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.....

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.

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.

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.

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?

Maybe this is not the best place to discuss specifics of the effect of different substances in the effectiveness of explosives on aircraft!

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!

couldn't agree more manrow . .

It seems VS have called for a review today
BBC NEWS | UK | Airline calls for liquids review

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...

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).

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...

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.

Labrador pup wrote:
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 :8 I saw first-hand what it did when the reagents were allowed to mix inside a sealed steel pipe:eek:

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.

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

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.

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 :eek:)

The only way to stop terrorism on board aircraft is intelligence led, "window dressed" security presided over by failed traffic wardens isn't.

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.

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.

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.:=

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.

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.

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 :ugh:

empty bottles....
 

Quote: 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.

If you can find a water fountain that is....most UK airports seem to delight in hiding them, presumably so as not to disrupt sales of bottled water.

Wiggly Bob

The attention is greater for Airlines as for Example,
If you watching a News report in South America/Africa etc ..

And see a American Airline / British Airline on the News,
it makes World Headlines as they are National Carriers ...

It's been like this for year's PAN AM etc.. it's Big Big news !!

As the rest of Europe is now allowing liquids, this all appears rather trite, perhaps the UK should now introduce security checks for transit pax. preferably headlined in the Daily Mail as bold new step in "the war on terror".

Good move !

It scares people who want to sign up to that kind of idea

It further alienates the UK from mainstream European thinking.

It underpins further legislation to allow your local council to snoop on you in any way it chooses for what ever reason it choses.. congratulations !

Three birds .. one stone ! happy days !

TR

Here's an interesting article from "The reg" about the trial and the possibility of the bomb plot actually happening ...

Yes, there was a viable liquid-bomb plot | The Register

One paragraph leapt out of the page for me ...

"The message is clear - the British courts are fair, or anyway their juries are. You will be given the benefit of the doubt in a jury trial, even if you are a dark-skinned bearded man with a scary name; even if you have made suicide videos and you admit up front that it was your plan to let off high explosives in a crowded public place. If the prosecutors can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were also going to blow up a plane, you still won't be convicted of trying to."

No, there are a very large number of chemicals that could be used as explosives

Alanwsg

Thanks for posting that article.

I quite agree with what the guy wrote.

Even the current regs don't really prevent an attack succeeding if the terrorists are resourced properly. God forbid.:(

I see the press today is full of reports of new machines which can detect 'hazerdous substances'.

Methinks the liquid ban will be gone before this time next year.:ok:

Unfortunately whilst I agree it would be a wonderful message, it did rather depend on the powers that be accepting the decision. Latest news is that the CPS is in fact going for a re-trial.

"You will be given the benefit of the doubt in a jury trial, and then you'll get another trial and another and another, until they find a jury that gets it right" isn't quite the same.

45378:
Usual place is near the toilets. Whether that says something apart from the obvious one of that's where the cold water is already piped, I wouldn't like to speculate.

Dead right PW. Many common fertilzers mixed with a bit of kerosene or diesel will do the job. Did it when I was a kid, nearly fifty years ago.

I always ask the bar staff to fill my bottle with tap water (While buying a beer, of course).

And profiling too.

In the uk? your having a laugh there mate!

To air or not to air?
 

I was traveling when this thread was active hence the late response.

I was involved in both the BBC and the ITN test and would like to state that what was broadcast was an accurate portrayal of the tests.

That both ITN and BBC conducted the test in the same way and aired similar results and similar editorial is a sign that they are reporting facts without any spin or agenda.

I hope that airing the test has made the public more vigilant and so done more to prevent such a hideous event than if it had been censored.


Mickjoebill

Too late Wiggly Bob, they already have.

G'day ;)

Because TSA has convinced the world that the only way another terrorist act would happen is exactly the same way it did last time.

Can you say bunch of idiots running the government?

Also, we are oh so worried they will blow up in the airplane, so what does TSA do in America - throw all the highly unstable potential blow up liquids in a big garbage bin in front of security so when that terrorist shows up with that liquid, it will explode with the rest of the people outside security. Those human lives probably weigh less than those on the actual airplanes.

What a show.

If someone wants to kill a few hundred people at an airport, surely the queue for security is the place to do it. Stand in the middle of the meandering lanes of closely packed punters and kapow! or is it kerpow?
So we need a pre security security line to prevent such a thing happening.
Ah, hang on, we need a screen to stop people bringing dangerous things into the airport.
Umm, no luggage allowed, sorry.
Hand luggage, no chance.

good, let them try it. it is nigh on impossible to make a binary liquid bomb from two inert liquids brought on board separately.
This whole thing was developed and hyped by our great governemnt in order to pass some extremely dubious legislation which has removed many hard won civil liberties and freedoms.
If you don't or can't understand this governments methods in controlling the population then you must have also been brainwashed by them.

And no, i'm not some wild-eyed-consipiracy-theorist. All the freedoms that we cherish in this country have been removed by deeply suspect legislation, all of it rushed through after some over hyped event. Pedophilies and Terrorism being the two most used scare tacticks. I beleive 9/11 was the only 'real' event of the last decade that actually warrented a little look at procedures and legislation. Everything else was either completely made up (as I believe the liquid plot was) or super-hyped by people with an agenda.
I think we've all seen the engine behind gordons secret propoganda ministry in the last few weeks! so no need to look to hard for the culprits.

Having watched an explosives expert do the mixing and detonation on two seperate occasions it is indeed possible. More than two ingredients are used by the way.

In this instance I think the broadcasters are not supporting the government line because they are demonstrating that the device works with only 500ml (which can be made by mixing 5 x 100ml)

It clearly throws into question the value of blithly restricting the volume of liquids on board, when what should be monitored is the contents!




Mickjoebill

Exactly... hands up everyone here who has NOT messed around in his teens with readily available chemicals to make a BANG?

Come to it, I can't think of an easy source for HTP (high-test hydrogen peroxide, early rocket fuel).
I've got a couple of 5 ltr containers in the shed, but that's still only 35%, the stuff you use to clear the green from a swimming pool.
Fairly vicious stuff, leaves bleached spots on your clothes in no time if you don't watch it (we always refer to it as 'rocket fuel'), but I'd have trouble getting it to explode.

CJ

That'd be quite a trick, I wonder how long it would take? The first dog to win a Diploma in Chemistry - the mind boggles! But why get a dog to do it, aren't human-built bombs always going to be more reliable?

:confused: :confused: :confused: