[ale] [OT] bomb hoax

[Thompson Freeman]

On 08/17/2006 12:31:02 PM, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> They're claiming they have equipment for checked luggage
> that can detect
> trace amounts of explosives.  They don't explain why that
> equipment
> couldn't be or isn't used for carry on luggage.
> 
If I understand correctly (don't bet on it), the headache  
with checking the carry on luggage is 1) lines of tired  
people delayed while each bag is checked in a sealed  
chamber and 2) expense at some 0.5 Million per whack.

> 
> 
> The Xrays stuff wasn't for toothpaste - it was for shoe
> bombs.  The
> restrictions on carry on gels and liquids was because they
> don't have
> (or can't use) the equipment that checks for explosives in
> carry ons.  I
> gather from what was said in the allegedly foiled British
> plot that the
> would be perps had other components to detonate the stuff
> so it wasn't
> just the liquids.  This means even if its BS that they can
> detect the
> stuff in checked baggage they would have a harder time
> trying to
> detonate it from the passenger cabin.
> 
> 

Especially since the easy battery and controllers are  
likely to be visible to xray and require a transmitter on  
the traveler. More things to go wrong and or trip somebody  
up.

> ________________________________
> 
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On
> Behalf Of
> KingBahamut
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:38 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] [OT] bomb hoax
> 
> 
> 
> if you packed a bunch of C4 into a toothpaste tube though,
> would you be
> able to detect that?
> 
> Im unsure.
> 
> On 8/17/06, Charles Shapiro < hooterpincher at gmail.com
> <mailto:hooterpincher at gmail.com> > wrote:
> 
> Yeh, I saw an 'expert' defending the Security Theater in
> the airports in
> re X-raying shoes recently. He had X-ray pictures of a
> simulated shoe
> with simulated explosives inside. My first thought was,
> 'Good thing
> those terrorists have never heard of aluminum foil.'.
> 
> -- CHS
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/17/06, Sean Kilpatrick < drifter at oppositelock.org
> <mailto:drifter at oppositelock.org> > wrote:
> 
> As I suspected, multi-part liquid explosives are a damned
> site harder to concoct than the security "experts" would
> have us believe.  I spent enough time in the Organic Chem
> Lab 40 years ago to learn how unstable and dangerous are
> liquid explosives -- and how difficult they are to create.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
> 

Nit for the picky. I understand that you concentrate  
peroxide by sparging, not distillation. At least up to  
something like 90% concentration. Then you get into a  
differential freezing process. If the process is important  
to you, please be sure to confirm with a real authority  
before trying.

> 
> Sean