So, why use these explosives?

The terrorists are sitting around planning their next attack. So they come up with an explosive that is in liquid form, THAT HAS TO BE MIXED BEFORE EXPLODING, that can be triggered by an electronic signal. Which means that that have to bring it on the plane in a carry-on bag so that it can be mixed, undoing any advantage of being able to trigger it by a signal!

Why use something that supposedly requires them to ASSEMBLE IT ON THE PLANE, meaning they can't simply slip it through in their checked baggage, and increase the liklihood that they will get caught by a factor of 10? If they have the technology at hand to trigger it by an electronic signal, then why don't they have some sort of contraption to mix the liquids with another signal? If it's that complicated, why not just use plastique anyway, which is a lot easier to get and make and can be formed into all sorts of common shapes that would be overlooked by a cursory inspection? For that matter, why blow up the planes over the Atlantic where no one will see them and there's no collateral damage?

They're freakin' evil. But are they THAT retarded?

The plan isn't about blowing up planes, it's about tightening the noose around people's lives -- now the real question is who is doing this?

What's scary is that it isn't obvious to everyone.

Although, anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to *eventually* get a clue. Or maybe I'm an optimist.

Hair spray, gel, shampoo, hand lotion...

Isn't it obvious?


They hate us for our grooming habits.

toothpaste, liquor, etc.

I'm still not sure I believe all this stuff, but I can understand why someone would choose any item that wouldn't be questioned by security.

If this is true, yeah, I see a possible strategic advantage to using two component explosives. Maybe, when mixed, it's more easily detectible (color, specific odor that a bomb sniffing dog might catch, etc.). However, maybe when in separate components, they more closely appear to be whatever they're being snuck in as (mouthwash, shampoo, etc.), so you have a better chance at getting it past security. Also, it might be that a liquid/gel/whatever when mixed would have to be used in a very short time window. Past that, though, I'd need more details of how they were going to mix it. Take a shaving kit in the bathroom? Put them in miniature liquor bottles and mix it right in the cabin?

If they're having to mix this stuff up when they get on the plane, then they're going to be caught.

Because if this were indeed a real plot that was in its final stages, they would have used something that wouldn't be caught so easily. they would have slipped divices onto the plane in luggage or some other way that would mix the liquid, or they would have used something else that would have gone past security easily enough. If the terrorists have to stop and assemble a bomb on the plane, then that's already way too many steps for it to go through for it to be successful.

"Stopping and assembling" involves nothing more than
pouring one liquid into the other, if the detonator is
already in one container.

And these would obviously be in ordinary containers;
no passenger would be likely to get suspicious until too late.
And of course, they could simply do the mixing in the restroom.

And another good reason is the POWER of two-part liquid explosives;
they would need much less of them.

I don't doubt the power of the explosives, or that they could slipped in easier because they're not shaped like a time bomb. However, I do doubt the story as it was explained this morning, namely:

Terrorists were planning to bring explosives on board 10 airplanes to blow them up over the Atlantic. They were going to use binary explosives which they would bring on the plane, mix them up by hand, then explode them with an electronic signal.

If they had the means to explode them with an electronic signal, wny not rig a device that would mix them as well by electronic trigger? That way they could pack the components and they would draw even less attention than if they were in a carry-on bag. If these guys are the threat we claim they are, they would have thought of this.

It's a "sexy" phrase, designed to grab attention.
It's the kind of phrase used by Spokespersons and Reporters,
neither of whom are likely to know very much about
the subject under discussion.

Odds are it was nothing but an iPod with a small hole
drilled in the case so a wire leading to the detonator
could be inserted. The fact that it was an iPod is irrelevant;
any device with a battery could be used the same way.

So I guess we AGREE that that particular claim is bogus,
just for different reasons.

It really doesn't seem likely that someone who was PLANNING
to die in an explosion would waste time devising some sort
of high-tech remote detonator system a battery and a wire
would achieve the same results.

And also, this story is still developing. Info is being sifted
through as it is found. There's no way to tell yet how much
of this was an actual PLAN that was being acted upon, and
how much was just part of the 'brainstorming' that lead to
the real plan.
No doubt these guys would have discussed dozens of different
ideas before finally settling on ONE to actually attempt, y'know?

So is the 'iPod' thing based on an actual iPod which had been
converted to use as remote detonator, or just the word "ipod?"
scribbled in the margin of a suspect's notebook?

Too early to tell.

I suppose if it is tampered first.

toothpaste tube...maybe.

Something could be concealed in anything.

I bet they wouldn't allow me on board with my hearing-aid. They would think that it could be part of a plot just because they had never seen a hearing-aid like it before.

I remember over 20 years ago when I went into work the security at the factory questioned that I was listening to a transistor radio even though it wasn't in the ear.

Some asswipe dreams up a scenario in his bedroom and instantly there are uniformed guys patrolling all the airports with giant machine guns. We are at the mercy of whoever wants to proffer a terrorist scheme story.

Ramsay Yousef really did truck bomb the WTC in 1993. Two guys really did commit sniper attacks at DC gas stations for months.

The reaction may not be appropriate or proportional but occassionally these things are real.

And I was in DC when the sniper attacks were going on. One of them was only about a mile from my apartment. I know sometimes these things are real.

However, this one strikes me as just bizarre. 1) The terrorists are using the most cutting-edge explosive technology available, even if it makes the attack more difficult, 2) it is being planned for happenning over the ocean, where the effect of collateral damage and therefore collateral terror is nil, and 3) as you said, the media are playing this up as if this were actually real news.

Let's just say, given this administration's penchant for spectacle and panic, I remain unconvinced for now.

more concerned with someone with an RPG taking out planes as they take off or land.

You don't need vast conspiracies and fancy technology to create havoc.

therefore more terrifying.

I took my troubles down to Madam Ruth....

It would kill a hell of a lot more people. Just saying. :crazy:

in the shadow of NYC in Jersey lies a chlorine chemical plant capable of killing millions of NY-er's if only the terrorists could drive their truck through an unopened gate. This plant is just a few miles from the City.
It's preposterous to think they wanted to toothpaste people to death when more sinister means of death lie just across the Hudson River in chemical-land New Jersey.
CBS last year did a story on how easy it was to drive to this plant and walk in the back gate that was left unattended. There sitting chilly was a dozen 10 ft. tall chlorine tanks waiting for a truck to destroy them and the cloud would have reached NYC in minutes..Way to go CBS but apparently the bad guys were thinking more high-tech-> toothpaste,shampoo and lip gloss bombs..

I think Lamont and the Dems were the hot issue dujour and needed to be pushed out of the news.

a chicken.

More stable for transport and storage.

One example is tannerite...

http://www.tannerite.com

(note the warning:

PLEASE NOTE: we are not responsible for acts of stupidity, and, though common sense should make this unnecessary, we have been requested by U.S.D.O.T. to state that these can NOT be carried (neither in checked nor carry-on luggage) on a commercial airline.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE THESE ON AN AIRPLANE!

Mixing the two components can be as simple as this...

http://www.tannerite.com/nu.mpg

(Now... how difficult was that? :smoke:)

I knew the stuff existed, but I didn't know it was so easy to get.

went over with the gullible public.