The Hollywod myth of binary liquid explosives

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Isn't saving lives worth the price of having all cars limited at 45 miles per hour?

Isn't saving lives worth banning alcohol and cigarettes, immediately?

Yes to the first question: speed might endanger somebody else's life.
No to the second question. Smoking and drinking could endanger only my own health. It's my business to choose pleasure over health.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1) You don't need an air marshal in the friggin' cockpit. If you keep the cockpit door closed . . . no more planes as bombs.

2) Although the technology exists to detect liquid explosives that doesn't mean you can put a detector in every airport for screening purposes.

3) The fear patrol has been in full force for five years now. Hopefully when a different party gains control, all of the chicken littles can go hide under the bed (or alternatively join the Reserves and go to Iraq) full-time.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I once drank vodka & barbeque sauce mixed together (to win a $10 bet) and the next morning I had explosive diarrhea. I might contact the TSA with this valuable information.

Now there's a binary liquid explosive if I've ever heard of one.


and mentos and diet coke... MENTOS AND DIET COKE MAN!!! DON'T GET IT ON YA!

 

[Acanthus]

They were transatlantic flights, there was plenty of time to mix the chemicals, and im sure it was all pre-measured. The article is talking about beakers and eyedroppers and ******...

Common sense gets around those hurdles with about a quarter of a second of thought.

This article is about retarded, all they had to do was mix the chemicals, and ignite it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: db
According to the article....well, just read the article. Extremely unlikely that this liquid bomb thing could be accomplished. The government is using this to fan the flames of fear.

Then whoever wrote the article is an idiot. Making a bomb from common household items is so easy that I know 'someone' who may or may not have done it in high school after reading on the internet how to do it. Aluminum foil + toilet cleaner in a 2-liter bottle, seal it up tight and give it a few minutes. Add beebees (or similar) to create shrapnel and you have yourself a weapon. I could go on, but just this one might be subject to mod sanctioning. Hopefully you get the point - that actually making a bomb is something any middle-school child with access to the internet can accomplish.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Zorba
I pretty much agree with the article and the OP that this was probably pretty made up. Just like those guys in Florida, the original "Home grown Terrorist."

One thing though. If an aircraft has decompression in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, the plane could run out of fuel and be forced to ditch in the drink. Because, once decompression occurs the aircraft is require to do an emergency decent to 10,000 ft. At 10K ft, the aircraft will consume much more fuel and have to fly at a much slower speed. Not to mention the increased drag from the damaged fuselage. But, the likelihood of the plane reenacting Flight 800 is probably nil.

Yeah but those transatlantic flights carry sooo much fuel, might be a minor problem but I bet they could make it somewhere safe rather than having to ditch.

I guess my problem with airport security is that you can bring like 10 packs of matches on a flight which could easily start a fire, yet you can't bring one lighter.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Yeah but those transatlantic flights carry sooo much fuel, might be a minor problem but I bet they could make it somewhere safe rather than having to ditch.

I guess my problem with airport security is that you can bring like 10 packs of matches on a flight which could easily start a fire, yet you can't bring one lighter.

Of the two, matches are certainly more disposable and easier to come by. So why, when smoking is banned on all US domestic flights, in all US airports, and on almost all international flights, should either be allowed onboard?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: ayabe

Yeah but those transatlantic flights carry sooo much fuel, might be a minor problem but I bet they could make it somewhere safe rather than having to ditch.

I guess my problem with airport security is that you can bring like 10 packs of matches on a flight which could easily start a fire, yet you can't bring one lighter.

Of the two, matches are certainly more disposable and easier to come by. So why, when smoking is banned on all US domestic flights, in all US airports, and on almost all international flights, should either be allowed onboard?

That's not true, the Atlanta airport has an in-terminal smoking area. Also, if you get off of a 4 hour flight and are a smoker you will want a smoke, since lighters can't be carried on, you better have matches. If you are in-between flights you certainly can't get your checked bag back to get a lighter or matches and since none of the little shops in any airport I've been in sell either, well then you better be able to carry something on.

Of the two, I still think matches can be more destructive.

 

[CaptnKirk]

As far as a true liquid explosive, nitroglycerin is the only one I can think of that has enough 'punch' as a detonating explosive.
Extremely unstable and prone to spontaneous detonation, it has to be cooled to near freezing (Approx. 40*F) to make it stable enough to handle.
Transport would have to be in some thermos type of vessel and that should be easy to spot.

'Liquid based' explosives, on the other hand, a binary mixture is believable, and these are well documented.
Easiest one would be the ANFO type bomb, like is used commercially for routine mining operations - Ammonium Nitrate & Fuel Oil.
Just like the crude combination that was used in the Oklahoma City bombing by McVeigh.
All you are trying to do is breech the cabin's pressure intregrity at altitude, and let explosive decompression of the cabin rupture
kill and maim the passengers and flight crew - you don't survive long at altitude when the temperature is -73*F & there's no breathable air.

Even at that, it doesn't even have to be an explosion, all you need is a fire in the cabin to bring it down.
Three examples of 'In-Flight Cabin Fires'

1) Value-Jet, Oxygen Canisters in Cargo Bay

2) Saudi Air, Cookstove to Make Tea in Cabin

3) Swissair, Electrical Fire in Entertainment System

Doesn't even need to explode,
or . . . oh, what the hell . . a box of snakes.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This appears to be yet another attempt on behalf of US and UK governments to promote fear which will allow them to maintain power, aquire more "tools" to fight the WOT, and get their party re-elected.

The media is the one that has blown this threat out of proportion...Jon Stewart recently did an interesting commentary, blasting CNN for its choice of words, music, fonts and "packaging"...all to emote a response and attract viewers.

Let's face it...post 9/11, Americans very much live in fear, which is perhaps what Al Quaida wanted all along.

If the government didn't respond, there would be a public outcry for the government to save them from the big bad terrorists. It is very much a self feeding cycle.

When CNN , Fox News and even your local media stations parade all of these experts across your screens, talking of elaborate terrorist plots to make bombs out of Frosted Mini-Wheats and Nail Polish remover, don't be surprised when the response...both public and from our government...is excessive.

Jon Stewart Commentary

 

[Todd33]

I thought about posting this thread a few days ago, it was a good read.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: db
You missed the entire point of the post.

I got it. The author is an idiot.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: db
According to the article....well, just read the article. Extremely unlikely that this liquid bomb thing could be accomplished. The government is using this to fan the flames of fear.

Then whoever wrote the article is an idiot. Making a bomb from common household items is so easy that I know 'someone' who may or may not have done it in high school after reading on the internet how to do it. Aluminum foil + toilet cleaner in a 2-liter bottle, seal it up tight and give it a few minutes. Add beebees (or similar) to create shrapnel and you have yourself a weapon. I could go on, but just this one might be subject to mod sanctioning. Hopefully you get the point - that actually making a bomb is something any middle-school child with access to the internet can accomplish.

Does a aluminum & lye 'bomb' generate the level of overpressure that it would take to breech a pressurized cabin?
Contained inside of a mailbox or other small container that's easy, but to saturate the volume of an aircraft cabin is doubtful.
Fragments of debris from a tin can or a plastic bottle just don't have the energy to fracture the cabin.
Possibly breaking out a double pane window could suck the closest passenger out, but cabin rupture and failure of
the semimonocoquque structure from that low yield explosive is doubtful.
It's just not up to what would happen with C-4 or plastics.

One other possibility would be to have a gasoline containing vessel of around a half gallon leak contents, and fill a
compartment with vapors - then provide an igniton source,that might do it, it would be similar to the TWA 800 flight.

Russia just lost a plane due to an inflight fire after a lightening strike

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: db
According to the article....well, just read the article. Extremely unlikely that this liquid bomb thing could be accomplished. The government is using this to fan the flames of fear.

Then whoever wrote the article is an idiot. Making a bomb from common household items is so easy that I know 'someone' who may or may not have done it in high school after reading on the internet how to do it. Aluminum foil + toilet cleaner in a 2-liter bottle, seal it up tight and give it a few minutes. Add beebees (or similar) to create shrapnel and you have yourself a weapon. I could go on, but just this one might be subject to mod sanctioning. Hopefully you get the point - that actually making a bomb is something any middle-school child with access to the internet can accomplish.

The TSA is looking for explosives that can bring down an airliner, not make a mess. Despite your academic chem background, you have no security or explosive knowledge.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Well, movies used to show people landing on the moon in the 20's and people never thought that would happen. In all honesty I think the show just happened to be a coincidence. If you (speaking generally) could somehow show with hard proof that the government was involved it would be way easier. It is just like the JFK assassination to some extent. Most of the American public doesn't believe that Oswald did it, but the more I read the more I think it was Oswald. There are too many ifs for the other theories. It is too bad though that a lot of the evidence was messed up, but part of it is that it isn't like investigations in the 60's were exactly CSIed either.

D'oh!

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Hmmm, well if they were making TATP then they were very stupid. Are they certain that is the compound they were making though? Anyone know what RDX is? It was mentioned in the article and I am now curious.

My understanding was that TATP was crystalline, and not a liquid - although it is easily made from readily-available household/commercial liquid chemicals. It's also one of the most unstable explosives available - it's about as powerful as nitroglycerine, but far more sensitive to shock.

RDX is widely used as an industrial/military explosive (C-4 is something like 95% RDX and 5% oil). It's relatively non-toxic, very powerful, and very stable (so needs a proper detonator). It is also relatively straight-forward to make, far safer to make than nitroglycerine or TATP, but does require some more specialist chemicals (which are likely to arouse suspicion).

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sinc when did we get so many college educated chemists in these forums?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Sinc when did we get so many college educated chemists in these forums?

Chem Eng major from back in the 'Aught - 60's'

Chemistry hasn't changed much - tecnological applications have.

One of the more interesting classes was a week long study of nitrogenated celulose profucts.
We made Nitro-Selzer - the packing 'straw' that is used as the pads in swamp coolers, and 2 forms of nitrocellulose,
guncotton made from regular cotton, and flash paper.
Guncotton can be disolved in acetone and allowed to dry into holow castings for use as a rocket motor, self consuming.

One of the students made way too much cotton based nitrocellulose, and kept it in his lab drawer over the weekend.
Mondays lecture was about safety in the classroom, as the teacher tore off golf ball sized fluffs, and tossed them towards
a bunsen burner - it ignited before it even came close to the flame - about a foot away.

It's suprisingly easy to make.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: db
According to the article....well, just read the article. Extremely unlikely that this liquid bomb thing could be accomplished. The government is using this to fan the flames of fear.

Then whoever wrote the article is an idiot. Making a bomb from common household items is so easy that I know 'someone' who may or may not have done it in high school after reading on the internet how to do it. Aluminum foil + toilet cleaner in a 2-liter bottle, seal it up tight and give it a few minutes. Add beebees (or similar) to create shrapnel and you have yourself a weapon. I could go on, but just this one might be subject to mod sanctioning. Hopefully you get the point - that actually making a bomb is something any middle-school child with access to the internet can accomplish.

aluminum foil + toilet cleaner is only going to make a mess and perhaps hurt a few people. The exact same "explosion" can be accomplished with baking soda and vinegar. The explosion you're talking about is simply a 2 liter bottle bursting under pressure (not that the plastic can't cause some damage as it flies away after bursting.)