Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chemists: TATP Liquid Bombs Impossible to Make In Jet Lavatory--Huge Hoax

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:36 AM
Original message
Chemists: TATP Liquid Bombs Impossible to Make In Jet Lavatory--Huge Hoax
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 11:00 AM by Dems Will Win
This desription by Thomas Greene and an accompanying Chemistry PDF, show how making liquid bombs on a plane is virtually IMPOSSIBLE. You'd have to be in the lavatory for hours, then dry it for hours, and the acetone fumes would kill you anyhow.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.


http://www.anywhichway.net/article.php?story=liquidexpl...



The following Journal of American Chemical Society 2004 study explains that the explosion can only come from DRIED TATP powder, meaning a short plane flight is not even enough time to make this stuff. Think--if it was easy why hadn't terrorists liquid bombed a plane before this? And why--if the government knew about liquid bombs for years, did they wait until the 2006 election to impose the liquid bans?? BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

http://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdf

Please Vote for Greatest if you think the media should investigate this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. if i had to fly during that "terra crisis" i'd be totally pissed
reading this.

the media surely LOVES a good TERRA story -- maybe they should sink their dewclaws into this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Am I mistaken that the concept of a "liquid bomb" is a realistic scenario?
I read several DU threads about it, and it was my impression that the alleged plot was a recipe for disaster if carried to conclusion, that in fact what they wanted to do could be done, that it wasn't as complicated as outlined in your article.

I'm no scientist, and would really like for some chemical-savvy DU'ers to chime in on this one.

Perhaps the whole idea is just to keep people guessing, so we don't know whom to trust, and we fall into an illusion of "better safe than sorry" as a template for security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's only realistic if you were able to stay in a jet lavatory
for hours and then also be immune to the toxic acetone fumes. The car trunk they blew up on TV was obviously dried TATP powder, apples and oranges all the way.

THe chemistry text is dense but what it says is you need DRIED POWDER, what was shown on TV as being easy was a hoax, if this is true--and it appears to be.

Any chemists in the audience??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. Not a realistic scenario.
Simply put, chemicals which react with each other in an explosive manner tend to be rather volatile already, and as such are too conspicuous to get onto a plane in carry-on luggage. Even if you did manage it, most binary explosive combinations are either too weak to do significant damage, or require advanced processing ala TATP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
28. It 100% realistic--if the device is crammed in a checked bag, under
the passenger compartment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. I heard Ramzi Joseph tried this & actually brought down a Phillippine plan
so that is why they are worried.

BUt maybe they lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. He did not mix that explosive onboard
there was no security at all in those days.

And the plane did not come down, the bomb was weak and only killed a Japanese passenger in the seat above it.

The plane landed safely.

So even with all the time and care in the world the liquid bomb did not work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
70. It didn't work because of the placement
Yousef's intention was to place the bomb over the main fuselage fuel tank. He missed by 2 rows.
Some contend that flight 800(?) that went down after taking off from JFK in 1995 was a successful exercise of this proposition. Read Peter Lance's "Cover-up" on this subject (& 9/11) - a great read!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. Ist he JonBenet Ramzi's Dad? OMG. He's even nastier than I thought!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #46
64. omg--I just read that aloud--ROFL!!!
that explains everything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeyJones Donating Member (212 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. That's of course assuming Ramzi Yousef wasn't a CIA asset in the.....
first place. Go to wikipedia and read the guy's biography. He has virtually no known history and a like 100 aliases. Very strange for a "terrorist." Most of the time they just go down swinging like Osama and friends and dare the evil Americans to come and get him.

I still to this day do not believe Ramzi Yousef blew up the trade center in 93'. There's simply too much speculation against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Thanks for the replies.
From elehhhhna's response, though, seems to me the possibility existed that they could have carried out this attack. But I guess that sort of attack is possible with other means, too.

So, what is necessary to enhance security is absolute scrutiny of carry-on as well as checked-in luggage. And if someone wants to bring on a beverage bottle, why can't they just have the person with the bottle take a swig as they go through the security clearance measures before boarding, or at least have water bottles sold pre-flight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Answer; too logical! You sciencey logical liberals....sheesh. Annoying.



sarc/off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. I hang my head in shame.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. I can already see THIS coming
"We can't print that. It will give terrorists help."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Oh! But they could blurt the phoney directions all over the earth..
And the dim-shit media didn't know the phoney directions were phoney anyway, because THEY'RE STUPID!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. Oh. Come. On. A trained monkey could make a molotov with
some duty-free booze and a tampon.

WE ARE NOT SAFE until booze and tampons are outlawed.

Not sure which I'd miss more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. the booze
definitely the booze. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Yes, at least three quarters of the time. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. They could have plugged every drain on the plane with a box of
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 04:16 PM by Hubert Flottz
those fascist tampons.

EDIT...This terra thing, had Al PNAC's fingerprints all over it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. I liked this comment on the Washington Monthly blog
where the Greene article also appeared:

You mean there really wasn't a serious terror threat from these bozos? No way! It's like the Bush Administration uses these so-called threats for purely political stunts. Shocking, absolutely shocking!

Does this mean the War on Liquids is over?

Posted by: kidkostar on August 17, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. Really? Take a look at Tannerite - a manufactured binary explosive.
http://www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html
VIDEO OF BINARY EXPLOSIVE BEING MIXED AND DETONATED HERE: http://www.tannerite.com/nu.mpg

Or there is FIXOR http://www.mrel.com/FIXOR.html

More on FIXOR http://oditechnologies.com/products/binary_explosives.h...

Google is your friend. I merely googled: binary explosives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. You googled "Binary Explosive"? You're braver than me!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. No kidding! Welcome to the Terra Watch List!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. !
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Ever worked in a lab?

There are lots of ways to use chemicals to start fires.

But creating the pressure, working with the volume, or the concentrated power to detonate the crap at a level required to do much damage is an entirely different proposition.

And charges that just blow up randomly don't have that much force...being able to shape the charge is really what's needed and that can't be done with a Gatoraid bottle.

The simple fact is that this threat is a wildly remote and likely ineffective gimick. Anyone who could and would go to the effort to concoct a charge that could actually blow out a small chunk of insulation or window on a plane could achieve as much or more damage in a much more low tech way for a fraction of the effort.

Maybe the terra-ists are just stupid and explosion fixated though so till they figure that out I suppose we should all abandon our shoes and toothpaste in blind panic.

The fact that you are more likely to die driving in your car on the way to the airport should be ignored.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Did you look at the links? Please do, and comment. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yup
and the most simple comment is notice the mechanism for ignition on the movie... Think of the ways you can create pressure, or start a fire etc that don't even involve 1 course in inorganic chemistry. Do we ban baking soda on planes?

Beyond that the actual size of the explosion didn't appear to be much larger than that of a decent sized firework (though there was some smoke).

That doesn't mean a correctly placed small charge couldn't do some damage. But the lavatory may not be the place. (I'll defer to someone who understands airplane design if they can chime in).

We are not talking about something that has the power of a shaped C-4 charge here.

Is it theoretically possible to create an explosion from bathroom chemicals? Yep.

Is it as big a threat as a number of non-prohibited, easier to perform means of sabotage? nope...lots of other easier ways that I'm sure anyone with a moments imagination can come up with.

Thankfully all the terrorists appear to be utter fools. TSA isn't keeping us safe. Stealing our toothpaste isn't keeping us safe.

Dumb terrorists appear to be our greatest security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Simple question: Do you agree with the Journal of American
Chemical Society paper that states TATP must be a dried powder, made at the right temperature, to pack a large explosion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Haven't read the paper
and it's been a few years since I worked as a chemist however the qualifications sound about right. I'd have to have one of my more up to date friends take a look at it for a real educated response since I haven't read a professional journal in that area in about 6 years.

But creating a real large explosion is not as easy as McGyver makes it look. Starting fires on the other hand aren't that difficult but then you don't need to worry about toothpaste do ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. I will have to agree with you about TSA.
I don't know enough about chemistry or plane design to know if Tannerite would be effective, or if the mixture has been diluted down.

Yes, terrorists, with a modest amount of imagination could do really serious damage and get away with it. Let's hope they stay stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Tannerite is detonated by a hot bullet, not electronic detonation
No guns on planes last time I checked...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. An electric blasting cap does the same thing. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. If you can smuggle blasting caps onboard, why not dynamite?
Seems the tannerite is redundant.

I'm of the opinion that if preventing terror is the issue, outlawing starbucks cups is misguided. But preventing terror isn't really the point, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Size. A blastin cap is tiny, a stick of dynamite isn't.
You could fit a blasting cap inside a ball point pen. The stick of dynamite would be a bit harder to hide.

Actually, plastic explosives could be hidden lots of way. I have no idea why terrorists haven't do that. But then again, there are lots of things that terrorists could do that would be extremely effective, and are easy to do, but they haven't. I won't even try to guess why.

I am only addressing the technological side of this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Then why didn't they ban Tannerite years ago?
Still a blasting cap, if discovered, would put youin the poky. The main thing about this apparent hoax is that you were supposed to set it off with a mere battery, that was the whole point, no blasting cap required, just an electric spark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. OK. Looks like what the Islamists were planning was impossible.
So they were arrested for being stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. I agree. But the point is Bush and Blair lied
to get themselves up in the polls. Only reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
76. "Islamists"? I think you mis-spelled "terrorists"
You aren't trying to create the impression that "Islamists" and terrorists are the same thing, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
88. Didn't you get the memo?
FOX is calling them "Islamic fascists" this week. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
82. But a blasting cap is nothing more than a battery
don't get me wrong, I don't buy into this bullshit about liquid explosives after I read the OP and I hope someone with a background in chemestry can come in and shed light on the issue. But for the matter of accuracy a small, fully charged battery used in your Ipod can create a large amount of heat simply by shorting the positive and the negative leads. This is why electrical problems start fires all the time, because of the heat an electric short produces. Granted 120VAC used in your house will create a lot more heat than a 5VDC battery used in your Ipod, but it is still enough to ignite an explosive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Nice try, but detonation caps are banned too.
Same question as above: if Tannerite is so easy why haven't the terrorists brought down a plane with it. Only $98! Or why hasn't the government banned bringing Tannerite on a plane before this election year?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. The hoax was about TATP, not Tannerite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
75. heyyyy....you are now on the NSA terror watch list..SHHHHH N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
80. Not That Easy
Big deal. You googled. Have you ever actually run an organic reaction? I have. THOUSANDS of them. It is NOT that easy. Especially this one.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DWilliamsamh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
84. I googled it just for friggin fun. Like throwing * should be dead into ra
Like throwing * should be dead into random e-mails, and having assassination conversation on cell phones. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
16. So the bush admin lied to us about a terror threat?
What a shocker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
22. I'll just pat myself on the back a little...
Since I've been saying that same thing since the beginning of this whole pile of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. I did too...
...but it was hard to overcome the amen chorus.

I assume if it has any of the words, "terror", "terrorist", "Bush Administration Officials said", "Homeland Security", "Blair Government", that it is like a crock of crap.

The BS ditector was pinned on this one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. Me too. Even though I made it up it sounded plausible! LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. /me proudly adjusts his Tin Foil Crown.
LOL

I said it was bullshit too. How many times do people need to be lied to and manipulated, by their media and government, before they start questioning what they are told.

"It's the timing, stupid!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #33
81. well, I want to go on record as saying I didn't think it was BS
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 07:17 AM by NJCher
That's because I was flying at the time and too busy standing on their silly lines to get to DU and post that I thought it was BS.

Bastards! Just one more reason to fly drugged to the max.




Cher


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
34. The hysteria was nutso because TATP is impractical, and
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 12:10 PM by petgoat
because the threat of liquid bombs was known a long time ago.

They just wanted us all to do the hokey pokey in the airports, and distract
from the story of.... what was it going on at that time? I forget.

Ramzi Yousef planted a liquid nitro bomb over the fuel tanks on a PAL
flight in 1994. It used a broken light bulb for an igniter and a casio
watch for a timer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight...

See Peter Lance's book "1000 Years for Revenge" for this story and a
lot of other shockers:

1. Abdul Hakim Murad told Philippine intelligence in 1995 all about al
Qaeda's "Project Bojinka" plan to fly hijacked planes into Sears Tower,
the WTC, the Pentagon, and the TransAmerica Pyramid. Murad was then
turned over to the USA.

2. FBI informant Emad Salem infiltrated the al Qaeda cell of the "Blind
Shiekh" before the 1993 WTC bombing. He proposed that harmless powder
be substituted for the explosives. He has on tape his FBI superiors'
orders to allow the bombing to go forward.

3. Ali Mohammed was a Sergeant in the US Army who'd weekend in NYC to
give the Blind Sheikh people weapons training. He was never prosecuted
in connection with the bombing. Interestingly, Patrick Fitzgerald was
involved in the prosecution. Years later, Fitzgerald negotiated Ali
Mohammed's plea bargain with respect to his involvement in the African
embassy bombings. Ali Mohammed was never sentenced, and nobody knows
where he is today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. As a chemist who works for the defense industry....
...the TATP scare is total crap. Period. Adding mineral acids to organics will produce alot of heat and will offgas substantially. In metal finishing, there is a sulfuric acid/hydrogen peroxide formula. I've made it and it gets incredibly hot...to the point where it will start to melt heavy plastics and PVC tanks.

Tannerite

I did a small impact test (Hammer drop test). This was done with a 5-pound & 15-pound hammer. A drop of twenty-four inches against a hard surface failed to cause a detonation. I was not able to detonate it with any hammer or drop test. Friction also failed to cause fire or detonation.

This makes Tannerite nearly impossible to use on in an airplane as the primary explosive. The 15lb impact test is the key. You could use it as a donor charge, but then most heavy duty explosives, which would be the receptor charge, are easily detectable by the sniffers. Most contain nitro or nitrato groups, which is what the sniffer looks for.

Fixor

I can't quite figure out what Fixor is, but it's a suspension that most likely will need a blasting cap or similar method to detonate. The most likely liquid it uses is nitromethane which, again, can be picked up easily by the sniffers.


It really tans my hide when the talking heads start pontificating about the chemistry of explosives. I've been doing this 10 years now and have seen a number of internet recipies that will most likely either get you killed or set your house on fire. Synthesizing explosives, like TATP, is something that takes alot of skill to do safely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Thank you for this immensely!
The March for Blogocracy Goes On!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
37. Kick it up for yet another *BOGUS* terra 'lert.
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 12:36 PM by Raster
:kick:FORTY!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. Duh!
The question is why the dumbos at MSM did not invite the experts to discuss the subject instead of bombarding us with the morons at CNN walking up and down supermarket aisles showing us shampoo and sports drinks.

I believe nothing on Cable news - zilch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Right! I remember them mixing two liquids and saying "It's that easy!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #42
73. Vinegar and Baking Soda ? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #73
87. Technically that's a liquid and a powder...
also, the end result is Hydrogen gas I believe(chemists correct me), which mean you have an excellent way to make flash balloons if done in a 2 litre bottle, but other than that, no real bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Sorry. Same chemistry as the coke and mentos we're seeing on TV nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Glycerin in hand sanitizers and homemade nitro is what MSM is leading to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Well, there's always the mixing of Bleach and Vinegar...
You can create a clorine gas bomb from that, could be deadly in a confined, airtight space, like an airplane, though how you would hide the smell getting either ingredient on board is anyone's guess.

Also, Nitro, especially homemade, is VERY volatile, they would more likely blow themselves up using THAT than anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
44. Between this & JBR, Rove must feel confident he owns the media.
With the right 'disaster' and timing, he could pull off a big coup for the Criminals already stalking our halls of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Ramsey (JonBenet) Ramzi (Youssef) Whoa! So THAT'S why DHS was involved.
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 03:08 PM by elehhhhna

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
66. Yes, the whole story has kind of drifted off to the shores of Loch Ness
we ought to be seeing that monster any day now. Run for your lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Uh oh. Karr just confessed to being Nessie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueStory Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
47. Bruce Schneier's security newsletter:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0608.html

It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

...

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.

And what can you do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they are arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Some pay-off.
"Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off."

Then why did they release them all last week?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LUHiWY Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #47
91. The scam?
"If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people."

Which is the reason that the "war on terror" is a self perpetuating scam.

Another "war to end all wars". These have ALWAYS worked out real well...don't you know.

You can't really protect EVERYTHING...but you CAN keep the terrorist threat stirred up in order to use it as a COVER for what you really want to do?

Now someone needs to ask our great leader what he is really up to. Like it isn't obvious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
51. Yeah, and some of us here knew that and didn't buy into the scam.
I hope those here who did will be more inquisitive next time, and less fearful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. i hope those here who did will be more inquisitive next time..
yeah -- like that's going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. Hey, I became more inquisitive after I realized they were lying to us...
Edited on Wed Aug-30-06 05:02 PM by Zhade
...ten months after 9/11 - I wasn't really aware, and now look at how well-informed I am.

It can happen!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. some are able to take that lesson with them..
others here on the board seem incapable of separating the wheat from the bullshit. Myself? I don't believe a damned thing that comes from this admin, and so far it's worked very well for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. It's a great rule-of-thumb, works pretty much every time!
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
52. Damn...sounds like being a terraist is "Hard Work!"
And what if someone else had to shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
55. Neoconitis is holistically a big hoax on this Republic and we the people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Nothing to see here-back to your Celebrity News-Terror Alert 5.1 next week
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
60. Now they tell us!
I called bullshit on the whole Terra Plot LONG ago.

The second the newspaper said the Evil Islamic Terrorists could use ANFO to blow up a plane, I knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
61. What's probably a greater risk is thermite placed over the
fuel tanks. Do you think their sniffers can detect
aluminum and iron oxide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
62. Simple box cutters did the job
at the twin towers. I would think terrorists would be thinking of easier/simpler ways of doing their dirty work than using difficult to handle chemicals. I would think there would be a different target other than planes if another attack was in the planning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Did they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
68. I'm stunned - you mean they lied to us
that can't be the bush administration would never lie to us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WestMichRad Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
71. So TATP liquid bombs may be impossible, but...
...other formulas may be practical for the would-be bomber. I would probably look for a different oxidant that uses less water or no - like ammonium persulfate, which has been used in solid rocket fuels. You can probably get a much bigger bang out of that... just speculating here. Combining it with a highly flammable volatile solvent (such as acetone) and all one may need is a spark to make a big commotion, to complete the third side of that fire triangle (fuel - oxidizer - ignition source).

Go ahead, junior bombers, try it - hope you blow yrself up.

Hi agent Mike, go F*** yerself.

Seriously, why would the DHS want to give too much information about this? Let the wackos go on thinking that TATP liquid bombs are feasible, so they can catch idiots who think it will work.

But I definitely agree that the flight ban on all liquids is ridiculous overkill, designed to generate FEAR of boogeyman terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
72. Now if only myth busters would take this on...
Then some of the sheeple may actually find out about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
74. Didn't they actually
create a liquid bomb as part of the Operation Bojinka plan?

"On December 11, 1994, Yousef built another bomb, which had one tenth of the power that his final bombs were planned to have, in the lavatory of an aircraft. He left it inside the life jacket under his seat, 26K, and got off the plane when it arrived in Cebu. Yousef had boarded the flight under the assumed name of Armaldo Forlani, using a false Italian passport. The aircraft was Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on a Manila to Narita route, stopping partway at Cebu. Yousef had set the timer for four hours after he got off the aircraft. The bomb exploded while the aircraft was over Minami Daito Island, near Okinawa, Japan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka#Phase_II.2C_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. Yes, indeed
8/10/06
A decade ago authorities in Asia foiled an al-Qaeda plot eerily similar to the one just stopped in Great Britain
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225152,...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #79
93. So how is it impossible?
Am I missing something? Was that a different type of bomb?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. It Was Different
And, the bomb was brought ONTO the plane, fully assembled. The explosive was NOT synthesized on the plane, and was not assembled there.

In addition, the yield of that explosive was about 30% (at best) of what it could have been, meaning that even under lab conditions, the explosive they made was of very poor quality. The conversions were poor and the unreacted raw materials, and partial reaction products contain far lower energy per unit mass.

Last point: These types of binary explosives are designed to be a low brissance tool, typically used in extremely contained spaces, like piling holes, or quarry face detonations. They do not create broad pressure waves in open spaces, and compared to a hole drilled into rock, a jetliner is a broad, open space.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
77. Thanks for posting
what a shock that Team Bush got it wrong again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
78. Trust Me On This Folks: It's Even Harder Than This Suggests
This is very difficult reaction to control, and the molar ratio of reactants needs to be quite precise at each step. In fact, mixing the two and then adding the acid slowly will create a very low yield, as this is not the way the reaction is really run.

And i know of whence i speak: My first graduate degree is in theoretical chemistry and i was trained by the Army Corps of Engineers in a separate set of courses. This plot was a non-threat. This explosive cannot be made in an airplane lav.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
83. I took chemistry and organic in college, I knew this was bogus unless they

produce a fairly extensive laboratory with lab instructions on how to convert the cleaners and peroxide yet make it stable enough to use as a bomb.

Doing it all in the airplane bathroom is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. One Other Note
I kept forgetting to mention this (see my post right above yours). The peroxide used in oxidation reactions like this is NOT the 3% solution we can buy at the drugstore. The commercially available grades are 35%, 50%, and 70%. Some special circumstance buying (like NASA) can obtain 90+%, but i think that requires some special privileges.

The reaction is decelerated in the presence of water. While there is no dehydration taking place (this is a nucleophilic addition), the rate is dependent upon reactant concentration. The lower the concentration of the peroxide, the slower the rate and the slower the rate, the lower the conversion.

So, this CANNOT be done in the laboratory.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
85. I'd be a lot more worried about somebody mixing up a binary nerve agent
or some other chemical weapon. Manufacturing TATP in the lavatory seems a bit, well, farfetched.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 20th 2018, 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC