Uk Plotters trial

[Lanakila]

After requesting a place to put this and not really finding one I decided the story is so important that it needs to be here even if this isn't the proper forum to put it.

Not sure who all knows who I work for but it's the department of homeland security. Today on our work homepage is a link to the tsa.gov website story about the trial and the evidence that is coming out of it. It's not getting much if any play in our media thus far but I thought you folks would want to know that we aren't taking your water away for no reason or because we want you passengers to spend lots of money on bottled water on the other side of security. There is a valid reason for the liquids restriction.

tsa.govClick on the number one story on that page.

If these guys would not have been caught and their plan had succeeded a lot of people would have died. It's pretty damn scary for me as I was in the process of being hired by the TSA right when all this shit was hitting the fan.

[David B]

After requesting a place to put this and not really finding one I decided the story is so important that it needs to be here even if this isn't the proper forum to put it.

Not sure who all knows who I work for but it's the department of homeland security. Today on our work homepage is a link to the tsa.gov website story about the trial and the evidence that is coming out of it. It's not getting much if any play in our media thus far but I thought you folks would want to know that we aren't taking your water away for no reason or because we want you passengers to spend lots of money on bottled water on the other side of security. There is a valid reason for the liquids restriction.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/...t_hearing.shtm

If these guys would not have been caught and their plan had succeeded a lot of people would have died. It's pretty damn scary for me as I was in the process of being hired by the TSA right when all this shit was hitting the fan.

Sadly, your link leads me to 'page you requested was not found'.

Can you give a synopsis?

Or fix the link, if fixable?

What I found was

http://www.tsa.gov/404.shtm

David B (finds the fact that the link leads him there somewhat disquieting)

[David M]

It currently available at http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/terror_plot_hearing.shtm

EDIT

"I'd like the thank the Americans for their help in the war against terror, because if you hadn't funded the IRA for 30 years we wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists would we?" Al Murray - Pub Landlord.

;) :beerchug:

[David B]

Thanks.

I have mixed feelings about my previous disquiet about the link the OP posted being disappeared.

On the one hand I like freedom of information.

On the other, I like freedom of information within sensible limits.

If the report left out some of the details, and inserted 'commonly available household products' instead, I would have less qualms about it being public.

David B:dunno:

[David M]

Thanks.

I have mixed feelings about my previous disquiet about the link the OP posted being disappeared.

On the one hand I like freedom of information.

On the other, I like freedom of information within sensible limits.

If the report left out some of the details, and inserted 'commonly available household products' instead, I would have less qualms about it being public.

David B:dunno:

The info is available on the BBC news article as well, its not hard to find out what materials can make explosives even if you are not reading islamic fundamentalist bomb-making pamphelts.

As a kid I certainly experimented with my chemistry set and household chemicals to make things that went bang.

The bbc have more comprehensive write up at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7336728.stm

[David B]

Thanks.

I have mixed feelings about my previous disquiet about the link the OP posted being disappeared.

On the one hand I like freedom of information.

On the other, I like freedom of information within sensible limits.

If the report left out some of the details, and inserted 'commonly available household products' instead, I would have less qualms about it being public.

David B:dunno:

The info is available on the BBC news article as well, its not hard to find out what materials can make explosives even if you are not reading islamic fundamentalist bomb-making pamphelts.

As a kid I certainly experimented with my chemistry set and household chemicals to make things that went bang.

So did I.

And, in common with just about every other boy in the school, habitually carried a knife. For sharpening pencils, whittling, cutting sticks and stuff.

And I agree that the dedicated terrorist won't find it hard to get bomb making expertise.

But there are lot of nutters out there, who aren't dedicated terrorists.

Look at all the US school shootings, and one or two we've had in Britain, too.

Why help them?

David

[dancer_rnb]

Do we have any independent chemists or Chem engineers who could
comment on these claims?

[Lanakila]

Everything I've read both SSI (sensitive security info) and doing my own research online says that no matter what the naysayers say that not only is this possible it was likely if these fellows hadn't been busted just days before they carried out their plot. Now it's possible they would have fucked up and killed themselves before completing the mission but they had the flat set up and were working with the explosives when they were caught and no one had done damage to themselves prior to being captured.

[David B]

Do we have any independent chemists or Chem engineers who could
comment on these claims?

Do we want them to?

If misinformation about the bomb making process has been given, is that a bad thing?

Would it invalidate a trial of someone who is guilty, on the basis of lots of genuine evidence, if it were shown that some details were changed on public safety issues?

Should it?

OTOH, should we be paranoid enough to have all sorts of silly regulations imposed on us if we board a plane?

Is it all a government conspiracy to give them greater control?

Or what?

David B :dunno:

[B Cereus]

Do we have any independent chemists or Chem engineers who could
comment on these claims?

I too would be interested in hearing from any chemists who could comment on this. And how big would this explosion be?

[Lanakila]

As someone who works in security I also have quite a bit of disquiet about the details of how the plotters were going to carry out their plot including the materials used to make the bombs. But, those fellows having a fair trial means that the details have to come out unless it's a closed trial.

But any terrorist would be bomber knows how to build a bomb and what materials to use that are readily available. C4, Semtex, TNT, and other explosives with military or civil purposes are very difficult for a would be bomber to get ahold of. It may not be common knowledge but household products have chemical properties that can be used to to make a deadly gas or explosive. Combing the two is scarier yet.

[Lanakila]

Do we have any independent chemists or Chem engineers who could
comment on these claims?

I too would be interested in hearing from any chemists who could comment on this. And how big would this explosion be? I'm thinking it would depend on the amounts and the location of the bomb. If it were against the fuselage it wouldn't take much at the right altitude to put a big assed hole in the plane causing it to go down.

[David B]

That these alleged bombers were accused of using common household articles to make their alleged bombs has long been public knowledge in Britain.

I don't recall as much detail being given in the Brit press, though.

David B (doesn't see any reason to report in detail, as long as the other evidence in their trial is in fact compelling)

[Lanakila]

The decision to let out the details of the bomb components is not in my area of expertise nor pay grade as a TSO in the field. But I've read repeatedly all over the net and especially at the TSA blog about how it's impossible to make an explosive from liquids. According to the evidence thus far presented it's far from impossible and was actually feasible before the liquids restriction.

[David B]

The decision to let out the details of the bomb components is not in my area of expertise nor pay grade as a TSO in the field. But I've read repeatedly all over the net and especially at the TSA blog about how it's impossible to make an explosive from liquids. According to the evidence thus far presented it's far from impossible and was actually feasible before the liquids restriction.

That Firefox addon that takes you answers is great for finding out what your abbreviations mean.

Hypothetically, if it were shown that TSA knew full well that it was not only possible, but not difficult, to make explosives from liquids, and lied about it, would that be a bad thing?

David B:dunno:

[Lanakila]

Why would they lie about it? What we are accused of is making a mountain out of molehill when it comes to the UK plot, and that the liquids explosives threat is not real.

Sorry about my abbreviations. It's a bad habit.

[David B]

Why would they lie about it?

Because it was deemed irresponsible to make the knowledge (if knowledge it is) that it is not difficult to make a bomb out of easily obtainable liquids?

To reassure the public (falsely) because of the economic ramifications of people stopping flying, or even just to make people feel more comfortable flying?:dunno:



What we are accused of is making a mountain out of molehill when it comes to the UK plot, and that the liquids explosives threat is not real.

...

I can see a downside to that.

And an upside, if it is in fact easy to make bombs out of household liquids, and just one nutter hasn't committed an atrocity.

Difficult, I think.

David B

[David M]

The decision to let out the details of the bomb components is not in my area of expertise nor pay grade as a TSO in the field. But I've read repeatedly all over the net and especially at the TSA blog about how it's impossible to make an explosive from liquids. According to the evidence thus far presented it's far from impossible and was actually feasible before the liquids restriction.

Well, except for nitroglycerine for example - not that it would be very suitable and you need things that aren't household chemicals. Shows how accurate the net can be.

From memory Hydrogen Proxide and Tang would not give you a bomb without the proper additional catalysts which fortunately are not being named in the trial details. The Germans used hydrogen peroxide in rocket motors during WW2 which shows you how powerful it can be.

Edit - just in case I'm coming across as some sort of explosives nutter I should make it clear that when i did chemistry it was when teachers enjoyed showing us the weird and wonderful things you can do with chemicals, were also allowed to do so, had the materials and proper chemistry labs.

[Lanakila]

Tang wasn't the explosive but the sugar that made the explosive more powerful. The catalysts are also easily obtainable which is why this is one of the choices of bombers. From what I've read the process of making the explosive is actually quite dangerous, but these guys had already made the explosive. They had the stuff when they were captured, so it wasn't a plot to make explosives, but a plot to make a bomb from the already made explosives.

[David M]

Tang wasn't the explosive but the sugar that made the explosive more powerful. The catalysts are also easily obtainable which is why this is one of the choices of bombers. From what I've read the process of making the explosive is actually quite dangerous, but these guys had already made the explosive. They had the stuff when they were captured, so it wasn't a plot to make explosives, but a plot to make a bomb from the already made explosives.

What I was highlighting is that they have publicly named only 2 of the components used and those won't give you a proper bomb which lessens the chance of some random internet reader duplicating it, they haven't printed what else would be involved. Yes its going to be a dangerous process.

[Lanakila]

Doing just a little research will tell you how to make TATP which is the explosive they had. The trouble with the articles out there is that they assume the bombers were going to make the TATP on the plane, but they already had cooked it up in the flat.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

[dancer_rnb]

Well, I wasn't looking to have a detailed process published.

I work in desing verification. I figure out why electronic designs don't
work as planned, so I have a certaqin mindset.

Also I see nothing wrong in seeking confirmation of claims by the government
by independant sources. The trial hasn't been completed yet, has it?
So we don't know if the defense will bring in experts who will shred the state's case.

[Ray Moscow]

Do we have any independent chemists or Chem engineers who could
comment on these claims?

Which claims exactly?

I thought just about all chemists and chem engineers knew how to make explosives, although the experts know a lot of methods that aren't "common knowledge".

[Lanakila]

I'm not sure what experts can deny that these fellows had a viable explosive. It was found in their possession. Now I'm sure that they'll try to prove that the evidence was obtained illegally or some such thing. Not sure what else can be said in their defense except that they were on some terror watch list and wouldn't have been able to get on the planes at all anyway, so their plot was not doable for that reason. But I have no idea if that is the case. I'm just speculating here. I do not remember what tipped off the authorities and led to their capture. Perhaps one of you folks do.

[Daisy]

I take it there is more to it than this:
The prosecution claimed that the explosive was planned to consist of hydrogen peroxide mixed with a powdered version of the fruit drink Tang. The addition of Tang, "which is an energetic compound", would aid detonation, said Wright. He claimed that the mixture was intended to be dyed to match the colour of a soft drink, then substituted for the contents of 500ml bottles of Lucozade and Oasis. The original contents of these would be extracted without breaking the seal by means of a syringe, and the resulting hole in the base of the bottle sealed with superglue.

The jury was told that the bombs were to have been detonated using hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD), an explosive compound prepared using hydrogen peroxide and hexamine. This mix would be concealed in hollowed out batteries, and put together with the liquid explosives and a power source, possibly a disposable camera, once the flight was airborne.

The UK Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/04/liquid_bomb_trial_opens/)


I hadn't heard about the jelly sandwiches:
The men were arrested in August 2006 leading to a worldwide clamp-down on liquids in carry-on baggage, with the ban initially extending even to jam sandwiches, and leading to debates over the relative explosive capabilities of hard and soft cheeses.

[B Cereus]

I'm thinking it would depend on the amounts and the location of the bomb. If it were against the fuselage it wouldn't take much at the right altitude to put a big assed hole in the plane causing it to go down.

I think this is a project for Mythbusters! :D

[Lanakila]

HMTD is not what I originally thought the explosive was. TATP is the explosive being made in the link I gave. Hydrogen Peroxide is one of the same ingredients but after that different catalysts are added. TATP using acetone and HMTD using hexamine and citric or sulfuric acid (the Tang).

[Daisy]

Better than Menthos & Coke.

[Lanakila]

I'm thinking it would depend on the amounts and the location of the bomb. If it were against the fuselage it wouldn't take much at the right altitude to put a big assed hole in the plane causing it to go down.

I think this is a project for Mythbusters! :D

The trouble with mythbusters doing this is who would be flying the plane to the right altitude? Not me I'm telling you. The explosion will always be different at altitude with a pressurized cabin than on the ground.

[Lanakila]

I do not remember jelly sandwiches ever being not allowed. But jars of jam and peanut butter are still not allowed. Not because they are explosive but to keep the terrorists from hiding explosives in those substances. The main trouble is that our technology cannot tell the difference between a bottle of coke or a bottle of explosives on xray and if they allow everyone to bring them through but test them all for traces of explosive no one would make their flights.

[Jet Black]

even post-all-this-business I have managed to get large amounts of gel-like stuff onto a plane (peking duck sauce). only once, but it was well over the limits.

[Lanakila]

Yeah but why try to do so with the possibility of not getting it through? If there is any doubt put it in your checked baggage is always the best idea.

Without giving away SSI I can say that xray interpretation is not so easy especially with carry on baggage packed to the brim full of items. If you go to this website: http://www.counterterrorism.com/xraytrain.htm you can play a game of being a screener and get an idea why it's not easy to spot the threats. It's kind of fun, and not exactly what we see as our xray's are differently calibrated.

[B Cereus]

HMTD is not what I originally thought the explosive was. TATP is the explosive being made in the link I gave. Hydrogen Peroxide is one of the same ingredients but after that different catalysts are added. TATP using acetone and HMTD using hexamine and citric or sulfuric acid (the Tang).

I hope that your Tang only contains citric acid! :D

[B Cereus]

I'm thinking it would depend on the amounts and the location of the bomb. If it were against the fuselage it wouldn't take much at the right altitude to put a big assed hole in the plane causing it to go down.

I think this is a project for Mythbusters! :D

The trouble with mythbusters doing this is who would be flying the plane to the right altitude? Not me I'm telling you. The explosion will always be different at altitude with a pressurized cabin than on the ground.


Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that as long as you keep the relative pressure differentials the same as they would be with the airplane in flight, you could do this test on the ground. (For example, when Mythbusters did the bullet on the plane episode, they did not fly the plane, but kept the relative pressure differential the same as when in flight.)

Worldtraveller, perhaps you can address this?

[B Cereus]

Does anyone here watch SmashLab?

This week's episode looked at the effect of an explosive material in an airplane. They were testing the effectiveness of a material that withstands explosions, but they were testing it for use on a large scale - on an airplane.

For the test, the airplane was kept on the ground but was pressurized to 3 psig. This is equivalent to cruising at 16000 ft. To be equivalent to cruising at 35000 ft, the airplane would need to be pressurized to 7 psig, but they couldn't effectively seal the plane for that pressure.

So yes, you can do explosion testing in an airplane, on the ground, as long as you pressurize it.

[Lanakila]

This article from the Opinion pages of yesterday's Wall Street Journal was about the UK bombers plot and about asking the Presidential candidates the right questions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html

[Lanakila]

There is a report from ABC news on the tsa.gov website that I recommend folks view. It shows what type of explosives these folks were going to use and the power that those explosives have.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Heh. I love it. This all one huge DOS attack.

What someone needs to do is use a catheter and store the stuff in their bladder.

Then they'll either have to ban humans from flying, or not let anyone on until they pee.