Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BBC in misleading film of aircraft exploding?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BBC in misleading film of aircraft exploding?

Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:48
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 39
Posts: 6,168
BBC in misleading film of aircraft exploding?

Did anyone see the Six O'clock News tonight where the BBC got someone to blow up a section of scrapped aircraft fuselage to demonstrate what the alleged liquid bomb plot could have achieved. I am alone in noticing that the film was spliced with the experimental destruction of the TriStar in the desert a few years back. Mid way through they show the underside and cargo door being blown apart except in the later wider shot the semi fuselage has neither a cargo door or underside...... Surely a deliberate exaggeration? I stand to be corrected but watch it tonight on the Ten O'Clock News and see if they're up to their old tricks again.....
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 19:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201


This was the Tri-star and it was done with the airframe pressurized, no need to exagerate this one. This was only a small amount of explosive.
Mr.Brown is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 19:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 77
Posts: 1,109
I saw it, and although I realised I had seen it before, it didn't bother me that some older stuff was spliced in. Perhaps we should only be bothered about the smaller explosions then? They were making a point. It didn't occur to me that they were up to 'their old tricks' as you put it. I'm sure the average viewer wasn't bothered one way or the other.
JEM60 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 20:16
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: LONDON, UK.
Age: 48
Posts: 70
just watched that BBC one some minutes ago.
always worry that the BBC hype it up somehow in all these kind of things, so don't take it all as truth.
darrylj is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 21:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NE UK
Age: 74
Posts: 20
I am not convinced by so-called "liquid bombs". Hydrogen peroxide is a source of oxygen which can help substances burn, but a wet mass of starch is not going to burn. Different story if it was dry powder. What was used as the detonator,and what would the explosion have been like with just the detonator and an empty bottle?
labrador pup is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 21:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Maybe this is not the best place to discuss specifics of the effect of different substances in the effectiveness of explosives on aircraft!
soddim is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 21:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
How right you are Soddim!

The situation is made worse by the recent trial which failed to convict some men of preparing to blow up aircraft.

The net result is that there is now clamour to reduce the security checks on passengers. I fail to see the connection!
manrow is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 22:06
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FL330
Posts: 235
couldn't agree more manrow . .

It seems VS have called for a review today
BBC NEWS | UK | Airline calls for liquids review
One9iner is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 22:43
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 806
Originally Posted by manrow View Post
How right you are Soddim!
Not convinced - an aviation forum would seem about the right place. Maybe it should be in tech log, but it is also a genuine news item.

If you are suggesting it shouldn't be discussed in "public" at all, then why ? It can't be "so the terrorists don't find out", because they know already and knew before the industry since the liquids security measures were put in place in response to the intel on the threat. On the other hand, if the terrorists don't know (and hence we might possibly give them ideas), then there wasn't a viable threat, so why the security theatre...

The situation is made worse by the recent trial which failed to convict some men of preparing to blow up aircraft.
If there was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that aircraft were the target, then arguably the investigation failed, not the trial (some reports saying the US spooks blew everything before they had enough evidence - which would fit, the US isn't too bothered about actual trials these days).

The net result is that there is now clamour to reduce the security checks on passengers. I fail to see the connection!
Since a jury couldn't decide that there was a viable plot after reviewing all the evidence (some of it "secret", that we don't have access to), then maybe it isn't a viable threat after all, in which case the restrictions should be reviewed.

There have been plenty of qualified people who have been publically very sceptical about the feasibility of this alleged plot, while from the establishment we've had a lot of media hype and precious little actual science to review. Apparently the terrorists (without, it appears, a proper lab) have discovered a new very powerful (and stable enough to mix inflight) liquid explosive, the composition and effectiveness of which is kept secret from us, not to prevent independent scientific review, but to stop the terrorists from finding out about it. Pardon my skepticism but there does seem to be a bit of a severe logic flaw there...
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 00:06
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 39
Posts: 6,168
I'm staggered that after bugging them for all that time not once did they mention blowing up a plane or even buying tickets.....I would love to see the details, however I think that if the current restrictions were relaxed before we get these alleged new super xray machines, then some loony is bound to be inspired to try it.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 01:07
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 17
Labrador pup wrote:
I am not convinced by so-called "liquid bombs". Hydrogen peroxide is a source of oxygen which can help substances burn, but a wet mass of starch is not going to burn. Different story if it was dry powder. What was used as the detonator,and what would the explosion have been like with just the detonator and an empty bottle?
Hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent and will react with any reducing agent. More often than not the oxidation-reduction reaction is highly exothermic (i.e. gives off a lot of heat), proceeds very fast and liberates a fair amount of gas. If the reducing agent is also flamable you have a veritable explosion on your hands. As a young aspirant chemist (I'm a real one now) one of our favourite "bombs" consisted of mixing potassium hypochlorite (strong oxidant) with hydrocarbon-based brake fluid (reductant). The explosion and the concomitant flame is something to behold I saw first-hand what it did when the reagents were allowed to mix inside a sealed steel pipe

Just a note to all who feel that it's inappropriate to mention this on a public forum, it's public domain knowledge, usually known to all 12 to 14 year olds who pay attention in their science class.
Gigajoules is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 02:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posts: 65
Liquids are dangerous

I think a liquid ban is a very good thing, It's so easy to bring an accelerant on board , this is the only thing about security I agree with as sensible , so of course it will re revoked.

Although I wonder how they check what's ACTUALLY inside women's bras or other hiding places . Let's face it If someone wants to blow up , they will. Best to review political policies to eradicate the urge in the first place
ChristySweet is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 02:54
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
Just a note to all who feel that it's inappropriate to mention this on a public forum, it's public domain knowledge, usually known to all 12 to 14 year olds who pay attention in their science class.
There are quite a few other options as well. However, seeing as most of us still have all our fingers, one assumes that with knowledge came wisdom not to try it.

However, the liquids restriction is a farce and isn't that hard to circumvent if you apply some grey matter to the problem. As such, it's not really the appropriate security check to deal with the problem, which means that at some point it will be circumvented because the security people won't be looking for the real problem.

At least now that I know that they don't seem to worry about an empty bottle, I can avoid enriching the profiteers selling water at inflated prices airside by taking through an empty bottle and filling it at a water fountain.
llondel is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 07:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 41
Posts: 596
I think a liquid ban is a very good thing, It's so easy to bring an accelerant on board , this is the only thing about security I agree with as sensible , so of course it will re revoked.
Absolute rubbish.

Anyone who has access to an undergraduate Chemistry Lab will have access to plenty of solid oxidising agents, explosives and all manner of nasties (Anyone for Gallium aboard an aircraft )

The only way to stop terrorism on board aircraft is intelligence led, "window dressed" security presided over by failed traffic wardens isn't.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 08:01
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 0
And.......

And profiling too....not as an exclusive means of idenifying suspects, but as a key component. Profiling along with checking liquids, I must agree, despite the nuisance at security checks.
RoyHudd is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 08:24
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Breaking Bad

If you want to learn how to blow things up in spectacular fashion then watch the upcoming series on Sky, Breaking Bad.
The lead character is a chemistry teacher who turns to crime, using easily available ingredients to blast his way into and out of buildings and banks.
It has been nominated for awards in the good ole US of A and is compulsory watching in the hills of Iraqistan.
To suggest we don't discuss such things on this forum is simply naivety.
I for one would like to know what to look for.
Welcome to the real world of television.
rubik101 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 08:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Please remember that the BBC has a duty to the administration in promoting the public acceptance of Government policies, and the social adjustment of the attitudes of the populus.

The fact that every UK resident is forced to pay for the BBC is completely irrelevant. Surely the aim of educating the population as to modern social mores, and issues of critical importance to the World, such as the election of president Obama and anthropogenic climate change justify the use of the public broadcaster in this way.

We should all have faith in the Home Secretary, and you'll just have to accept that nanny knows best.
Airbus Unplugged is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 09:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 78
If you want to learn how to blow things up in spectacular fashion then watch the upcoming series on Sky, Breaking Bad.
The lead character is a chemistry teacher who turns to crime, using easily available ingredients to blast his way into and out of buildings and banks.
It has been nominated for awards in the good ole US of A and is compulsory watching in the hills of Iraqistan.
To suggest we don't discuss such things on this forum is simply naivety.
I for one would like to know what to look for.
Welcome to the real world of television.
If the science is as solid as that in CSI we have nothing much to worry about.

I remember the guy who got electrocuted because the iron supplement he was taking made his body extra-conductive.
Beausoleil is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 09:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: De Dam
Posts: 28
Bit off track but - presumably there are only a limited number of chemicals that could be used to contruct a bomb, so how difficult would it be to train a sniffer dog to do the job?

It would certainly be preferable to the sexual assault I get every time I go through Schiphol.
13thDuke is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2008, 12:06
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leicester UK
Posts: 68
Surely all irrelevant when a terrorist can walk on a train / tube / bus / ferry without being subjected to the same scrutiny. Just change the target
Wiggly Bob is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.