Chertoff's comments aren't either, IMHO.

"I think that the plot, in terms of its intent, was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11," Chertoff told ABC's Pierre Thomas.

What isn't important isn't the intent, its whether they had the means to do what they wanted. That's the part that isn't clear at all.

Reid apparently tried to use [link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/tatp.htm|TATP]. There's speculation that TATP was used in the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings|London bombings], including those that failed. There's speculation about that the airliner liquids were intended to make TATP, but doing so on a plane would apparently be [link|http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide_synthesis|very difficult].

We all know that planes can be brought down with liquid explosives. The issue is whether the response to the threat addresses the threat in a logical way. Especially given the reports of [link|http://www.zug.com/gab/index.cgi?func=view_thread&head=1&thread_id=74827|what is done with the confiscated liquids...]

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

AFAIK, the Sandia folks didn't make the explosive on a commercial airplane flight. ;-)

The Wikibooks link talks about cooling the constituents below 10 C, carefully mixing in the acid over 15 minutes, waiting a day in a refrigerator for the precipitate to form, etc. The temperature is critical, according to that link. It's inconceivable that someone could do that on a commercial airliner. And that's assuming they had access to 30% H2O2 (a commercial reagent).

If this stuff were easy to make and handle, the July 21, 2005 London bombings wouldn't have failed.

Now, perhaps they weren't intending to make TATP and were instead intending to make something that gave off noxious fumes, or constructing some extremely flammable solutions, or whatever. (Remember, [link|http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm|liquids, gels and aerosols] are all subject to the 3 oz rule.) Then limiting quantities makes some sense. But then the reporting shouldn't have been that the reason was to address the threat of liquid explosives.

IOW, the TSA and others need to give us reliable information and tell us the truth about the threats. If simple chemistry says that something can't happen, then we shouldn't be spending time worrying about it. Cynicism among the public doesn't help security.

OMG!!! What's to keep 10 people on a flight from getting together and mixing their 3 oz bottles together when nobody's looking!!!!!!!111!!! We better ban all bottles!!!

;-)

[edit:] Some more details are in [link|http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200608/msg00087.html|this] interesting rant by someone who is studying chemistry.

[edit:] [link|http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html|Time] says (in an article from last year) the plot was to use TATP or [link|http://www.roguesci.org/megalomania/explo/HMTD.html|HMTD] (which also requires low temperatures and lots of time).

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is not a chemist.)