I know this horse has almost been beat to death, but...

[DeSwiss]

I thought this article was interesting which notes the extreme difficulty for the alleged terrorists to have actually carried-out an attack using binary liquid explosives...

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

By Thomas C Greene in Washington
The Register - Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT

Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.

The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.

Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?

We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.

Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.

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

Whaddya think?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. Job for Mythbusters!

[Ediacara]

2. I think this is all inconsequential

All anyone would need would be to bring some amount of metallic potassium (or some other alkali metal) on the plane and then drop it into the toilet. Alkali metals, when exposed to oxygen or water become explosive. You may not blow the plane up, but it would certainly cause an uncontrollable fire. Sad but true, confiscating lipstick and hand sanitizer is a huge waste of time if anyone who stayed awake in junior high chemistry happens to have sinister motivations...

[intaglio]

8. Sorry Dinoboy

But the Brainiac expertiment was a fix Bad Science

But what really happened? Deep Throat (okay, Brainiac’s Dr Bunhead, aka Tom Pringle) claims: “Absolutely bloody nothing. The density of caesium ensured it hit the bottom of the bath like a lead weight. The sheer volume of water then totally drowned out the thermal shock-wave I was expecting to shatter the bath. This was an expensive filming day. They had hired part of Pinewood studios and had an ambulance and fire engine plus crew on standby. They could not go home empty handed. So they rigged a bomb in the bottom of the bath (you can see the black wire leading into the bath) and then blew the shit out of it. I must say it did look cool… ate away at my conscience. But I couldn’t do anything about it.”

You could use potassium or sodium but you would need kilos of it to do any real damage. and lots of water.

You want to cause a big bang and/or fire? there is no need to go binary. IF you need more details I will pm but will not openly post. edit - when I have enough posts to PM :eyes:

[DeSwiss]

3. Yeah but....

A-Schwarzenegger: well, I don't think the binary explosive chemicals being reported are a myth. Simply that the stability of the mixture makes it problematic as a likely method given the difficulties in combining them and achieving the desired effect. From what the article says, they'd almost need a laboratory in the lavatory to carry it out.

DinoBoy: I agree. There are probably a lot more simpler ways to create an explosive or fire risk on a plane than this. Although I'm not sure what types of chemical compounds those electronic sniffers would detect, nor whether something like the metals you refer to would show up in any discernible way when x-rayed. But it just seems to me that of the terrorist plots we know that have succeeded in the past, or at least been attempted, they've always been of the lowest common denominator type. The simpler the better seems to be their credo. This "plot" seems awfully complex with a very low probability of success for the types of terrorist acts we've seen up til now.

[shain from kane]

4. "... so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard." It was used in

the third Die Hard movie with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson to threaten school kids.

[Debau2005]

5. I can't have my mascara and makeup as a carry on

but I can ship something as cargo that is not being screened...Now tell me how this makes sense?
"Small percentage of airline cargo inspected"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14397264/

[mmonk]

6. It's mostly psyops on the American public.

As long as the "mainstream media" doesn't do the job of being the fourth estate, I'm afraid it may work on the average American who knows little and reasons little including the ability to see through things that may or may not be true and how they are being used.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. I Believe I Said That Exact Thing Last Week

And had folks here at DU argue with me that it was easy! Apparently i took all those chemistry classes for nothing. Go figure!
The Professor