bjcc
pasoundman,
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.
In ideal laboratory conditions using hydrogen peroxide of a strength not available to anyone other than approved purchasers you CAN make such an explosive. It's NOT a liquid though. It's crystalline and has to be to have the required effect.
In short, there's no way you can prepare such a substance on board an airliner.
So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.
I fully expect the defence to be incompetent. Plus I'd love to see that video.
In any case, the prosecution have already LIED about the role of the fizzy drink 'Tang'. A sugary solution DOES NOT affect the explosiveness of TATP in ANY WAY. A decent schoolkid's knowledge of chemistry should tell you that much. In fact, being a solution in water it would REDUCE any explosive effect, possibly to NIL
or That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.
Time will tell.
Time is not required to tell that the whole story is a bag of ****.
In particular, the claim that a 'sugary liquid' meaning a fizzy drink will enhance the explosive effect is plain BERSERK ! TATP is not an oxidiser based explosive so any amount of sugar is wholly IRRELEVANT !
The Crown Prosecution is as mad as BA's management. I've a mind to write to the High Court to advice they're being told OUTRIGHT LIES !