Or as I've been putting it: They've banned an entire phase of matter! And one of the big three, too. You'd've expected them to start small, maybe superfluids and Bose-Einstein condensates, maybe work their way up to plasmas, but no, bam! liquids right out of the gate.

Posted August 12, 2006 10:31 PM by Avram

Ugly bags of mostly water!

Posted August 12, 2006 10:46 PM by Ellen

As I posted in Tom Easton's comment section, if drug couriers can swallow and later retrieve sealed bladders full of heroin, can't terrorists do the same with gel explosives? Granted, if they weren't talented regurgitators, they'd have to swallow detonators along with them; but how could security personnel manning metal-detection stations distinguish between detonators, pacemakers, and steel-pinned bone repairs?

(I am obscurely reminded of the snafu at Heathrow some years ago, where their then-cutting edge scanning device that was supposed to detect plastique turned out to have an uncanny ability to spot Christmas puddings in people's luggage.)

And a further observation: my backpack has a pocket that's designed to take an odd-shaped (squarish, flat) water container for long hot hikes. It distributes the weight of the water more evenly, and there's even a slot for a tube so you can sip as you go. I'm not sure a security guard looking for bottles of toiletries would be able to spot it.

If terrorists wanted to get very awfully clever, a body-hugging flexible plastic undervest full of explosive gel would be indistinguishable from a layer of body fat.

And one more thought: how secure are the catering arrangements for in-flight meals and snacks? Are they tightly controlled at every stage -- cooking, packing, transporting to the airport, loading onto the plane, et cetera? All it would take would be some ringer cans of soda.

Posted August 12, 2006 10:55 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

The Next Big Scare:

The Detcord Foley

Posted August 12, 2006 11:04 PM by John M. Ford

Teresa writes:

Granted, if they weren't talented regurgitators, they'd have to swallow detonators along with them;

A flickery black-and-white clip on a PBS documentary about vaudeville taught me that there was once a time when the phrase "talented regurgitators" really meant something.

A performer drinks a whole bunch of water. Then he drinks a whole bunch of gasoline. Then a dollhouse is set on fire. Then he sprays a jet of gasoline from his mouth, and the flames billow. Then he sprays a seemingly endless jet of water, and puts the fire out.

Cut to an elderly agent in the retirement home, recounting the act. I remember the expression on her face and the indignation in her voice as she corrects the inteviewer.

"He's not a geek. He's a regurgitator. There's a difference."

Posted August 12, 2006 11:37 PM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

(I've been waiting years for this to come up in conversation, however obliquely.)

Posted August 12, 2006 11:38 PM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

As one does!

Posted August 12, 2006 11:47 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

How pleased I am to have provided the occasion!

Posted August 12, 2006 11:55 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

The bloke who swallowed the water and kerosene* was an Egyptian called Hadji-Ali. The film of him doing the act has shown up various places.

And Ricky Jay's Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women will tell you probably more than you wanted to know about liquid regurgitators (some of whom use conjuring tricks** for at least part of the act). He finds references going back to the 17th Century.

I probably shouldn't mention Ricky Jay, or we won't be able to take playing cards on airplanes.

*I've seen this as both kerosene (paraffin, if you're on the West side of the pond) and gasoline, including both ways in one graf of Jay's book. (Naughty copyeditor.) I'm pretty sure it had to be kerosene, however.
**Fantasy writers have to make distinctions like this.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:15 AM by John M. Ford

BTW: Detcord Foley. Owwwwwwwwwww.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:25 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa wrote:
"how could security personnel manning metal-detection stations distinguish between detonators, pacemakers, and steel-pinned bone repairs?"

Hilde was issued, quite a few years ago, a wallet card to inform security screeners that she will set off their alarms, due to the numerous artificial joints and other hardware in her body.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:31 AM by Bruce Arthurs

What's a detcord foley? I've clearly led a sheltered life.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:50 AM by Chris Quinones

"detcord" = detonating cord
"foley" = Foley catheter

o need to swallow a detonator...just slide some detonating cord up your urethra. Suicide bombers need to be willing to make sacrifices, after all.

Posted August 13, 2006 1:14 AM by Todd Larason

Teresa: not just Christmas puddings. One of my more entertaining encounters with airport security was the Great Cheddar Hunt...

Posted August 13, 2006 3:19 AM by Julia Jones

I'm as sceptical as the next citizen about the tendency to hype security threats.

However, I think you're too keen to jump on the idea that these restrictions are just for show.

The idea that you could fill your bladder with an explosives precursor and still function well enough to get on a plane without arousing suspicion seems a bit unlikely to me. Isn't at least one of the two liquids involved going to be reactive enough to render the process of squirting it into your urethra incredibly painful?

Also, the point about vaudeville regurgitators are all very well, but how many Islamic fundamentalists are there with similar skills? It's a way that you could work around the restrictions, but it's not easily implemented. You're giving these suicide terrorists way too much credit - they're just ordinary people who've been taught a bit of practical chemistry, not a combination of Fu Manchu and Houdini.

It may be reassuring to pretend that there's nothing we can do, but given that this appears to be a real threat, and we don't know if some of them are still at large, restricting carry-ons in the short term is a reasonable response. There were similar restrictions in the aftermath of 9-11. I really doubt that they'll last once the extent of the threat has become apparent and new explosives detection measures are in place.

There's a fine line between scepticism and "moronic cynicism."

What I am sceptical about is whether this plot was truly as advanced as has been claimed. Most of the reports seem to rely heavily on US security sources, who have a record of exaggerating threats.

I've variously seen it reported that "they had tickets to fly next week" and "they had no tickets booked". I've not seen any reports that precursor chemicals were actually seized - although that might be good operational security on their part; if they're common chemicals, you could buy them at the last minute.

The US spin that they made phonecalls to the US and therefore there may be a threat there seems like hype to me - any group of 24 UK citizens is going to have friends or family in the US.

Posted August 13, 2006 6:05 AM by Ben H

Oh, turns out they may have had samples of the proto-explosives:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/443165p-373185c.html

Posted August 13, 2006 6:09 AM by Ben H

Language Barrier Alert — Kerosene/Paraffin: all sorts of mental alarums went off at Mr Ford's equilivation of these two; this sounds a slightly dangerous source of misunderstanding between countries. Here at least, kerosene is a thin, transparent, volatile liquid legally stained with blue dye. I've used it for camp stoves & bush lanterns, but avoided the very dangerous, if popular, old-style kerosene heaters. Mechanics & handypersons still use it for cleaning grease & other useful jobs, but the old skin remedy of a splash in the bath is now contraindicated, and I don't think they recommend the old '1 drop on a sugar cube' for a cough now, either.
Paraffin can be the gooey translucent stuff you mix with a dab of Vegemite or mashed fish on your finger for your cat to lick off so it lubricates their hairballs out, or for constipation. There's a harder wax version people who make jams & preserves use to put on the top of the hot jam so it cools, sets & seals it from moulds & contamination underneath the jar cap. I suspect it's in a lot of lipstick & such too.

Re the possibilities of smuggling explosives (luckily a rare talent): Stevie Starr, The Regurgitator (same video is online several times), is a Glaswegian (OK, Coatbridge. Close.) who swallows and regurgitates living & inanimate objects (solid, liquid & gaseous(ish)) for a living.

Back to the under-growth of illth.

Posted August 13, 2006 8:50 AM by Epacris

Where the hell is this idea of mixing the explosives on the 'plane coming from?

It doesn't make sense.

All the chemical reactions I've seen mention of need some care, some way of maintaining a stable temperature. And some of the chemicals are pretty nasty., in awkward ways. Concentrated nitric acid, for instance.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:01 AM by Dave Bell

Dave, you mean it's not just like mixing epoxy?

I keep thinking of that guy who was supposedly going to try to cut through one of the main cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. They nabbed him and announced it as a successful instance of anti-terrorist vigilance. I figured they'd mainly kept him from hurting himself.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:03 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

According to the story I heard on NPR, "binary explosives" (two liquids, not terribly unstable individually, that can be mixed to produce an explosive) are customarily used by bomb disposal squads. (More.)

Re security theater: my personal skepticism-meter went off the scale when I saw pictures of airport security making people pour all their liquids into a big barrel.

As for detection, as far as I know the best combination of cheap, fast & good for chemical detection is your basic dog. U.S. airports already deploy the Beagle Brigade to detect contraband produce and smuggled animals. Bomb dogs (a different category) cost about $10K each to train, and you can count on about 4 to 5 years of service from each dog. And compared to many of the technological search methods, they are FAST. Moreover, like seeing-eye and assistance dogs, they have the capacity to respond to situations they haven't been trained for, thus providing the opportunity to intercept a threat not anticipated by the trainers.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:39 AM by Lila

Ben, if it were any other Administration, I might agree with you....

Incidentally, in Phoenix they are donating the presumed explosives, unopened, to the homeless. In Philadelphia, they're selling them on eBay. They know they're not explosives.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:47 AM by Michael

Dave: I think the source of confusion is that according to at least one article I've seen, the plan was to make the detonators during the flights. Most are reporting that the explosives would have been mixed in advance and carried in a plastic drink bottle with a false bottom.

Wikipedia is currently reporting that the explosives would have been mixed on flight, but in a meticulously sourced article that is one of the few assertions that are not associated with a source.

Binary explosives are a very cool idea, but AFAIK there aren't any that are easily within the reach of the home bombmaker. I could be wrong, though.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:50 AM by Jules

I have a knee replacement--titanium and plastic.I also have a card from the hospital explaining this. No one--and I mean NO ONE--is interested in that card. It could be reproduced by a child with a print kit or a good computer.

However, what continues to amuse me is that all the people pulled out of line for wanding (surely there is a good fantasy story there!) seem to be well over 60, with pacemakers,new knees, or new hips. The profile of a serious terror threat. Sigh.

I fly to Scotland in a few hours. Clutching a small bag with crossword puzzles and (I hope) a book bought once inside the secure area. Will they let me have a pen? I will soon find out.

Jane

Posted August 13, 2006 9:56 AM by jane

Security: Sir, our plastic explosives detector says you've got a half pound of explosives in your stomach.

Passenger: Hwah? No, wait! We just had a Christmas pudding at my mother's.

S: Well, there's only one way to be certain. Bob will take you back to the stomach pump room and we'll find out for certain.

P: But, its a Christmas pudding! A Christmas pudding! My mother made it from scratch.

S: If that turns out to be the case, Bob can reverse the pump and put it back in for you. Customer service is what we're all about.

Bob: (to himself) Dang, what did he go and say that for. I missed lunch today.

Posted August 13, 2006 10:39 AM by Greg London

It appears to me that chemical sniffers (mechanical and/or canine) and traditional police and intelligence work are the general solution to this problem. Explosives technology is just going to get more sophisticated.

Michael, that's a telling detail about the disposal of the confiscated liquids and gels. It gets filed on the same shelf as removing the tiny unsharpened nail-file bits from nail clippers, and Shwarzenegger sending the National Guard to major Californian airports.

Back before 9/11 I saw a less-than-incisive article about the valiant security forces at LAX. It was accompanied by what was supposed to be a scary photo of all the "weapons" they'd confiscated from travelers, most of which were large knives with fixed blades. Looking at that photo, what was obvious to me was that a lot of chefs had lost their personal sets of cooking knives.

I wish we had a government that was serious about security.

Posted August 13, 2006 10:47 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

It should be noted that Ramzi Yousef actually did smuggle bomb parts onto a plane in 1994, assemble it, and conceal it under a seat with a timer where it then exploded on the next leg of the flight, killing the passenger sitting there, injuring ten more, and blowing a hole in the bottom of the compartment. He used liquid nitroglycerin, which he had disguised as a bottle of contact lens cleaning solution. So we know this kind of thing can be done. Yet, in 1994 there was no widescale panic, nor were beverages banned from airplanes.

Yousef and his compatriots planned to do the same thing on a larger scale, using more powerful explosives. In 1995, this plot was discovered when one of the terrorists set his Manilla apartment on fire while working with chemicals. Manilla police discovered bombmaking equipment and a personal computer with plot details. Yet, in 1995 there was no widescale panic, nor were beverages banned from airplanes.

Posted August 13, 2006 11:06 AM by Avram

I'd been thinking ever since that edict about no fluids came along, what about those people unlucky enough to need colostony bags? Now that's something you really want to explain about in a line at Heathrow to a bored and none too bright security guard...

Posted August 13, 2006 11:07 AM by Martin Wisse

Meanwhile, let us contemplate the Mad Dog "Mirage X" knife, which the manufacturer describes as being magnetically inert and galvanically exempt. Here's a pious public statement from its manufacturer.

If you don't want the hassle and expense of a Mirage X, $22.00 will get you a stone knife. More money will get you a nicer one, but the cheap model are still dead sharp.

None of these weapons will get a peep out of an airport metal detector.

Posted August 13, 2006 11:21 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Jules --

Binary explosives are pretty trivial in one sense; you mix an oxidizer and something with carbon in it. This starts at good old fashioned black gunpowder (potassium nitrate and charcoal; the sulfur is there because it has a low enough ignition point to get the rest of the works started), wanders through ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil) and winds up at acts of gibbering madness like mixing LOX and liquid propane.

Thing is, none of these are noteably practical for in-flight mixing, and all the precursors are inherently suspicious.

We're being asked to believe in either Airplane Loo Chemistry to make at least a kilo of something highly explosive, which is just silly -- there isn't much room, there isn't any guarantee of being free from sudden shocks, the proposed explosives require things like two liter cans of nitric acid to make (and in what, the open sink?) -- or highly advanced combining colloidal gel explosives being available to a terrorist cell.

Now, it's been awhile since I was much aware of that area, but so far as I'm aware, the only place anyone was doing serious work on that was as part of the -- cancelled -- US liquid propellant artillery projects. All of the results of which, at any level of detail deeper than "the propellant is tough; the valve is the impossible part", are still highly classified.

So I'm faced with a choice between the likelihood of some thoroughly black, small quantities, binary explosive project in some lab somewhere making explosives and making them available to a large London terrorist cell, when the same investment and effort would get them a lot more less complex explosive -- it's not like liquid explosives have to binary; most mining explosives are single-component pumpable gels these days -- or that the US and UK governments and security services are lying their asses off in service of a political end.

That last is very much the least hypothesis.

Posted August 13, 2006 11:35 AM by Graydon

Yet, in 1994/1995 there was no widescale panic

Dude, check your script. In 1994/1995 going after arab terrorists, um, freedom fighters, was bad, and criticizing the president was good. 9/11 changed everything.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:15 PM by TomB

Teresa,
Funny you should mention LAX. I became utterly fatalistic about airline security during a trip back from visiting friends in Pasadena. I looked around a figured out SIX ways I could take out half the airport. Me, the complete and utter idiot in all matters of tactics.

Then, there was the baggage check, where they threw away my dull cuticle scissors but left me a five inch steel nail file. These days I just grit my teeth and put up with it. I figure the "security measures" catch the stupidest among the stupid.

Posted August 13, 2006 12:46 PM by Emma

Couldn't pretty much anyone make a functional glass knife by wrapping a suitable shard with something to keep their fingers from being cut while using the thing?
Does anyone have more detailed information on how the regurgitators did their tricks? I assume the liquids were brought back up out of the stomach, perhaps a stomach that had been dilated somewhat through practice, rather than the intestines (which I gather is possible though unpleasant).

Posted August 13, 2006 12:48 PM by Ledasmom

For whatever it may be worth (probably not much), a couple of weeks ago I got to spend a day at the Van Nuys courthouse. They have two inspection stations (each with x-ray for carry-ins and walk-through metal detector). One of the metal detectors picked up my stainless-steel ID bracelet (and got me wanded), the other didn't. Isn't technology wonderful?

Posted August 13, 2006 12:49 PM by P J Evans

Or as I've been putting it: They've banned an entire phase of matter!

You're not the only one Saying that.

Not a T-Shirt. Yet.

Hey, who's flying as a couple? You carry hematite or magnetite, your SO carries aluminum....

Posted August 13, 2006 12:56 PM by Erik V. Olson

All I can really say is that it's pretty obvious that nobody at TSA has any understanding of the difference between basic chemistry and chemical engineering. For example, a substantial proportion of the chemicals necessary to make [name of incendiary withheld] can be carried as separate powders and will not set off a current-generation detector, especially if broken down into multiple loads… and can be reconstituted and mixed in water if you're feeling suicidal.

And I'm wondering what a contact-wearer with allergies is going to feel like at the end of a transoceanic flight without his/her eyedrops, especially given the dry, ionized, lower-pressure air found in aircraft cabins. Gee—you think a creative lawyer might find a way to sue the airlines for eye injuries?

Posted August 13, 2006 12:58 PM by C.E. Petit

Thing is, none of these are noteably practical for in-flight mixing, and all the precursors are inherently suspicious

Exactly. The difference between suicide and martyrdom is rate of reaction. Making a large amount of nitroglycerine is hard. Makeing a small amount of nitroglycerine, and having it explode, coating you in hot Nitric and Sulfuric Acids (one of which will be the fuming variety) is easy.

The first takes out an airplane. The second damages the lav, kills you (if you are lucky) and gets you made fun of.

And really, if Nitroglycerine or TATP is the explosive, why detonators? If I get 12oz of either onto a plane, I carry it into the lav, lock the door, and beat the container on the wall a couple of times, if it happens to be a rather stable version of such. Otherwise, getting it to the airport is a very hard problem.

(Erik's sign that the 7/7 bombing, as stated by Scotland Yard, is bull. You carried TATP for how long, and had four charges go off when you wanted them to? Yeah, right -- TATP makes nitroglycerine look stable, and makes you start thinking stupid things like "Well, I think picric acid is safer....". Bonus BS sign -- TATP gets even less stable when warm. You carried what for how many minutes in a LONDON TUBE IN JULY? And nobody bumped into you?)

That's the posit here -- some liquid chemicals that can be carried onto a plane with simple, unremarkable containers (they'll notice a dewar, so LOX is right out,) and that mix easily enough into a high-order secondary explosive -- that is, one strong enough to knock a plane out of the sky, but insensitive enough to require a detonator and associate gear to fire it.

That's why my bullshit detector had to be shut off so I could sleep. Remove any one of the above constraints, and I could buy the threat, but with the entire list, I don't see anything, period.

It isn't as if we haven't studied this. The science of Making Stuff That Goes Boom has a very long history, and a great deal of effort, behind it. Lots of people are looking for better explosives, given some contraint. The reason we have lots of different explosives is that there are tradeoffs between them. Joe Special Forces doesn't want to haul 100 pounds of ANFO about, but Jim Miner doesn't want to spend the money on C4, and doesn't like the way C4 shatters the rock, instead of heaving it.

We know lots and lots about lots of explosives. Nobody I've talked to has a clue as to anything that comes close to matching the above contraints. We brought up the nitro seat bomb, it was quickly decided that this isn't the threat -- it doesn't drop airplanes, and there's a world of difference between carrying one ounce of nitroglycering and 20 ounces.

For one thing, good luck making it. For another, good luck moving it. For a third, Nitroglycerine shows up just fine on various explosive sweeps. Fourth, false bottoms in waterbottles can easily be seen on X-ray, and that's one of the things they look for.

We think the threat is clearly a mix of bolonium and male bovine fecal matter.

Posted August 13, 2006 1:13 PM by Erik V. Olson

Hm. I just read, on another blog, a commenter saying that he heard on NPR -- wait, let me catch my breath again after all that -- OK, I just read that apparently there had been a brief ban on bringing fluids onto airplanes in the mid-'90s. I'm guessing it was after one of the events I described above.

Oh, and Cooking With Anne is a webcomic about cooking after a nuclear apocalypse.

Posted August 13, 2006 1:19 PM by Avram

This time five years ago I was sitting in LAX international terminal, looking at the complete lack of security and thinking "sooner or later someone's going to walk onto one of these planes with a knife and hijacking in mind, and I hope it's not the one I'm on." I didn't actually expect to be proved right before my return flight.

In a couple of days' time, I'm going to be sitting in LAX international terminal, thinking about the many ways in which it is still far less secure than Aldergrove Airport was in the 70s, and sitting as far away from the groundside windows as I can get...

Posted August 13, 2006 2:28 PM by Julia Jones

Bruce Schneier has written an op-ed piece for the Minneapolis paper which he has posted to his blog, Schneier on Security. As usual, he brings sanity to the table. I wish our current government (ack phtui) listened to him more.

Posted August 13, 2006 2:36 PM by Mary Kay

Avram: There was a hijacking back in the "take us to Cuba" days where the guys brought flammable liquid aboard; I was hardly ever on a plane then, so I don't recall if there were any security changes. (Indeed, once the metal detectors went up, the wannabe Cubans got rather ingenious in coming up with alternate strategies. Shows you how much we learn from history.)

Julia: Something like fifteen years back, I was picking up tickets at MSP. After I did, I saw a box in a phone booth -- it was for a slide carousel. It had a name and address, and I started to pick it up for Lost & Found . . . but I was flying to London a lot back then, where they actually had functional security, and it occurred to me that maybe I ought to just tell someone.

The whole story takes a while and needs a beer and gestures, but the short version is that it was nearly impossible to find someone who was interested in this story, nobody had any idea why I wanted someone else to deal with it, there seemed to be no plan for so dealing, and in the end I wound up following the original plan. (It didn't blow up.)

Maybe if it had had lots of curled wires and a large LED display counting down.

Posted August 13, 2006 2:50 PM by John M. Ford

We know that a small nitroglycerin charge was smuggled onto a plane, assembled as a bomb, and detonated according to plan.

According to the entry on that explosive, in a certain online encyclopedia, its stability can be improved by adding acetone. It is also less likely to explode if frozen. The melting point is 13.2 centigrade and it's heavier than water.

Acetone is mentioned in some reports of the Phillipine bomb plot.

So I reckon that liquid explosive, pre-mixed, is possible.

(Looks up TATP)

I see acetone is involved in that too. I wonder just why any bomb makers used acetone?

Posted August 13, 2006 2:51 PM by Dave Bell

Note that nail polish is mostly acetone.
-r.

Posted August 13, 2006 3:07 PM by rhandir

Argh. Wrong stuff. Nail polish remover. And mostly acetone. And they make non-acetone versions.

argh.
-r.

Posted August 13, 2006 3:10 PM by rhandir

Peroxyacetone, made from acetone and reagent-grade hydrogen peroxide.

If terrorists wanted to get very awfully clever, a body-hugging flexible plastic undervest full of explosive gel would be indistinguishable from a layer of body fat.

It seems to me too that sufficiently motivated terrorists might use implants to smuggle explosives and detonators undetected.

Posted August 13, 2006 3:13 PM by RichM

Sufficiently motivated terrorists will grow brains and ignore the passenger and luggage mass flow.

Cleaning crews, food trolleys, consumables -- hydraulic fluid, fuel, de-icing compound, etc. -- offer much simpler patterns of attack. Suborning maintenance allows for all sorts of things, especially when you consider that modern airliners are fly-by-wire and get regular software updates.

Sensible security requires worrying about all of that stuff; until that happens -- which presently doesn't in NorAm -- there's no point at all to the shrink-wrap-naked-passengers-to-pallets approach.

Posted August 13, 2006 3:30 PM by Graydon

From aforementioned Schneier on Security:

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.

And if you want to know what you can do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they were arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.

What he said.

Posted August 13, 2006 3:44 PM by Lizzy L

Hilde was issued, quite a few years ago, a wallet card to inform security screeners that she will set off their alarms, due to the numerous artificial joints and other hardware in her body.

Why don't the Vorkosigan books ever mention this problem?

Posted August 13, 2006 4:19 PM by Eleanor

Large masses of glass beads also look like plastique to the machines. After that bit of fun at the Mpls airport, I had Sandi start shipping my beads home.

Posted August 13, 2006 4:27 PM by Marilee

Why don't the Vorkosigan books ever mention this problem?

Three major possibilities come to mind:

1. Really, really good scanning (think of those magic MetroLight fluoroscopes from Total Recall).

2. The Express Vor Check-in Lane.

3. "Oh, him. Just try not to laugh."

Posted August 13, 2006 4:32 PM by John M. Ford

"Ben H ::: (view all by) ::: August 13, 2006, 06:05 AM:

I'm as sceptical as the next citizen about the tendency to hype security threats.

However, I think you're too keen to jump on the idea that these restrictions are just for show."

Um, Ben... they don't screen the paid cargo that goes on the planes. Big-ass boxes and crates of stuff go on unscreened. But lip-gloss is a no-no.

That's not for show? Where all the general public can see things, they restrict your Aquafina, but where there's nobody to see it, big boxes are being loaded on the same place you're going on, with no screening whatsoever.

Its for show, Ben.

Liquid prescriptions can't go on unless the passenger's name matches the label, because as we all know improvising an explosive with benign household objects is a snap, but faking an adhesive label is impossible.

Its for show, Ben.

Posted August 13, 2006 5:21 PM by craig

Peroxyacetone, made from acetone and reagent-grade hydrogen peroxide.

I encourage, deeply and wholeheartedly, terrorists to make as much TATP as possible, because it will make finding them much easier.

Just look for the smoking holes.

As to mixing TATP or MEKP on a plane? Good luck. For one thing, good luck hiding Acetone or MEK in a drink bottle. Both eat polystyrenes and acrylics in second, polyethyelenes and polycarbons in minutes, and polypropylene in less than an hour.

FEP and certain PTFE formulations can hold the stuff, but the right answer to carrying Acetone or MEK is stainless steel.

There's that little matter of the sulfuric acid you need as well.

I'm not buying TATP as the explosive here, either as premix or components.

Posted August 13, 2006 6:18 PM by Erik V. Olson

the airline security focus diverts our attention from other possible terrorist attacks: municipal water supplies, food supplies, anthrax exposure by crop duster. Who is watching our water supply and our crop duster planes?

Posted August 13, 2006 6:42 PM by Sue Stine

"Who is watching our water supply and our crop duster planes?"

There is such an effort to watch these, but it rarely draws public notice.

There's currently a low-key fracas in the Portland area, over the covering of water reservoirs.

Posted August 13, 2006 7:26 PM by Stefan Jones

While Bothari was still around, spaceport security was usually too distracted by him--he seems to have had a rather massive traveling arsenal--to worry about what a Vorkosigan might be carting about. I note that on one occasion, Ivan brought a captured disruptor planetside, although he may have been taking advantage of some form of diplomatic immunity to do so.

Posted August 13, 2006 7:37 PM by joann

I have the impression they think all potential terrorists are like MacGyver, while the rest of us are too stupid to recognize open containers of acetone and fuming acids.

Posted August 13, 2006 7:44 PM by P J Evans

"First they take my stakes. Now they take my holy water. If the crosses go, I'm screwed."

-- Leda van Helsing, 7th of the Line

Posted August 13, 2006 8:10 PM by John M. Ford

joann --

It's important to remember just who the pushy little mutant is, in Barrayaran space.

Members of the imperial family don't go through customs.

Posted August 13, 2006 8:15 PM by Graydon

There is a story, relevant to Miles at customs, which I heard from the Head of Lakefield College School years ago.

When Prince Andrew came to study at LCS, he was met at the Airport by the Lieutenant Governor and hence his passport was never stamped by immigration. There was a class trip to the States in which he participated; on the way back, as the boys were going through the immigration queue, the immigration officer took noted verbal exception to the fact that this UK passport did not have a visa stamp on it. (He had obviously paid no attention to the actual name on the passport, or maybe it just said "Andrew Windsor".)

As he began to expostulate, one of Andrew's RCMP attendants reached over Andrew's shoulder and turned the passport over without saying anything. The passport did not have a standard UK cover: instead, of course, it had the Royal Coat of Arms and instead of giving the country just said "Royal Family". I'm not sure what hole the immigration officer managed to slink away into.

Miles would always -- except when he himself was officially Imp Sec, or officially a mercenary Admiral -- have had the equivalent of that RCMP minder with him as protection.

Posted August 13, 2006 8:29 PM by James

Friendly warning: Erik, your utterances threaten to devolve entirely into acronyms.

Posted August 13, 2006 9:03 PM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

Hey, maybe they should start banning Mentos, too, just in case...

Posted August 13, 2006 9:05 PM by Lis Riba

BTW, anyone care to guess what kind of security theater we'll see the first time a US commercial jet is shot down by a shoulder-mounted missle launcher?

Posted August 13, 2006 9:24 PM by Lis Riba

Lis, there are some people who think that's already happened.

Posted August 13, 2006 10:18 PM by Avram

As I sit here typing, I'm wearing a cheap pair of over-the-counter reading glasses. Straight earpieces. no hook at the end - the damn things fall off at inopportune times. The earpieces have plastic caps on them, which slide off pretty easily; the metal underneath is kind of pointy. They are in a rimless half-lens styly, with a rather flimsily attached nose bridge holding things together in the center.

What's the point? The points are at the ends of the earpieces. If I sharpened the ends, I'd have a pair of rather flimsy 7 inch stilettos on my person. Not exactly the most formidable weapons in the world, but still potentially lethal if stuck in the right places. And very unlikely to be confiscated by airport security.

There's never going to be absolute security. There are reasonable precautions, and reasonable risks. And there's stirring up fear to make people into sheep. And we all know which the maladministration prefers.

Posted August 13, 2006 10:38 PM by Anne Sheller

James: in the part where it normally says "Her Britannic Majesty", did that one say "Me Mum"?

Posted August 14, 2006 12:04 AM by Christopher Davis

Anne, have you seen Godfather Part III?

Talk about Movie Plot Threats . . .

Posted August 14, 2006 12:44 AM by John M. Ford

I'll go with the "it's all for show" crew. Admittedly, this is because the tighter security is being adopted here in .au. Yeah, you heard right. Australia. The country which got caught in the Bali bombings because most of the tourists in Bali on a given weekend speak with a strong Strine accent. The yapping terrier that follows G W Bush around with delusions of being an Alsatian. The country which has *no* intra-continental border crossings at all, and nowhere near enough navy to keep track of the near neighbours who want to move in.

It's all for show. I'm willing to believe that the idiots who got caught by the rozzers in the UK thought they were going to be ever so dangerous. Heck, I'm willing to believe that they thought they might spark more panic than 9/11. In which case, they will probably be laughing all the way to the Central Criminal Courts, because by all the gods that are and aren't, they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

It's theatre. It's to make us all scared. It's succeeding. Meanwhile, I shall continue looking into ocean-going transport between Australia and anywhere else, and just do my level best to be friendly to the crew. I figure that the less depersonalised I am, the better my chances of survival if there *is* a mad bomber on board.

Posted August 14, 2006 1:47 AM by Meg Thornton

craig ::: (view all by) ::: August 13, 2006, 05:21 PM:
Um, Ben... they don't screen the paid cargo that goes on the planes. Big-ass boxes and crates of stuff go on unscreened. But lip-gloss is a no-no.

Uh, Craig... does the paid cargo go in the cabin or the hold?

Liquid prescriptions can't go on unless the passenger's name matches the label, because as we all know improvising an explosive with benign household objects is a snap, but faking an adhesive label is impossible.

That's a good point, Craig. I guess the extra restrictions are aimed at catching someone about to execute an existing plan, Craig, who doesn't have the time or means to start printing convincing fake prescription labels, Craig.

Now it looks like all the plotters were caught, they will soon drop the restrictions, Craig.

Posted August 14, 2006 3:12 AM by Ben H

Is it possible that Al Quaida has figured out some sort of stabiliser for TATP? Maybe that's how the 7/7 bombers managed not to go off early.

Don't forget, the bus bomber apparently had trouble detonating his explosives, because he went and bought batteries.

Posted August 14, 2006 3:15 AM by Ben H

I'll go with the "it's all for show" crew. Admittedly, this is because the tighter security is being adopted here in .au. Yeah, you heard right. Australia. The country which got caught in the Bali bombings because most of the tourists in Bali on a given weekend speak with a strong Strine accent. The yapping terrier that follows G W Bush around with delusions of being an Alsatian. The country which has *no* intra-continental border crossings at all, and nowhere near enough navy to keep track of the near neighbours who want to move in.

I suspect the naval patrols are actually another facet of the "it's all for show" phenom, given that most of the illegal immigrants in Australia are actually Caucasian - Brits, Americans and New Zealanders who fly over and then don't leave after their visas run out. But oh, thank heavens those Papuan refugees (who all ended up getting Protection Visas) are denied refuge while their calims are assessed. Gosh, we're ever so careful with our borders Dow Nunder.

Still, it's been a bad day for Dubya's deputy - little Johnny had to pull a piece of legislation so that members of his own party didn't scupper it.

Posted August 14, 2006 3:58 AM by vian

The UK government has reduced the threat and eased the security restrictions, a change which will take effect in the early hours of Tuesday morning at Heathrow.

Details here, at the official Department of Transport site.

Still a ban on liquids and gels, but one piece of cabin luggage is allowed, which may contain electronic items.

Details so far suggest there may be implementation awkwardnesses over having to remove a laptop (or similar), and possible bulges from re-packing a soft-sided case, since there are strict limits on case dimensions. But I've no practical experience.

Posted August 14, 2006 4:49 AM by Dave Bell

does the paid cargo go in the cabin or the hold?

And the difference is? Either one has a chance of causing enough structural damage to bring down the plane. Most of the explosion demonstration film I've seen over the past week appears to have the origin of the explosion in the hold, not the passenger compartment.

Now it looks like all the plotters were caught, they will soon drop the restrictions

I really expect the airlines to lobby against dropping them. Think of the potential for selling bottled water and eyedrops and books of crosswords on the plane.

Posted August 14, 2006 8:21 AM by OG

Erik V. Olsen wrote: For one thing, good luck hiding Acetone or MEK in a drink bottle. Both eat polystyrenes and acrylics in second, polyethyelenes and polycarbons in minutes, and polypropylene in less than an hour.

Umm, I have a perfectly stable bottle of acetone in my bathroom at home. I'd have to turn over my bottle of Sally Hansen nail polish remover and look at the recycling mark to be sure, but I imagine it's polypropylene. I can guarantee it's not Teflon or stainless steel.

MEK (or methyl ethyl ketone, for the uninitiated) is indeed nastier and needs to be in poly(ethyl ether ketone), Teflon, or stainless steel.

Cole-Parmer has a terrific site to assess chemical and container compatibilities here.

Incidentally, outside of William Gibson novels, there is no polymer known as 'polycarbon' - I suspect you mean 'polycarbonate' (what they make 'unbreakable' Nalgene water bottles out of).

Posted August 14, 2006 9:35 AM by debcha

Stone knife, hell. My kitchen knives are Kyocera ceramic knives. The blades are made from zirconium oxide. They're sharp as hell, and never need to be sharpened. They're nonmagnetic, lightweight, and actually translucent. The ones with plastic handles (mine have wooden ones) have no metal parts at all. The only problem with them is that they're somewhat brittle, so you can't (say) use them to pry the lid off a jar.

Posted August 14, 2006 9:40 AM by theophylact

It's all a plot to make us surrender our precious bodily fluids.

Posted August 14, 2006 10:41 AM by Kip W

In the part where it normally says "Her Britannic Majesty", did that one say "Me Mum"?

My impression was -- and this was in dinner conversation, a few years after the incident -- that the passport wasn't personalized to that degree; they probably have a template used for everyone in the Royal Family out to a certain degree.

Posted August 14, 2006 11:38 AM by James

I imagine it's polypropylene.

Either FEP or PTFE lined polypropylene, possibly pure PTFE. All the above will be marked with a resin code (recycling code) of 7. It may just say "OTHER" underneath, or it may actually tell you what it is.

Trust me on polyproplyene's inability to contain acetone for long periods of time -- I wrecked the carpet in the trunk of a car making that bet.

I quickly learned that while reading the MSDS is always a good idea, there's often more information out there, esp. about storage and transport. Sections marked 'incompatability' are very important to read.

Friendly warning: Erik, your utterances threaten to devolve entirely into acronyms.

OMG LOL!

Seriously -- about half of all explosives and ninety percent of all plastics are boiled down to acronyms. While typing trinitrotoluene isn't bad, TNT is much easier, and triacetone triperoixide really is better known as TATP.

In plastics, it gets worse. You can ask for high density polyetheylene, but the box will be labled HDPE. If you ask if someone can mold Tetrafluroethyene-Perfluoroproplyne, they're going to look at you funny. Asking for FEP is not only quicker, it's the correct name to the plastics industry. Ditto PTFE for Teflon and Polycarbonate for Lexan, since the latter of the pair are trademarks, and polytetrafluroethylene is a bit of a pain.

I've never seen polycarbonate shortend, though I've heard "polycarb" on occasion. You can ask, if you must, for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, but everyone calls it ABS.

Yes, I looked a couple of these up -- I've never encounted the need to expand ABS or PTFE on a regular basis, so I don't bother storing the expansion. Besides, ABS and PTFE are the correct trade terms if I need to spec those plastics.

Posted August 14, 2006 11:54 AM by Erik V. Olson

Premixed plastic explosives are hand-malleable, and reasonably inert until you set off the detonator. Does airport security intend to check any and all void spaces in luggage -- for instance, the insides of the steel tubes used in folding luggage carts and baby carriages?

Do any of you happy home chemists feel like responding to Ben H's theory that al-Q. might have come up with a hitherto unknown stabilizer for TATP?

Craig: Cargo. Damnably good point.

Marilee, thanks for the warning about the glass bead problem. Problem is, I stopped putting my jewelry into my checked luggage some while back, when I realized that bits of it kept turning up missing.

Erik, Dave: Why bother with nitroglycerine? Glycerine or acetone are all the liquid you need. The accompanying solids are potassium permanganate, powdered iron oxide, and powdered aluminum. Alternately, you could go with powdered iron oxide, powdered aluminum, a sparkler, and a match. Mix the powders with a minimal amount of inert binder, mold it into a decorative and plausible form (say, a gift-wrapped souvenir statuette), and light it off in mid-flight.

I was impressed by a comment posted by Crosius in a similar discussion over on Pharyngula. He pointed out some of the things airport security hadn't bothered to do before making people empty carry-on fluids into a single large container, like sniffing or otherwise inspecting the bottles, or having a hazmat team in place in case things started reacting, or locating the receptacle somewhere other than in the middle of a crowd. Then he said:

When Terrorists realise that their target should be the security line, not the airplane, you'll see binary poisons going in those bins, like say, a bunch of "mints" made of potassium cyanide and a glass bottle of strong acid "dropped" a little too hard.

As a disturbing, added bonus, dead bodies in plane crashes mid-ocean are essentially invisible. Dead bodies in an airplane terminal are hard to keep off the evening news. Also, you get to not only wipe out a business traveller, you might get their spouse and children, too.

Fortunately for the terrorists, the airlines are doing their part to make sure those terminals are as crowded as possible ...

Posted August 14, 2006 1:05 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

That's a good point, Craig. I guess the extra restrictions are aimed at catching someone about to execute an existing plan, Craig, who doesn't have the time or means to start printing convincing fake prescription labels, Craig.

Help me out here, folks. I'm trying to remember the formal term for an argument intended as a devastating rebuttal but which only embarrasses its deliverer.

Posted August 14, 2006 1:12 PM by Chris Clarke

Meanwhile in Salon.com (yes, I still subscribe)...

The Wall Street Journal reports that Transportation Security Administration teams have begun watching for "vocal timbre, gestures and tiny facial movements" that may suggest that someone waiting at a security checkpoint is "trying to disguise an emotion."

Great. Now only Vulcans will be allowed thru airport security.

Posted August 14, 2006 1:17 PM by Serge

Sorry, Chris. All that's coming to mind is the related fannish term "Gerberize," meaning "to mount such an excessively spirited defense that you do your cause more harm than good."

Posted August 14, 2006 1:22 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa, Craig: One of the newsmagazines did a story on the containerized cargo that travels on commercial flights.

The containers are NEVER scanned or searched, and they sit outside their pick-up and delivery points where anyone could get to them to put something lethal inside, nor is there ANY security watching them!

And after the last few comments I know I'm not going to be comfortable standing in a security line any more. My worst-scenario imaginings centered around a nut with a automatic, I hadn't considered the possibility of bombs or poisons...

Very stupid of me -- perhaps it's due to the number of bomb-scares that weren't in my past. The best one was during high-school -- a bomb threat was called into the school, and all the students were sent to the gym, which the police had neglected to search before we entered...

Posted August 14, 2006 2:41 PM by Lori Coulson

Great. Now only Vulcans will be allowed thru airport security

Yes, I remember them well, white painted, with pale-blue and pink markings, out at the dispersals at Scampton, in the Sixties.

I once saw four of them scramble, simultaneous engine-starts and the last one struggling in the hot exhaust gases to enough speed to take off, staying law and scattering in all directions.

And the last time I saw one flying was at an airshow, an ancient plane doing a touch-and-go in that incredibly nose-high delta-wing style, while the USAF F-15 slunk back along a taxiway with a dodgy engine.

I even saw a Thor IRBM on the launch pad, a couple of miles from home. They stored them, unfuelled, in a bunker, and had to taw it out, stand it on its tail, and fill it with non-storable propellants. Why would they do that? Cuban Missile Crisis.

We faced nuclear war. And now we let a few ounces of explosive terrorise us.

Posted August 14, 2006 3:01 PM by Dave Bell

Erik V. Olsen wrote: Trust me on polyproplyene's inability to contain acetone for long periods of time -- I wrecked the carpet in the trunk of a car making that bet.

I took a look at the Official Acetone Squirt Bottles in my lab and they are clearly marked 'LDPE,' so I was wrong, they aren't polypropylene. However, given that Cole-Parmer describes PP as having 'excellent' chemical resistance and LDPE (low-density polyethylene) as merely 'good', and that I don't have a puddle of molten plastic in my fumehood after some months of the bottle sitting there, I think we can safely say that you don't need to transport acetone, at least, in Teflon or stainless steel. (Having said that, the carpet in the trunk of my car is saturated with ethylene glycol, which certainly didn't eat through its storage container and presumably leaked out from the cap that I thought was tightly closed; trunks of cars are pretty rough environments.)

And speaking of Teflon - I know that it's a trade name (hence the initial capitalization) for PTFE and I do know most of the full names for polymers off the top of my head (although apparently not PEEK, which is polyether ether ketone, not what I wrote above). However, given that the chemical name and the acronym are likely to be equally opaque to the layperson, using 'Teflon' instead seemed like a good choice for this comment thread.

Posted August 14, 2006 3:03 PM by debcha

Dave Bell... Groan. Have you no shame?

Posted August 14, 2006 3:09 PM by Serge

I learned as an electronic assembler toat TCE is not something you want in a polystyrene Petri dish; it needs to be in glass. The industrial-size (gallon) acetone bottles were some kind of plastic, though. (Cleaning parts: soap and water, boiling isopropanol, boiling acetone, blow-dry with nitrogen.)

Posted August 14, 2006 3:44 PM by P J Evans

People keep obsessing about ways to get bombs on planes. The target of opportunity isn't even on that side of the metal detectors any more.

Now that all the travellers and their families are standing in big queues outside the security barrier, you can commit terrorist attrocities by shooting into the terminal from a moving car, or bombing the terminal itself.

Posted August 14, 2006 4:10 PM by Crosius

This seems to fit into the conversation, nicely (NOTE: NSFW, most likely, and contains an image that [while censored] might still be disturbing, to some).

All of this is pretty much moot, though, considering that for $5,000USD one could make a missile with a 20lb carrying capacity and, if I remember correctly, a 2 mile range. I'd say you could get a nice sized explosize on that, easy. And the cost is easy to transfer with no oversight to anyone in the US. Foreign bank accounts and a Panamanian debit card and you're good to go. Hell, even if you used normal accounts no reporting is mandatory under $10,000.

I'd say a few missiles screaming over DC scaring the hell out of everyone before blowing a few monuments or shopping centers to hell would terrorize the citizens, nicely.

Posted August 14, 2006 4:12 PM by C Allan

Yep, it's the fact that there is intent to kill that has people freaked out of their "Hello Kitty" panties. When you think of all the random, out of your control ways that you can get killed on a day to day basis, not the least of which is simply getting into an automobile, nobody's freaked about any of that.

But when you give the source of the danger some consciousness, all you can read is "Hel...ty"

When you get to the poitn that you're talking about guys setting off bombs in the airport lines, before going through security, you've basically widened the threat to be everywhere, and basically, at that point, you have to face the fact that there is some small percentage chance that you're going to die today, and it'll be out of your control. People who cannot handle that thought are the ones freaking the most about knuckleheads with a chemical set.

Posted August 14, 2006 6:04 PM by Greg London

Help me out here, folks. I'm trying to remember the formal term for an argument intended as a devastating rebuttal but which only embarrasses its deliverer.

Well, you realise I'm making fun of craig's debating technique of repeating "Its for show, Ben" [sic] as if it is a clinching point? Right?

You haven't addressed my point though - what we're seeing now are short term measures (which are now in the process of being dropped, as I said they would be) aimed at stopping the loose ends of the specific plot that's just been foiled.

The threat is a loose suicide bomber, part of a network that's been rolled up, who's already been told how to attack.

Such a person is not going to be an improvisational genius. They're not going to be able to redesign their attack to work in the cargo in the short term. This supposed "mixing explosives on the plane" attack (or what seems more likely, bringing in premixed explosives that look like Lucozade) couldn't be easily adapted to work in the cargo hold.

If they did try to improvise something they could easily make a mistake and get caught or blow themselves up. They can wait until the restrictions are lifted, of course, but the point is the police have more time to check that they have caught all the people poised to attack.

Yeah, we can all come up with clever attacks of various degrees of plausibility (and can we agree that the bladder full of reagents one is on the sillier end of the spectrum?). But to develop and debug these takes time, equipment and the risk of exposure.

Now this specific cell has been busted, we should go back to implementing the measures that work for the threat in general: police work, public vigilance, and improved non-invasive screening techniques. Because of course the next attack will be different.

If there are flaws in the cargo screening process (as craig reckons), then obviously they should be addressed too.

Also, as a side point, I didn't theorise that Al Quaida might have a "hitherto unknown stabiliser" for TATP. I suggested they might have a stabiliser for it.

I seem to remember that it's only unstable when dry (of solvent), for example. So maybe it's transported damp, then heated?

If TATP is as unstable as Erik reckons and I was told in chemistry class, it's clear that either it's not the explosive used, or there's some other trick at play which the authorities are not going into detail over. I suppose that's a sensible strategy - why save copycats the R&D time?

Posted August 14, 2006 6:22 PM by Ben H

Teresa, I had 15 pounds (about $300-worth) of little beads in bottles. I doubt jewelry has the same problem. I usually fly with mine in my carry-on and don't have problems.

Posted August 14, 2006 7:01 PM by Marilee

My husband is coming back from GenCon today. Last year, he discovered that all the plastic dice he'd brought to game with were also false positives for plastiques. Apparently the Indianapolis aiport was fairly reasonable with him today, though.

Posted August 14, 2006 8:35 PM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

John M. Ford - nope, never saw Godfather III. I'm fairly sure I saw part of Godfather I sometime it was on TV, but none of the sequels.

Posted August 14, 2006 11:43 PM by Anne Sheller

About the ease with which banning small amounts of liquid scares the hicks:

In general, people have a very bad grasp on the size limits of physics. The idea of, say, the amount of explosive that could be mixed from two Herb Pharm dropper bottles blowing a plane out of the sky sounds perfectly feasible, and so sacrificing their Super Echinacea and Pao d'Arco makes them feel safer.

I once tried to talk my mad inventor boss out of selling shares in a biomass converter before he had a working prototype. I'd gone over his figures and, even with my less than sterling math skills, could see that he was using each carbon atom twice. He didn't see why that was a problem. The people calling into the radio shows and talking about how very much safer they feel now that all the naughty liquids are in the trash can are showing the same sterling lack of proportional reasoning.

Posted August 14, 2006 11:48 PM by JESR

The threat is a loose suicide bomber, part of a network that's been rolled up, who's already been told how to attack.

Such a person is not going to be an improvisational genius

1) That's an unwarranted assumption.
2) It's not "improvisational genius" to fake a prescription label. All you need is a freaking digital camera, for crying out loud. Ten minutes worth of work if you stop to Photoshop.

Posted August 15, 2006 1:45 AM by Chris Clarke

1) That's an unwarranted assumption.

Well, that's what I think they're guarding against. Notice how they dropped the threat level after it became clear that they'd caught everyone.

2) It's not "improvisational genius" to fake a prescription label. All you need is a freaking digital camera, for crying out loud. Ten minutes worth of work if you stop to Photoshop.

Can the average person use Photoshop well? And you also have to find a suitable medical container, find out what appropriate liquid medicine you're supposed to be using, repackage the explosives...

Posted August 15, 2006 3:20 AM by Ben H

Teresa writes:

you could go with powdered iron oxide, powdered aluminum, a sparkler, and a match. Mix the powders with a minimal amount of inert binder, mold it into a decorative and plausible form (say, a gift-wrapped souvenir statuette), and light it off in mid-flight.

I don't know. Back when I was taking AP Chemistry in high school, some of my classmates made thermite for their class project. It was hard to get going -- they couldn't do it with matches, they had to put a big chunk of magnesium in the middle and light that. I'm not sure a sparkler would do it; and our hypothetical suicide bomber would only get one chance to try.

Posted August 15, 2006 3:53 AM by David Goldfarb

Can the average person use Photoshop well? And you also have to find a suitable medical container, find out what appropriate liquid medicine you're supposed to be using, repackage the explosives...

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #1: Hey, congrats on collaring that would-be suicide bomber! How'd you spot the guy in the lineup?

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #2: Oh, it was easy! First off, I noticed some smudges on his prescription labels that looked like compression artifacts. At first I thought "wow, this guy should have sprung for a better camera," but then after I looked more closely, I saw that the smudges were aligned in a coherent pattern...

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #1: You mean...

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #2: That's right! Windex streaks on a color photocopier platen, just like they covered in week five of Minimum Wage TSA Agent School. Kinko's, from the look of it. The green balance was a little off on the "take with food" labels.

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #1: That's great work.

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #2: Oh, but the clincher? His so-called scrips? One bottle was an oral solution of risperidone, and the other was Tegretol.

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #1: You're kidding. That's hilarious!

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #2: Quite honestly, I didn't twig at first. I'm thinking, OK, the guy's clearly showing signs of akathisia, so maybe. But then the light dawns. Both scrips are from the same pharmacy, the same doctor, and what doctor would prescribe carbamazepine and risperidone to the same patient? The Tegretol would totally undercut the effectiveness of the risperidone: classic negative synergistic effect. So I pulled him out of the line. No biggie.

Minimum Wage TSA Agent #1: Another day, another forty dollars, eh?

Posted August 15, 2006 11:37 AM by Chris Clarke

Chris Clarke,

I have nothing insightful to contribute, but wanted to note that the dialogue you wrote has had me snickering for several minutes now. Thanks.

Posted August 15, 2006 1:01 PM by Fade Manley

Last Friday, while preparing for a model rocket launch, I

i) handled a minute amount of black powder, and

ii) shaved the ends of a swollen ammonium perchlorate based fuel grain so it would fit in a motor casing.

Now I'm wondering how careful I should have been with regards to containment. How much of a fraction of a speck of the fuel or BP would it take, sticking to a pants cuff or luggage, to set off a detector?

Posted August 15, 2006 1:12 PM by Stefan Jones

Meanwhile, I just went to LAcon's site and noticed the following programming item to be run by John G. Hemry on Wednesday at 5:30pm:

"EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS I LEARNED FROM THE THREE STOOGES"

Posted August 15, 2006 1:40 PM by Serge

Lori, Craig: None of the intended scare stories I'd heard had genuinely scared me. What I'm hearing about containerized cargo makes me instantly want to check rail costs and times for my trip out to the worldcon. I know it's not an option -- I'm too close to the date, and rail costs more -- but I suddenly find I don't want to fly.

Crosius, that's such a good point that I don't expect I'll ever hear it addressed in debates over national security policy.

Ben H, you can make your argument without getting testy. Taking potshots at your fellows will eventually get you into the moderator's bad graces; but long before that, it'll get you marked as fair game.

David Goldfarb, I'd respond, but I've already gotten email from a fellow explosives enthusiast saying SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. I took it as a compliment.

Chris, that was wicked.

Stefan, if I were a terrorist or just an irresponsible prankster, I'd take small, finely powdered quantities of the chemicals they're looking for, and sprinkle them here and there at airports.

No, even better -- I could sprinkle them on the carpeting and upholstery of NYC taxicabs. I'd never have to go near the airport security cams; and trace amounts of the chemicals would be bound to wind up on the clothing of travelers going through airport security.

Posted August 15, 2006 3:12 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Chris, nice vignette, but:
"Prescribed medicines in liquid form, for example diabetic medicines, over 50ml, must be verified by a pharmacist at any of the airport pharmacies."

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1845086,00.html

That's here in the UK. What the TSA is doing I don't know.

Posted August 15, 2006 3:36 PM by Ben H

And just exactly how do you verify a liquid medicine without a full lab on hand (I Am Not A Chemist, but I had a year of general chemistry)? I'm assuming they mean 'making sure it's what the label says it is'.

Posted August 15, 2006 3:43 PM by P J Evans

Re containerized cargo: What I wonder is -- If it's so easy and so vulnerable, why hasn't there been a rash of attacks via this route in the past forty years?

Re attacks on passengers in the terminal buildings: This has, of course, happened in the past, but I think the last major incident was back in the 1980s. The most bizarre of these was the 1972 attack at Tel Aviv's airport by three Japanese passengers who had just arrived from Paris: they carried their automatic weapons and grenades on board the Air France flight from Paris, deplaned in Tel Aviv, and then launched their attack.

Posted August 15, 2006 4:05 PM by Peter Erwin

Ben H: Your airports have pharmacies??!!!

The largest airports that I am familiar with do not have a pharmacy on site (ORD, DCA, and IAD), and even if they did, what would TSA do, call the pharmacist to come to the inspection area?

Although considering how ubiquitous Walgreens is becoming, it wouldn't surprise me to find one of their stores in an airport...

Posted August 15, 2006 4:07 PM by Lori Coulson

As the child of a forensics engineer, I take great comfort in the lack of competence of bad guys. Spend a weekend at an American Association of Forensic Engineers meeting and you know how a Moriarty would go at this. But the bad guys have no Moriarties.

btw, spend a weekend at either the general forensics or specialty forensics meetings- especially the international ones- and you'll have materials to last your writing for years.

At least the bad guys have no civil engineering and thermodynamics Moriarties. They might, however, have a grasp of econ and finance. In fact, I remember a sadly ignored quote by Obladin bragging how they "can put two ?pieces of paper? in far-apart places and the Americans will rush giant armies back and forth in fear." I can only conclude that he is a Moriarty of psychology: he tells people exactly how he'll make them jump, and then they jump exactly as predicted, and yet they believe they chose themselves to jump.

Michael Parekh envelocalculates that Richard Reid cost 33 Billion in lost (dead-weight loss) time.

If their goal is economic damage- they're good. The damage they do is in pure loss- time thrown away. I'm sure that plenty of business travelers and vacation travelers might be willing to pay for real security, but there's no way of donating lost time to a security research charity of choice.

If everyone who lost an hour to security this past week could donate $5 to the research Bush tried to cut earlier, we'd significantly expand their R&D funding. (I wonder if their philosophical dislike of government programs ruins their ability to be competent in the programs they do like. They're trying to hate the sin but love the sinner- a neocon doublethink.)

But instead the effects of bad security are externalities. It is as if security measures caused air pollution, and the pollution caused the usual health effects (more asthma, worse COPD). The people negatively affected can't talk with the polluters: here, the pollution - polluted time- is patriotic.

How many articles have I seen this week saying anyone complaining about lost polluted time is just being whiny. Never mind that the value of the lost time could pay to not hav