Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Just How Easy Is It To Mix a Bomb Onboard a Plane?
Reader dead_elvis directs us to a skeptical account of on-air bombmaking from The Register:
The fabled binary liquid explosive - that is, the sudden mixing of hydrogen peroxide and acetone with sulfuric acid to create a plane-killing explosion, is out of the question. Meanwhile, making TATP [triacetone triperoxide] ahead of time carries a risk that the mission will fail due to premature detonation, although it is the only plausible approach.
Certainly, if we can imagine a group of jihadists smuggling the necessary chemicals and equipment on board, and cooking up TATP in the lavatory, then we've passed from the realm of action blockbusters to that of situation comedy.
It should be small comfort that the security establishments of the UK and the USA - and the "terrorism experts" who inform them and wheedle billions of dollars out of them for bomb puffers and face recognition gizmos and remote gait analyzers and similar hi-tech phrenology gear - have bought the Hollywood binary liquid explosive myth, and have even acted upon it.
Whole thing here.
wingnutx|8.19.06 @ 1:57PM|#
EOD guy I know says the Register is full of it, that there a
plenty of different binary explosives. My hazmat training leads me
to believe him.
Astrolite comes immediately to mind.
|8.19.06 @ 2:06PM|#
It's especially difficult to mix the ingredients when you have snakes swarming you.
|8.19.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Nope, SR wins.
Should we really be surprised that the Security-Industrial Complex
wants us to be scared so that the feds will spend more on security
gizmos?
|8.19.06 @ 2:33PM|#
Wingnutx,
There may be other types of explosives, but the authorities say
TATP was the one that the alleged bombers were going to use.
|8.19.06 @ 2:46PM|#
Uh wouldn't a premature explosion still have the desired effect? A premature explosion in a garage is bad because the mixer dies and the target lives. A premature explosion in the airplane still has the desired explosion inside the target.
|8.19.06 @ 3:00PM|#
bomb puffers and face recognition gizmos and remote gait
analyzers and similar hi-tech phrenology gear
That line kind of makes me distrust the entire article. Bomb
detectors and face recognition software aren't pseudoscience like
phrenology was -- they really do work, and really do have
legitimate uses as security measures.
So if the author suffers from such an excess of cynicism that he
dismisses even proven tools like face recognition, I'm inclined to
think that he didn't give an accurate or thoughtful analysis of
liquid explosives, either; he was obviously more concerned with
making a rhetorical point than with being accurate or
objective.
|8.19.06 @ 3:03PM|#
Mo-
I think the point was that if there's a premature detonation during
synthesis, it will be too weak to destroy the plane but strong
enough to alert people that something is going on, ending his
plan.
|8.19.06 @ 3:04PM|#
bill - they may say TATP in a lame attempt to convince any
would-be copycats to try that. There are a lot of easier to
synthesize compounds--in that sense, all explosives are binary
compounds. Someone else mentioned astrolite (and from a quick
lookup it looks easy.) Our HS chem teacher synthesized flash paper
(nitrocellulose, not quite explosive) and picric acid (WWI
artillery charge) in lab. The synthesis is dead easy, though it
requires conc nitric and sulfuric acids. Look it up online.
So, I remain skeptical of all claims, both for and against. What I
do note is that the most effective part of the war on terror
continues to be police investigation, and contact with the muslim
community. It's hardly an original observation; I believe John
Kerry made the same one in the presidential debates.
|8.19.06 @ 3:28PM|#
Two successful (?) examples...KAL 858 and PAL 434
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003672.html
Stephen Macklin|8.19.06 @ 4:34PM|#
On September 10, 2001 what would you have given as the odds for
a handful of terrorists highjacking 4 planes and managing to crash
3 of them into buildings?
Extremely unlikely doesn't equal impossible. Nor does it mean that
terrorists wouldn't try it.
Gene Berkman|8.19.06 @ 4:37PM|#
Mr Greene says "very discreetly bring all of your gear into the
toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing
attention."
Oh yeah, going to the lavatory several times on a plane flight is
not going to draw attention to you. He forgot to say - "Be sure to
have a doctor's note confirming you have a weak bladder."
|8.19.06 @ 4:46PM|#
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but just because terrorists
are stupid doesn't mean they aren't dangerous or that we shouldn't
spend money to thwart their perhaps stupid plans. I'd bet people
who rob convenience stores aren't in the upper quintile of standard
IQ tests either. ...that doesn't mean you shouldn't spend money on
a security system if you operate a convenience store.
...and these terrorists were apparently getting ready to do a trial
run, right? That doesn't seem so idiotic to me.
Anyway, I don' think government waste, in the minds of most people,
is good enough to assuage people's fear--especially when the
government's busting terrorists before the bastards can act. I'm
still clinging to the argument that our principles and our
liberties are worth more than whatever the terrorists can take from
us. ...and that people who argue to the contrary are either
un-American or cowards.
thoreau|8.19.06 @ 4:57PM|#
I would like to encourage terrorists to do a lot of chemistry
experiments. And I encourage them to do lots of practice runs with
those explosives. Carry the explosives in your pockets. Maybe put
them in your shoes and try running. Put them in a bag and bounce
the bag around a lot, to simulate conditions at the airport. Do
vibration tests on your explosives. See how much heat they can
endure.
Guys, the only way to get this right is to keep experimenting with
explosives. Don't be like the amateurs who make their first batch
and then run to the airport. Keep practicing. See what the upper
limits are. Do lots of tests that involve handling the explosives
under trying conditions.
Put explosives in your pockets and then practice martial arts, to
simulate a situation where the passengers try to restrain you. And
do the martial arts drill with another member of your cell, to
maintain operational security. Oh, and don't go half-ass and only
keep a small quantity in your pocket during the drill. The only way
to get this right is to use the same quantity that you'd use in the
field. So practice martial arts with large amounts of explosives on
your person.
Also, your chemical synthesis may produce fumes. Since operational
security is of the essence, don't do it in a ventilated area.
Somebody might notice the fumes. Do all of your chemistry in an
enclosed area, where the fumes won't escape.
Sincerely,
A left-leaning libertarian who obviously hates America and wants
the terrorists to win, and who would never, ever, ever engage in
satire.
|8.19.06 @ 5:00PM|#
Mac,
I doubt saying TATP as a ruse would be very successful seeing as
how it can be easily found on the net how difficult it is to work
with. You may also notice that many of these so called "liquid"
explosives are really crystalline podwers. They also require very
hazardous materials like strong acids to produce. They also require
a little more than a couple of minutes in an airplane bathroom to
make. Can anyone on these boards name a binary explosive, that can
be contained in two 20 ounce plastic bottles (I'm not quite sure
but I bet any concentration of nitric or sulphuric acid strong
enough to make explosives would eat through a plastic bottle), that
can be mixed easily in 5 minutes in an airline bathroom, capable of
bringing that plane down? Then I might start to worry.
|8.19.06 @ 5:10PM|#
That line kind of makes me distrust the entire article. Bomb
detectors and face recognition software aren't pseudoscience like
phrenology was -- they really do work, and really do have
legitimate uses as security measures.
So if the author suffers from such an excess of cynicism that he
dismisses even proven tools like face recognition,
The Register has long been covering facial recognition technology,
and generally finds it wanting. Security agencies and the companies
that make the stuff both want it to work so badly that they seem to
be in denial about how effective it really is for actually making
us safer. Calling it phrenology is just their snarky sense of
humor.
disclaimer: I haven't seen anything on it in a while, so maybe in
the last year facial recognition has improved tremendously? Even if
it worked very well, I would still question its
usefulness.
thoreau|8.19.06 @ 5:15PM|#
Facial recognition may very well work for all I know. But it is
only useful if you know who the terrorists are.
And if you know who they are, facial recognition at the airport
should be the last line of defense, not the primary line of
defense.
|8.19.06 @ 5:34PM|#
I thought it was amusing when the scare was happening. Photos were showing passengers being forced to pour the contents of their liquid containers onto one big plastic bin. Binary yucky stuff-do your thing! By command of the TSA!
|8.19.06 @ 5:34PM|#
"What I do note is that the most effective part of the war on
terror continues to be police investigation, and contact with the
muslim community."
Why does Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, hate
America?
|8.19.06 @ 7:10PM|#
Why bother with explosives? There are lots of things that generate deadly gasses when combined - heck we even put some in artillery shells, to mix on the way to the target. The net effect is little different between releasing Sarin or phosgene in a plane and exploding a small bomb.
|8.19.06 @ 7:57PM|#
I think thoreau has the best anti-terrorist plan we've got. I
would add the recommendation that they do all this stuff in some
place really hot and without air conditioning.
Also, while I agree with the general premise of the article, that
this stuff is really hard to make and requires behavior that would
tip anyone off, my confidence is weakened by the knowledge that my
husband was able to board planes in Austin, Tx. and San Jose, Cal,
on August 4 of this year with two Bic cigarette lighters in his
shirt pocket. We went through security twice and neither group
noticed.
|8.19.06 @ 7:58PM|#
There are lots of things that generate deadly gasses when
combined
Like ammonia and bleach? Wouldn't have to set up a lab in the john,
either.
|8.19.06 @ 8:25PM|#
Why bother with explosives? There are lots of things that
generate deadly gasses when combined -
Soy nuts and green Jell-O do it to me every time.
|8.19.06 @ 9:55PM|#
If you want to blow up ain airliner, all you need is one of tens of thousands of heat seaking AA missiles given to murderous thugs during the 80's & 90's under the cover of "freedom fighting" in the hands of a "freedom fighter"at the end on an airstrip. TaDAAAA!
thoreau|8.19.06 @ 10:29PM|#
Karen-
A friend suggested this evening that we write a terrorist training
manual and put it on the internet. Include detailed bomb-making
instructions that, if followed, would result in the aspiring
terrorist's premature death.
To appeal to religious terrorists we could call it The Book of
Armaments. Or maybe the Sura of Armaments.
"First shalt thou pull the pin. Then shalt thou count to thirty.
Thirty shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the
counting shall be thirty."
|8.19.06 @ 10:44PM|#
thoreau wrote: "Include detailed bomb-making instructions that,
if followed, would result in the aspiring terrorist's premature
death."
That already exists. It's called "The Anarchist's Cookbook".
|8.19.06 @ 11:38PM|#
thoreau, I like that idea. How about "The Prophecy of
Armaments?" That gets the apocalyptic fruitcakes.
"Thou shalt not count to thirty-one, neither shalt thou count to
twenty-nine, neither shalt thou count to twenty-eight . . . ."
|8.20.06 @ 12:38AM|#
On September 10, 2001 what would you have given as the odds
for a handful of terrorists highjacking 4 planes and managing to
crash 3 of them into buildings?
Why, I would've never considered it possible for a moment!
|8.20.06 @ 12:50AM|#
So ten stupid terror teams mix TATP on ten transatlantic flights
and get ten premature explosions. Maybe only one or two planes
crash? Isn't that bad enough?
Or say no planes crash; just bulging lavatory doors, jihadi guts
and acid fumes all over the aircraft. The incident is still going
to lead to enormous economic damage: grounding of all air traffic
for a period, impacts to airline, travel, hospitality, tourist
industries; passenger lawsuits against everybody on Earth; anger of
the Western Street inflamed again (which is likely to result in
military retaliation, against whatever enemy country currently has
the best target inventory.)
We know suiciders have successfully synthesized and used TATP
explosives. They have real-world experience in this crap. How many
of these chemist/skeptic critics have actually made the stuff
themselves?
Some chemists may disagree, but I'm glad the plot got shut down.
Christ, can't we enjoy even _one_ success in the WOT without cynics
and skeptics trying to snipe and second-guess the people who are
trying to protect us?
Jennifer|8.20.06 @ 1:06AM|#
Christ, can't we enjoy even _one_ success in the WOT without
cynics and skeptics trying to snipe and second-guess the people who
are trying to protect us?
Not when "trying to protect us" immediately becomes "confiscating
theoretically dangerous toiletries at the airport and then donating
them to the homeless" (as was done in Phoenix).
wingnutx|8.20.06 @ 2:28AM|#
That already exists. It's called "The Anarchist's
Cookbook".
Beat me to it.
wingnutx|8.20.06 @ 2:43AM|#
Can anyone on these boards name a binary explosive, that can
be contained in two 20 ounce plastic bottles (I'm not quite sure
but I bet any concentration of nitric or sulphuric acid strong
enough to make explosives would eat through a plastic bottle), that
can be mixed easily in 5 minutes in an airline bathroom, capable of
bringing that plane down?
ta-daaa:
To make Astrolite G, add 200 g of ammonium nitrate to a large
beaker and stir in 100 mL of hydrazine, mix well. For Astrolite A
add 40 g of aluminum powder to the Astrolite G mixture. It is best
to make the mixture immediately before use because the ammonium
nitrate becomes sensitive to detonation once hydrazine is added.
Professional blasters make their mixtures in the field at the blast
site for greater safety. Each component is measured out in separate
containers, transported to the site, mixed, allowed to sit for 20
minutes, and detonated. As separate components they are very safe
(well as safe as hydrazine can get) and the mixing is easy.
Astrolite can be detonated even when it has been poured out on the
ground and left for 4 days.
http://www.roguesci.org/megalomania/explo/astrolite.html
hydrazine is toxic as hell, but if you're a suicide bomber anyway
then who cares.
|8.20.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Shecky's account of the TSA-supplied binary liquid combining bin
reminds me of something that happened to a friend coming back into
the US from Canada. He'd bought some eggs and was told at the
border that they weren't allowed in. His options were to either
drive back and return them or toss them in the dumpster, which he
did.
Inquiring minds want to know: Where does the dumpster, full of
broken eggs and rotten beef and chicken, get dumped?
That's not the end of the story. A week and four or five crossings
later my friend (whose girlfriend lives in Canada) was directed to
the search area immediately after his licence plate number was
entered into the computer. His truck was throughly searched because
there's now a database entry in Washington DC identifying him as
someone who once attempted to import illicit groceries.
|8.20.06 @ 11:58AM|#
just carry some solid sodium or potassium under a thin layer of oil to keep water vapor in the air from prematurely igniting it (it's humid here in Florida), then once on board, wash it down the sink with lots of water - you only have to carry one component on board when the other is water.
|8.20.06 @ 12:18PM|#
we've passed from the realm of action blockbusters to that
of situation comedy
Har har, funny indeed until it's your plane breaking in
half before your eyes at 30,000 feet.
Paul|8.20.06 @ 2:06PM|#
Sorry folks, face recognition technology is so profoundly easy
to spoof, that it's nearly useless.
The systems merely produce nearly random false positives and false
negatives when used in real environments. And in this case, it's
not the false negatives which should worry us, it's the false
positives.
|8.20.06 @ 2:26PM|#
People of sense typically disregard anything in The
Register. It's a real rag.
People of sense typically disregard ad hominem fallacies too.
...and appeals to authority.
Timothy|8.20.06 @ 2:33PM|#
Biologist: Why not use cesium? It likes water less, but I
imagine it's harder to get ahold of.
Although, I wonder, with as violently and quickly as those
reactions happen, would you be able to get enough of any of those
into the holding tank for the lav before it exploded.
Shannon Love|8.20.06 @ 4:51PM|#
The entire "binary explosives" facet is a red herring.
The problem isn't one of trying to prevent people from mixing two
liquids to create an explosion on the plane but one of preventing
the use of any liquid explosive at all. Most explosives begin their
lives as liquids (at room temperature) and are then integrated into
a solid substrate to make them more stable. For example,
integrating liquid nitro glycerin into diatomaceous earth creates
the solid dynamite.
Historically, terrorist have relied on solid explosives (with one
possible exception) because that is the form of manufactured
explosives most readily available. Most airport security, except
for El-Al, didn't bother checking for liquid explosives due to
their rarity. Now that homebrew explosives are on the table,
hundreds of liquids could be used as explosives, incendiaries or
poisons.
Personally, I would use nitro glycerine. It's trivial to make and
its instability has been wildly exaggerated by hollywood. (Before
dynamite it was mass produced and shipped world wide). A water
bottle full (it looks clear) could bring down any plane.
Didn't anybody on this thread take chemistry?
|8.20.06 @ 4:53PM|#
I'm with biologist: why screw around with "binary liquids" at all when there are so many solid compounds that react violently with water?
thoreau|8.20.06 @ 5:40PM|#
Didn't anybody on this thread take chemistry?
Maybe things were different when you were in school, but nobody
ever taught me ANYTHING cool in college chemistry.
|8.20.06 @ 6:01PM|#
Timothy: I didn't know that about cesium. (imitating Deforest
Kelley as Dr. Leonard McCoy) I'm a biologist, dammit, not a
chemist!
and I might get accused of helping the terrorists here, but to
address your concern about getting it down the sink before
reacting: put it in a medicine container of some sort, ask for a
glass or bottle of water to take your medicine with, mix and hold
next to a window - explosive decompression when you blow the window
out at 20,000 feet
thoreau|8.20.06 @ 6:36PM|#
If I were a terrorist who was prepared to die smiting infidels, I wouldn't blow up a plane. I'd blow myself up in an airport security line. In a crowded airport, that could easily kill 100 people. And the inevitable response would almost certainly mean the end of air travel as we know it.
|8.20.06 @ 7:33PM|#
thoreau: Been done. In the 80's, the PLO (I think) sent teams
around to European airports that simply took out automatic weapons
and opened fire at random. All on the same day. It didn't end air
travel.
But that was my first thought when I saw the new security after
9/11: long lines, lot of people, no security prior to the security,
a fat target. An intelligent security scheme would never allow
lines or backups and that will be the next wrinkle as soon as
terrorists stop obsessing over planes and get back to the basics of
killing people, not things.
thoreau|8.20.06 @ 8:46PM|#
James-
How would you have security before security without creating a new
line of juicy targets that a person could attack without first
being screened?
Also, is there any explosive that could be made by mixing snake
venom with an innocuous liquid?
|8.20.06 @ 9:11PM|#
thoreau: Well, that's the problem, isn't it? But I think the
issue is too few security ports that are trying to do too much.
Checking passes, shoes, IDs, and pockets all at once leads to slow
lines. A seemingly more open, layered security scheme of
increasingly intrusive checkpoints as one gets closer and closer to
the plane would break up the traffic and have shorter lines.
My father tells me now you have to sign in when you visit the
office of the US Forest Service in Northern Wisconsin. For a
libertarian, this is a good thing. It's hard for the government to
maintain its projected image of tireless service to the common man
when it treats every citizen as a suspect.
I might see SOAP tonight if I can't find anything good on TV. I
can't wait to hear their explanation of why an assassin that can
get close enough to plane to fill it with venomous snakes doesn't
just put a bomb on the damned thing.
|8.20.06 @ 11:21PM|#
I had been pondering this since first hearing the story.
I mean on flights where every seat is taken, imagine 23-a walking
back to 36-c, and saying, "Here are the dozen glycerine
suppositories. You do have your vials there of nitric acid, right?
Hand them over for delivery to 43-b."
Aren't flight attendant call buttons going to be pulled by 36-a and
b, even before 43-a and c?
|8.21.06 @ 9:18AM|#
For a terrorist plot to succeed it is not necessary to actually
destroy anything or kill anybody. All that is really necessary is
to terrify people. The death and destruction are just
enhancements.
It is likely not very easy to assemble a binary liquid explosive on
a plane or even to gather the components. It was probably just as
unlikely that someone like Jose Padilla could aquire enough
radioactive material to make a meaningful "dirty bomb".
What is important is that the planners of these attacks are able to
recruit the number of people that they can. Even the exposure of
these cells is a "success" from the planners point of view. It
leaves the populace wondering where they will strike next.
Not to mention the fact that it bogs the system down with endless
security diverting people from productive pursuits.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245