|
20 Aug 06 - 06:11 PM (#1814634) Subject: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie In case you're thinking it makes airline travel safer if we make travelers dump out or throw away expensive bottles of brandy or perfume, not to mention their non-prescription liquid meds, toietries and makeup, and don't allow any sort of beverages to be taken aboard a plane --- policies being used only by the British and US airlines, BTW -- check this out. Air America Radio/Thom Hartmann Scroll down the center column to: Liquid Bomb Building 101 The Thom Hartmann Program (2006-08-18) Thom tells how to build a liquid bomb on an airplane. Listen Now Lest you think Thom Hartmann and I are "helping the terrorists" by telling you how to build a bomb with hydrogen peroxide and toothpaste -- which I seriously doubt, once you actually listen to the instructions LOL -- let me point out that Thom found this recipe floating freely around the internet, just as anyone else could. I enjoyed this "cooking lesson" immensely! Genie |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:07 PM (#1814665) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Grab Lest anyone think that the whole "terrorist" thing was in any way likely, a bit of relevant info. Turns out the UK police have spent too long watching Hollywood (or possibly MacGyver) and too little time talking to real explosives experts... Graham. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:12 PM (#1814669) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Not to mention - something our mainstream media have failed to do -- that the US and Britain are the only countries not allowing passengers to carry liquids aboard the plane. (But do listen to the Bomb-building 101 clip anyway, even if you're already skeptical. It's good for some laughs.) |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:16 PM (#1814672) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace Everyone relax. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:18 PM (#1814673) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace C4 contoured to the shape of yer ass would be lots easier. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:28 PM (#1814682) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace Let me rephrase that: "C4 contoured to the shape of one's ass would be lots easier." My apologies if anyone thought I meant--well, I'm going now. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:35 PM (#1814687) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: robomatic I imagine it as taking the form of a Homer Simpson Candle with a wick at the top. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 07:56 PM (#1814704) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: McGrath of Harlow The concept of anyone being able to actually do that kind of chemical hocus pocus in a passenger aircraft seems pretty implausible. I'd have thought that there's vastly more likelihood of being able to get some explosive device rigged to go off into the cargo hold. Or internally, like "drug mules". Basically if someone is ready to die in the process of killing other people, I can't see how there can be any way of guaranteeing to stop them. Maybe one thing that could come out of all this is that the world's love affair with getting around by passenger aircraft could peter out. And that would be very good news indeed for the planet. During the Hitler War they had posters saying "Is your jouney really necessary?" Perhaps we'll see the same slogan comes out of mothballs to be re-used now. |
|
20 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM (#1814731) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace "The concept of anyone being able to actually do that kind of chemical hocus pocus in a passenger aircraft seems pretty implausible." Jaysus, ain't THAT the truth. Ever try to get a decent cup of tea while in flight? |
|
20 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM (#1814752) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Walrus From: Peace wrote on 20 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM : "...Jaysus, ain't THAT the truth. Ever try to get a decent cup of tea while in flight?..." Or anywhere West of Ireland. Note to American (and Canadian) Restaurateurs: Please try using BOILING water! W |
|
20 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM (#1814766) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: robomatic You Europeans - What's wrong with a bag o' Lipton in hot tap water, eh? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 12:24 AM (#1814830) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace LOL These have been my best laughs today, thank you. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 12:55 AM (#1814839) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace "What's wrong with a bag o' Lipton in hot tap water, eh?" He's got ya there, Walrus. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:28 AM (#1814901) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: GUEST,micca at work "What's wrong with a bag o' Lipton in hot tap water, eh?" what you get is just that, a warm(ish) amber liquid, BUT is it Tea? No, Not by a LONG way!!! having said that, I went to breakfast in a little diner in West Chester PA on a previous trip and they made REAL tea, in a proper teapot that had been Warmed and using boiling water!! so it is possible, if rare. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:55 AM (#1814913) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Pastor Greg Best tea I ever had was at the Groesvner House in London. Up to that point I did not even like tea. While we were in London I drank tea over coffee. What a treat! |
|
21 Aug 06 - 08:03 AM (#1815013) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: beardedbruce Problem is, there are simple chemicasl reactions that WILL yeild explosives. Nitric acids and glycerin, for example. Fortunatly, those playing around without an adaquate knowledge have a tendency to kill themselves off. Often their family and friends, as well. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 09:52 AM (#1815078) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: SINSULL Toothpaste and peroxide? A simple GOOGLE search turns up lots of info on how to make a dirty bomb but fear not: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html What they fail to mention is that after your shower you need to make an emergency trip to the grocery store and stock up on whatever you is still left on the shelves. You won't be seeing food or water for a while. After Spetember 11th we all held our breath and waited for the news that the attack had been nuclear. Osama missed a real opportunity there. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 10:09 AM (#1815092) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: GUEST,Wesley S That's your problem. Everyone one knows that tea should be served in a tall glass with ice. Lemon too. Everyone below the Mason-Dixon line knows that. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 11:12 AM (#1815136) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Well, I like the part about carrying all the various and sundry paraphernalia into the airplane restroom and mixing the ingredients one drop at a time "discreetly" over a period of up to 30 min. without alarming the other passengers, arousing the suspicion of the crew or being overcome by the sulfur fumes. LOL I understand that you could, actually, fill a wine bottle with gasoline, cork and seal it the way any good winemaker would his best vintage, then walk from thru the cabin on the plane sprinkling its contents and set the whole place ablaze with a match. Of course if you ban matches on planes, they are a lot easier and cheaper to replace than most liquids are (including bottled water). But if you're worrying about people mixing liquid bombs while on the plane, here's a concept: LOCK THE DAMN OVERHEAD BINS WHILE THE PLANE IS IN FLIGHT |
|
21 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM (#1815137) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: beardedbruce And underseat storage? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM (#1815154) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Wesley S How about the booze the airlines are selling on these flights ? Last time I checked it was a flammible liquid. And you're still allowed to take matches on a plane even though you're not allowed to smoke on a plane. Someone explain that to me. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:16 PM (#1815532) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe "Comrades, The mental control of a thoroughly subdued populace uses methods that do not have to be logical" |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:16 PM (#1815533) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie beardedbruce, if there really is any reason to deny passengers access to their liquids and gels during the flight -- which I doubt --, underseat storage could be banned except for small things like computer cases, purses, etc., and those could be screened for the dreaded Metamucil, Old Spice, Right Guard, lipstick, and (shudder) Diet Coke. No liquids or gels under the seat, but you could still take one small carry-on bag, including your toiletries, and store it overhead in a locked bin. But right now, the US still allows baby formula and prescreption meds in liquid or gel form to be carried on. One of my meds is in a cream form in a small tub. Why would it be any harder for a terrorist to put contraband liquids or gels into a prescription bottle or tub like that than into an over-the-counter one? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:44 PM (#1815554) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe It appears that I would be denied my contact lens solutions, even if I tried to demonstrate that they were safe by putting them in my eyes... |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:53 PM (#1815566) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Yes, but Foolestroupe, don't you see? You could have a BOMB hidden under one of those contacts!! |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:58 PM (#1815570) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe You mean in my glass eye? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 08:59 PM (#1815623) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Glass eye, my arse!! That's a bloody CHERRY BOMB! |
|
21 Aug 06 - 09:16 PM (#1815640) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe Oh, so THAT's where you put your bomb... |
|
21 Aug 06 - 09:19 PM (#1815643) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe ... which is why some call it a cherry bomb, I suppose... would certainly bust your cherry... |
|
21 Aug 06 - 10:01 PM (#1815686) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace "It appears that I would be denied my contact lens solutions, even if I tried to demonstrate that they were safe by putting them in my eyes..." Yeah, everything's fun until you blink, then what? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM (#1815716) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Touché, Foolestroupe! LOL |
|
21 Aug 06 - 11:50 PM (#1815758) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) As BeardedBruce says, anyone with chemical knowledge can produce a powerful bomb that looks like an innocent liquid. Something to generate oxygen, plus confinement, is all that is needed. But he also puts in the joker- many of these 'simple' chemical recipes produce a very unstable product that can go off before its time. That is why they are not used commercially. Torn flesh and deep burns, but nothing more serious was the result of some of the experiments of my junior high days. We were lucky. Old (before WW2) chemistry books are full of means to produce an explosion, but they caution about close confinement in containers. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 03:36 AM (#1815839) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: JohnInKansas On the principle of "know thine enemy" I do have copies of more than one volume of the Anarchist's Cookbook where details are given for most of the "popular myths" about nasty things one can to to make destructive devices and/or popular drugs. I have yet to find a "procedure" in these very popular and frequently quoted publications that even the most casual analysis indicates will work as described. On the more important question of good tea, all those not from the US should know that a highly regarded method of brewing tea is called "Sun Tea" here in the US. For this method, one fills a (preferably glass) jug with water, adds a few tea leaves, and then places the jug in a sunny place where the combination of infrared and ultraviolet radiation can extract the essence of "teaness." It is said by devotees of the practice that this produces that absolutely most flavorful and delectable product possible. As my own dearly beloved seems addicted to making "sun tea" but seems never able to remember to take the "sun tea jug" when we embark on an expedition into the sunlight, we now have at least eleven "sun tea jugs" in various storage locations, plus an accumulation of at least a half dozen similar but actually appropriately sized glass jugs for the making of "sun tea." I'm not sure that I can offer assurances that this process actually works as defined in the numerous references and anecdotes, as the only time I've actually seen anyone who "made sun tea" actually drink any of it was in one instance when "she" placed her sun tea jug in the sun while I placed an identical jug in a dark closet. In this instance "she" was observed drinking some of the "sun tea" and I did not reveal to her which jug it came from; but she said it was delicious. (You may guess which jug I used to provide her sample.) But of course both samples were only "Liptons" so probably it didn't make much difference. John |
|
22 Aug 06 - 08:47 AM (#1815987) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe "Something to generate oxygen, plus confinement, is all that is needed" actually, remember my chemistry, there areother ways that don't need oxygen... "means to produce an explosion, but they caution about close confinement in containers" .... confining them is what turns poof to bang.... er.... um... hmmmmm... |
|
22 Aug 06 - 09:37 AM (#1816023) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: jeffp Anything that can cause an increase in gas pressure within a container that will hold most, but not all of that pressure can cause an explosion. This explosion can be minor or major in nature, depending on the amount of gas, the pressure, and a few other factors. Oxygen is not required to produce an explosion, as any homebrewer can tell you. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 10:52 AM (#1816156) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Quote ( Q ): As BeardedBruce says, anyone with chemical knowledge can produce a powerful bomb that looks like an innocent liquid. Something to generate oxygen, plus confinement, is all that is needed. But he also puts in the joker- many of these 'simple' chemical recipes produce a very unstable product that can go off before its time. ..." Which would seem to beg the question: Why would such liquid explosives be considered safe in checked luggage - which gets jostled and bounced around a helluva lot more than carry-on baggage does? |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:08 AM (#1816169) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: bobad "Which would seem to beg the question: Why would such liquid explosives be considered safe in checked luggage - which gets jostled and bounced around a helluva lot more than carry-on baggage does?" I believe the answer to that would be that precisely because of that instability the components have to be mixed together at the last moment prior to detonation. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:09 AM (#1816170) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: beardedbruce Genie, It would NOT be safe in checked luggage. I believe the assumption is that the parts of the explosive would be easier to smuggle onto the flight, as the completed explosive would have a detectable chemical signature, and be caught ( with reasonable scanning) before being loaded onto the aircraft. The componants would NOT have that signature UNTIL they are mixed. It is harder to mix two liquids if one does not have access ( not impossible, just harder.) The instability would NOT be a problem if the quantity was sufficient-say half a liter or more. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM (#1816175) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie As I said before, Bruce, the simple solution to that problem -- the one that would cost the airlines the least and screw up the travellers' lives the least -- would be to put all carry-on liquids into LOCKED overhead bins. Of course, you could also prohibit passengers from carrying anything but a wallet into the lavatories. (Although the instructions for mixing your explosives in the john do make you wonder how feasible that would be.) And I'd think someone trying to mix explosives in their seat would trigger a lot more attention than someone trying to set a match to his shoe. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:19 AM (#1816179) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: beardedbruce The instructions for making the explosive I mentioned are- dump the two together, and it will blow up. No need to leave your seat. ( pour one from soda bottle, then pour other into same container) Might take 15 seconds. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM (#1816328) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: robomatic I just love a thread that alternates between tea recipes and binary explosives. Mudcat forever! |
|
22 Aug 06 - 03:27 PM (#1816350) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Beardedbruce is correct- but as youths we had no fear. I remember a bomb we made with two simple and easily obtained components which I won't name. In a container separated into two parts by a wax seal we placed the materials and sealed the ends. Shock disrupted the seal and the end result was an explosion (plus fragments of the container). Dangerous to the chemist? Oh, yes, but a suicide bomber wouldn't care. Could these substances be identifed? Easily enough, but I wonder if one of the components would be known to the 'sniffers'. Of course there are many explosive substances that don't require generation of oxygen, as noted. 'Signature' needed for detection- correct. To do a proper job, a mass spectrograph would be needed, with a capable operator, and a comparative library in the computer. Would you be willing 1) to pay for such equipment at airports, etc., 2) pay trained operators and 3) Wait the time required to sample and accomplish the multiple analyses? In a research lab where I worked, we used a scanning electron microscope with spectrographic analysis system to locate particles for analysis and identify them. The SEM may not be needed, but reading the 'signatures' (many different spectral lines with spacing and height characteristics and grouping) requires the analysis. Working in a particular field, we had an idea of what to expect on analysis. The problem is probably more complex today than I picture it. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 03:51 PM (#1816362) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie BeardedBruce, if an explosive can be made (from substance that aren't likely to be detected in the airport screening) just by pouring one from each soda bottle into another container, then just don't allow any liquids on board except in the locked overhead bins. But you'd better put prescription meds and baby formula in the locked bins, too. Make the passenger have the flight attendant supervise the access to those, as needed. But the question remains: Since we've known about this type of bomb for decades, what good reason is there for the sudden hysteria about them NOW? Airplanes and buildings have been brought down many times before without using liquids mixed together inside the passener cabin. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 03:59 PM (#1816367) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: GUEST,Shimrod Back in the 60s, when I was a stupid, reckless and callow youth, I worked in a lab. I seem to remember mixing nitric acid and glycerine but nothing much happened except noxious brown fumes - perhaps I was just unlucky/lucky (depending on your point of view!). Around the same time I remember meeting a lad who had lost a few fingers as a result of messing with home-made bombs. As a result of this encounter I lost all interest in explosives!! Incidentally, one of my ex bosses used to relate how he had worked in a Greek explosives factory just after the war. Apparently the manager of this factory had both arms missing ... |
|
22 Aug 06 - 05:23 PM (#1816427) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace "Anything that can cause an increase in gas pressure within a container that will hold most, but not all of that pressure can cause an explosion." Shush about this one or Spaw will never be allowed on planes again. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 05:37 PM (#1816444) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Ammonia is another wonder substance. A lot can be done with iodine xyls and potassium permanganate crystals are interesting. So many. We loved explosions (and yes, one of our group now has a useless hand and little vision in one eye). I was lucky, a small dose of chlorine gas troubled me for a spell (still responsible for some problems?), but no damage from explosions. Chlorine- in so many cleaners, and not dificult to release. Since most flights no longer serve meals(?), the lockers in the galley are mostly empty. This is where the liquor is put when not in use, so there are cabinets with locks, as Genie suggests. Overhead bins are for laptops, bowling balls and other weighty projectiles. But if a weak seal is used between two substances, and the seal deteriorates after a period- boom! Or the jar of air turbulance or landing- boom! - the possibilities are endless. As to why the sudden kerfuffle about liquids, most of us, including officialdom, don't think of the possibilities, or dismiss them as unlikely, until something happens. All of a sudden, the light dawns, as it seems to have done. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 05:46 PM (#1816450) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace Well. Take someone who knows aircraft, Specifically the targeted model. There are many places to hide a pre-placed explosive with a timer or altitude sensor, etc. Security boarding the plane can be tighter than a frog's arse--and that's watertight--but how many planes are under 24/7 guard/surveillance? |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:43 PM (#1816689) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) So true. Will you ever fly again? Trains, too, as they showed in Spain. I understand the 'chunnel' is in financial difficulties- the directors might pay the right man to blow a train in mid-tunnel in order to collect the insurance. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 03:31 AM (#1816781) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Genie Quote (O): "As to why the sudden kerfuffle about liquids, most of us, including officialdom, don't think of the possibilities, or dismiss them as unlikely, until something happens. All of a sudden, the light dawns, as it seems to have done." Ah, but we plebians (airline passengers) are not in charge of national security. Since TPTB have known about the risks for decades and especially after 9-11, the only reason for alarming us, the public, NOW is to instill fear so it can be exploited for political reasons. Liquids on planes are no more dangerous today than they have been for many, many years. And I, for one, do not feel one whit safer now that I can't take lipstick, contact lens solution, nasal spray, or coffee aboard the plane with me. But I'll surely reconsider whether to fly at all if I have to add 45 min. on each end of each trip to check and (maybe) retrieve my small suitcase. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 07:49 AM (#1816888) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: The Fooles Troupe It'll soon be easier to send the luggage by train or road, and pick it up at the other end of the flight.... |
|
23 Aug 06 - 11:40 AM (#1817058) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) If man was meant to fly- |
|
23 Aug 06 - 12:55 PM (#1817106) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: DougR McGrath: your post of August 20. Whatcha trying to do, scuttle GB's tourist business? DougR |
|
23 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM (#1817120) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace "It'll soon be easier to send the luggage by train or road, and pick it up at the other end of the flight.... " True, but what will happen to the luggage if a plane crashes into the train or bus? Huh? ? ? |
|
23 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM (#1817162) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Luggage will be lost regardless or mis-sent to Obdurman. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM (#1817186) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: robomatic I'm rather surprised that more of an effort hasn't been made on tunnels. Wonder if there are some regional or religious superstitions about gettin' to the necessary virgins from underground or underwater? |
|
23 Aug 06 - 02:25 PM (#1817189) Subject: RE: BS: Bomb-building 101 From: Peace Could be another reason . . . . |
