![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Liquid Explosives"
OK, I've read some of the articles and such about liquid explosives from the BBC. They all allude to some vague, nebulous ingredients that might be able to be combined to make a liquid explosive, or combining a liquid and a solid.
They read like bullshit, as in, as credible as "red mercury" being a nuclear material.
Yes, there are liquids that can be combined to make explosives. In order to get explosives out of these, they have to be highly concentrated. Some are considered "volatile". This means they stink.
Take acetone, a well known ingredient in nail polish remover. The concentration is low, the smell is high. If someone decided to "do their nails" on an airplane flight, they'd get lynched - that shit is vicious in an enclosed environment.
Or various acidic drain cleaners: hard to handle and package without burning yourself, or sufficiently low strength to not do anything more than fizzle. These stink too.
Hydrogen peroxide: the stuff you can buy in the drugstore is low concentration. It would have to be concentrated (not a simple process), then repacked in the original bottle. It smells when you open it, too. Hair bleach developer has a slightly higher concentration, but again has the smell problem.
Gasoline/Fuel oil: first, it smells; second, its already prohibited in aircraft cabins.
So, basically, it would take a lot of effort, coordination, and ingenuity by the terrorists, plus gross apathy on the part of their fellow passengers. Ain't gonna happen. Not when passengers that look like they *might* be doing something funky get tackled promptly by fellow travellers.
They read like bullshit, as in, as credible as "red mercury" being a nuclear material.
Yes, there are liquids that can be combined to make explosives. In order to get explosives out of these, they have to be highly concentrated. Some are considered "volatile". This means they stink.
Take acetone, a well known ingredient in nail polish remover. The concentration is low, the smell is high. If someone decided to "do their nails" on an airplane flight, they'd get lynched - that shit is vicious in an enclosed environment.
Or various acidic drain cleaners: hard to handle and package without burning yourself, or sufficiently low strength to not do anything more than fizzle. These stink too.
Hydrogen peroxide: the stuff you can buy in the drugstore is low concentration. It would have to be concentrated (not a simple process), then repacked in the original bottle. It smells when you open it, too. Hair bleach developer has a slightly higher concentration, but again has the smell problem.
Gasoline/Fuel oil: first, it smells; second, its already prohibited in aircraft cabins.
So, basically, it would take a lot of effort, coordination, and ingenuity by the terrorists, plus gross apathy on the part of their fellow passengers. Ain't gonna happen. Not when passengers that look like they *might* be doing something funky get tackled promptly by fellow travellers.
no subject
Every single one of your points about smell or notice, is voided by simply -sealing- the container before you bring it to the airport. NO smell from a sealed container. I only need 10 seconds to detonate just about anything, really.
At least get off the high horse of 'OMG SO INCONVENIANT!'. They were, according to the reports I read, just a few hours away from actually putting the plan in to action. OBVIOUSLY someone with a bit more education in chemical sciences than either of us thinks it was credible enough to put three nations on alert and utterly inconveniance thousands of travelers.
no subject
no subject
The key to carry on baggage is the ability to reassemble a disassembled IED in to an actionable state. This lets me sneak what would be obvious aboard in an inobvious fashion. Each IDE typically has 4 componants. The Trigger, the Timer, the Power Source and the Explosive. In a dual charge mixture, you have two explosives, a trigger and a powersource. Timers not needed as its directly triggered. This is the entire reason for carry on searches, to root out one or more componants.
As for the checked in luggage:
Checked in luggage, every bag, is swept for explosive compounds. Further, it is subjected to an examination more akin to an MRI than an Xray, with slices of a bag examined ever 1-2 inches, thereby cutting a standard bag in to 20 or more images to be viewed. The problem wiht checked in luggage, is the item to explode must be able to explode with no further human contact, IE: Assembled and ready to go. This will be detected by the above scan.
If anything looks even vaugley suspicious, its pulled out.
no subject
no subject
Or whatever they are calling the technology. I haven't read up on scanning technologies in a couple years.
no subject
no subject
The chemical reactions needed to produce explosives are not instant.
OBVIOUSLY someone with a bit more education in chemical sciences than either of us thinks it was credible enough to put three nations on alert and utterly inconveniance thousands of travelers.
Actually, I doubt that anyone with any realistic knowledge in this area was involved in the alert.
The alert serves a political purpose, not for the alleged terrorists, but governments who want to "boil the frog" by slowly aclimatizing us to more and more invasive surveillance and restrictions.
Maybe it's credible, but I doubt it. These people's track record sucks - "red mercury" anyone?
no subject
And there are chemicals like caesium and rubidium that explode on contact with plain water. There's a video on the web somewhere; probably YouTube.
no subject
IIRC, there are only a few liquids that when combined are instantly explosive. Most go through a reaction (often exothermic, which is what makes playing with boombooms
fundangerous) that isn't quick and gives off nasty fumes.no subject
The liquid/slurry explosives are quite inert, even after they're mixed. No reaction at all. (Most emphatically not like making nitroglicerine.) It's a lot like mixing hydrogen and oxygen. They're very stable until they're hit by a shock wave, e.g. from a spark or a sharp impact. At which point they detonate, the way any other high explosive does -- the energy of the reaction forces the shock wave to travel supersonically. That's the definition of a high explosive.
no subject
As far as I'm concerned, air travel while disabled was already enough of a PITA that I drove to Seattle rather than fly and put up with the phoney security. It's 1,000 miles from here.
Now my drive v.s. fly threshold has increased. The car rental is cheaper than bail, after all.
I refuse to succumb to the senseless paranoia and overblown hysteria - I won't "play along" with it. Reasonable precautions are one thing - but this crap went past reasonable years ago.
no subject
Look, you want to be rightiously indignant that YOU HAVE BEEN PUT UPON.. you go right ahead.
But remember, travel by air is a fucking privilage, not a right. You want to drive, do that. Take the train. But air travel ain't exactly in the constitution. You're off base and you're ill informed, worse, you show absolutly no interest in actually observing information put in front of you, instead relying on what you =know= to be true.
Just like any other christian fundimentalist.
no subject
So the ability to travel by a particular mode is a priviledge, not a right if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution? Guess what? No mode of a right to travel (by any means) is mentioned in the Constitution. From usconstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html). But, note the following: So, essentially, it's not written in to the literal Constitution, but "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Please note that no mention is made of the means of travel. There is no differentiation between car, bus, train, plane, or bicycle. Either the right to all exists, or none. I would say, based on the above, that the right exists to travel by any means you can afford. You're now spouting statist nonsense.
You're off base and you're ill informed, worse, you show absolutly no interest in actually observing information put in front of you, instead relying on what you =know= to be true.
Ah, yes, when you have no facts or logic, nor even precedent to back you up, resort to ad hominem attack. Please notice who could make use of a simple search engine, and provide at least a few unslanted citations for my position.
Just like any other christian fundimentalist.
Sorry, but your position is the one of the christian fundamentalist: advocating submission to authority as frightened, terrorized sheep. State or priest, what does it matter? Sheep are sheep.
no subject
Hey, guess what?
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. (from Supreme Court ruling, Marbury v. Madison)
Who knew? The Supreme Court says that there's a separation of powers. OK, they said it once upon a time... we got a bunch of pansyarse rubberstamp motherfuckers on the bench now. But it's still the law.
Sheep are sheep.
And along with sheep and wolves, there are sheepdogs. Fear the dawg. ;-)
no subject
Yeah, law, precedent and even the Constitution don't matter much to this administration.
And along with sheep and wolves, there are sheepdogs. Fear the dawg. ;-)
o/~ You ain't nothin' but a houn' dawg... o/~
;-)
no subject
Lack of right and means of travel was quite effective in the old Soviet Union in keeping the populace controlled. Not safe, controlled. I've been predicting since the 1970's that we will be in trouble when we start seeing more and more restrictive regulations on travel, more than anything else. It's nothing big. It's just a few steps, and a few more... "That's how freedom will end, not with a bang, but a rustle of file folders..." as someone said on the net around 1990. Go head, call me a conspiracy theorist. People have been doing it since I was in high school. But things I predicted then have been following a progression that matches certain patterns from past political situations. I don't know, maybe I just know too much about the Bolshevik Revolution, the Maoist government, and the French Revolution, and the Tokugawa bafuku, and... It's been proven, time and time again, through history, throughout the world, it's one of the most effective ways of controlling a restive population.
no subject
no subject
Of course the next trick will be little sealed two-component bombs that do the mixing and detonation inside a checked suitcase.
Oh, and H2O2 is pretty easy to get or synthesize, though it's tricky to handle. Ask any rocket hobbyist.
And of course powdered aluminum and air will do just as well as acetone and H2O2.
no subject
Without fumbling or being noticed?
Of course the next trick will be little sealed two-component bombs that do the mixing and detonation inside a checked suitcase.
Or prescription meds capsules with anthrax in them instead.
Oh, and H2O2 is pretty easy to get or synthesize, though it's tricky to handle. Ask any rocket hobbyist.
The tricky to handle is its downfall.
And of course powdered aluminum and air will do just as well as acetone and H2O2.
Yeah, and the restriction on liquids won't effect that.
Hell, if you want to be an ass, take a small bag of flour, go into the bathroom, block the vents, then get the really well into the air, and then strike a spark. You might get a dust explosion, IIRC. If it fails, it's easy to clean up.
no subject
Easy -- do it under a blanket. Anybody who's ever taken 35mm film out of a roll in a changing bag could do it with a little practice. Or put their ponytail in a rubber band behind their back, for that matter.
H2O2 is fairly tame as long as you don't let it get in contact with somethng that will catalyze its disintegration, which is highly exothermic. They discovered during WWII that solder falls into that category. Plastic, however, is just fine.
no subject
Show me, don't tell me.
They (all the coalition of the killing) have been "thwarting" plots ever since 9/11, yet we've seen no legitimate judicial action based upon these claims.
Why was the announcement not made after arrests, charges, evidence presented in a court of law, and a verdict?
If it was such a brilliant plan, why didn't these trrrrrrrrrrists infiltrate the employee rosters of airport vendors and suppliers, to coordinate shipment of the inert substances to different airport bars/restaurants, and then disperse them on D-Day to the psycho mofos who would then combine them in the damn loo onboard?
"I'd like the extra-special daily special."
How hard is that?
no subject
That's why I don't believe this crap about liquid explosives and sports drink containers. It's too contrived.
Hell, liquid plus powder is more believable.
no subject
Hey, America, look what we've been doing to keep you safe! Now pay, and obey.
no subject
I think the guy that called you a fundy christian was hilarious, so little does he know of you. Can I tell him that you have been a practicing pagan for some thirty years or more? May I, huh? LOL He also doesn't know, obviously, that you worked for many years in a chem. lab. Just shows to go ya, how quickly people are to assume when they disagree with one assertion that someone must be of a certain philosophical bent to have an opinion different from theirs. Peace, hugs and chocolate to you and to Datapard too. Tandala
no subject
One is a length of sodium based phone cable...
Oh, cripes! I thought they phased that crap out years ago and disposed of it properly. That's just an fire waiting to happen.
... have some pool chemical and pour DOT #3 brake fluid on it --- Boom and fire!
Both of those stink (depending on what the pool chemical you're thinking of is), and are nasty to handle.
Let's just say my parents never realized how cautious I was when playing chemistry in junior high and high school, and I still ended up with some very exciting and stinky reactions... I stayed away from trying to make explosives in the house because I didn't want to scare the dog.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
1) Not all chemicals that combine to make a high explosive. I can think of three right off the top of my head, that I personally know how to make or have made. Two of them use essentially odorless, colorless components. One of them is inert when wet, unless exposed to a mild explosion of some sort (say a shotgun shell primer, some phosphorus, etc. But again. easy.
2) I don't make a habit of going through this stuff, but I can think of at least three or four totally innocent looking delivery systems that would get you on an airplane.
The point here is that yes, most of the obvious choices would not be practical. But never underestimate the patience and ingenuity of a couple reasonably bright people to find an angle.
no subject
Yes, most obvious items would not be practical, yet the new regulations seem geared toward them.
Also, the patience and ingenuity angle would argue for the next logical extension of the total safety policy:
1) No carry-on possessions except travel papers as issued at the airport secure zone.
2) No clothing allowed aboard. Paper jumpsuits issued by the airport.
3) No leaving your seat. Adult sanitary underwear will be issued, and seatbelts will be locked by the staff upon boarding, and until it is time to deplane.
4) All luggage, paperwork, and clothing will be inspected and sealed aboard a different cargo flight.
5) A body cavity search and x-ray will be performed when you check into the sterile zone - no fuses sticking out of people's asses. This also helps fight the War on Drugs(tm).
6) Any required medication requires a doctor's written prescription, and will be filled at the airport and administered by the airline staff.
This is about the only level of security that I can think of that will eliminate all of the ways I can think of to try to smuggle explosives or chemical weapons aboard.
However, even with this, wait a few years and they will have sleeper agents infiltrated into the ground crews and airplane staff (assuming anyone still flies). Either that or they'll start blowing up ports with the under-regulated cargo containers.
no subject
Mix these three ingrediants in the right ratio and you have an explosive.
Add a 9v battery, two lengths of wire and penlight bulb with the glass carefully broken, and you have the ignition system.
take yourself, and the little packets with you to the toilet once you're airborne. Mix, shake in a plastic baggie, add detonator circuit. Instant bomb.
Not much boom to it, but slap it against a window and it'll do the job.
Or if you want to use a liquid, vodka and sodium nitrate will do it. You don't even have to carry the alcohol with you, just buy it off the drinks trolly. And hey, it comes with a handy bomb casing, ie the bottle.
no subject
The question then comes, since minor amounts of explosives are do-able with common household chemicals, why would the plotters do the elaborate sports' drink can bit? That's what smells the most false to me.
no subject
Sure, someone with a bit of knowledge can look up the chemicals needed to make traditional explosives on the net, or even find some improvised types in things like the anarchists cookbook... but it takes a kinda warped genius to go simple.
Incidently, the IED in question, even down to the use of a gatorade bottle, is a direct copy out of the anarchists handbook. Except back when it was first written, gatorade was sold in glass bottles. They make for a much more powerful bomb. The whole plane plot is direct copy of one tried in 1995 apparently, which would be consitant with the design.
Speaking from experiance, a nitrate/alcohol bomb in a 12oz miniture bottle with the cap screwed on tightly... will blow a tennis-ball sized hole in 1/16" sheet aluminium. That's enough to put hole in a plane, do it in the right place and the hull will just rip apart like paper under aerodynamic stress. A 24oz bomb, is overkill.
no subject
Before the stroke, I had a project to take the Anarchists Cookbook, and pick apart all of the unsafe practices in it. I never got a good start on it.