[Gllug] Even more increased airport security announced.

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:58:01AM +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:46:35AM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:54AM +0100, Christopher Hunter wrote:
> > > These "liquid bombs" are obvious nonsense - do a little basic research on TATP 
> > > (their supposed explosive of choice), and you'll see that there is NO WAY it 
> > > could be assembled from its component parts in an aeroplane toilet.
> > 
> > I used to make HMTD as a kid (probably get locked up for being a
> > "terrierist" if someone did that now).  By the looks of it, it seems
> > that TATP is a very similar compound made in almost the same way.
> > 
> > Raw ingredients are easily available -- hexamine tablets, citric acid
> > and strong hydrogen peroxide.  But, tricky to make in an aircraft
> > toilet.  You'd need to lock yourself in for several hours, and it
> > gives off a very distinctive smell, and you'd need lots of ice water,
> > and messy filter papers (it takes several more hours to dry).  All
> > things which the crew would spot.  Even if you succeeded in making it,
> > you'd then need to pack it and detonate it -- if not packed and
> > completely confined, it just flames rather than exploding.
> 
> The Register has a longish article about this. What they say looks reasonable
> to me, but I last did chemistry years ago - never liked the messy liquids:
> 
> 	http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
> 
> Any insight/comment, better than mine, gratefully received.
> 
> I am still in 2 minds about the recent airport fracas, how real was it all ?

Its obviously very hard to say - on the one hand you've got the government
effectively saying it would have been "the UK's 9/11", but on the other hand
you've got people saying its totally overblown because they supposed liquid
explosive would never have done any damage / worked at all. 

Until the government's evidence against these guys is presented in court we'll
never know (assuming they even allow the court sessions to be public). I kind
of suspect the truth could turn out to be a bit of both. eg, the 'terrorists'
*intended* to cause 'the next 9/11', but at the same time didn't realise / 
know their chosen method of attack was doomed to failure / fundamentally 
flawed. Which would mean the actual danger was minimal, but the intent
was still there - and at the end of the day, its the intent that's the
bigger long term issue to address - something which none of the last 5 years 
of anti-terror laws does anything positive about :-( 

Dan.
-- 
|=-            GPG key: http://www.berrange.com/~dan/gpgkey.txt       -=|
|=-       Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-           Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-   berrange at redhat.com  -  Daniel Berrange  -  dan at berrange.com    -=|
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20060823/f68f5275/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug