengers with weapons. Al Qaeda must base its risk assessment on the fact that the TSA has disarmed the passengers. Without that they would probably choose another method.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
You can make an effective explosive from propane mixed with liquid ammonia. The question is how much you can drag along before someone says, as noted above, "Why are you carrying a bunch of gallon jugs??"
[Some years ago my neighbor's travel trailer turned into a small bomb from both the gas and fridge systems leaking at the same time. Flattened the trailer, the garage, and a row of mature pines. 'Course, that probably involved 10 gallons of propane, a bit much for carry-on luggage.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And my brother had a gallon sized bleach jug explode in his hands. We drilled a small hole in the cap, just set it on top, and held a match to it.
Nothing. The acetylene wasn't coming out on its own.
And so my brother gave the plastic jug a light squeeze - and kerpow! - a split open jug and tingling fingertips.
I don't know how much it echo'd, but it did happen in the Hudson Valley (town of Poughkeepsie, early 70s).