ClaireTalon
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Posts
- 1,917
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 183
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Puget Sound
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
SpeedoGuy said:That's what I meant when I snarked off about TSA suddenly learning that liquid explosives could bring down aircraft. I mean, I'm glad to see the bomb plot thwarted but liquid explosives are nothing new and I fail to understand why they weren't taken seriously before now.
Still, I strongly bet that all the terrorists have to do is try again in a few months or years when our heightened vigilance subsides and we're back to business as usual (zzzzzzzz). I don't know if anyone else has noticed but the security searchers at U.S. airport terminals are already reverting back to the low-bidder private contractors that were in vogue prior to 9/11.
In any case, I'm glad to see any policy that reduces the ridiculous amount of carry-on baggage most passengers tote with them. :smile:
SpeedoGuy, that is because a lot of liquid explosives give bombers a great chance to blow themselves up while still on the ground; most of them are highly reactive chemicals that explode through shocks, UV light or when stored too warm: Such as TATP. In fact, TATP is so sensitive it has never found a practical use, and is nothing but the byproduct of the synthesis of some other nasty stuff. Raw nitroglycerine is about 5 times less sensitive to shocks than TATP, which would have to be stored submerged in water to make it safe to handle.
But I agree, the security checks are crazy sometimes, I wonder if those in charge of the guidelines or the guards themselves ever switch on their brains. More than once I've seen passengers bringing two or three bottles of something with them through the checks, and only one bottle was checked through the swig test. Once could laugh at that.
Orcabomber, another nice explosion might be if you expose Cesium to air. Hydrochloric might be difficult to get on board.