Chemists: TATP Liquid Bombs Impossible to Make In Jet Lavatory--Huge Hoax

[Dems Will Win]

This desription by Thomas Greene and an accompanying Chemistry PDF, show how making liquid bombs on a plane is virtually IMPOSSIBLE. You'd have to be in the lavatory for hours, then dry it for hours, and the acetone fumes would kill you anyhow.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

http://www.anywhichway.net/article.php?story=liquidexplosives

The following Journal of American Chemical Society 2004 study explains that the explosion can only come from DRIED TATP powder, meaning a short plane flight is not even enough time to make this stuff. Think--if it was easy why hadn't terrorists liquid bombed a plane before this? And why--if the government knew about liquid bombs for years, did they wait until the 2006 election to impose the liquid bans?? BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

http://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdf

Please Vote for Greatest if you think the media should investigate this.

[nashville_brook]

1. if i had to fly during that "terra crisis" i'd be totally pissed

reading this.

the media surely LOVES a good TERRA story -- maybe they should sink their dewclaws into this.

[Straight Shooter]

2. Am I mistaken that the concept of a "liquid bomb" is a realistic scenario?

I read several DU threads about it, and it was my impression that the alleged plot was a recipe for disaster if carried to conclusion, that in fact what they wanted to do could be done, that it wasn't as complicated as outlined in your article.

I'm no scientist, and would really like for some chemical-savvy DU'ers to chime in on this one.

Perhaps the whole idea is just to keep people guessing, so we don't know whom to trust, and we fall into an illusion of "better safe than sorry" as a template for security.

[Dems Will Win]

4. It's only realistic if you were able to stay in a jet lavatory

for hours and then also be immune to the toxic acetone fumes. The car trunk they blew up on TV was obviously dried TATP powder, apples and oranges all the way.

THe chemistry text is dense but what it says is you need DRIED POWDER, what was shown on TV as being easy was a hoax, if this is true--and it appears to be.

Any chemists in the audience??

[TheWraith]

24. Not a realistic scenario.

Simply put, chemicals which react with each other in an explosive manner tend to be rather volatile already, and as such are too conspicuous to get onto a plane in carry-on luggage. Even if you did manage it, most binary explosive combinations are either too weak to do significant damage, or require advanced processing ala TATP.

[elehhhhna]

28. It 100% realistic--if the device is crammed in a checked bag, under

the passenger compartment.

[librechik]

38. I heard Ramzi Joseph tried this & actually brought down a Phillippine plan

so that is why they are worried.

BUt maybe they lied.

[Dems Will Win]

40. He did not mix that explosive onboard

there was no security at all in those days.

And the plane did not come down, the bomb was weak and only killed a Japanese passenger in the seat above it.

The plane landed safely.

So even with all the time and care in the world the liquid bomb did not work!

[groovedaddy]

70. It didn't work because of the placement

Yousef's intention was to place the bomb over the main fuselage fuel tank. He missed by 2 rows.
Some contend that flight 800(?) that went down after taking off from JFK in 1995 was a successful exercise of this proposition. Read Peter Lance's "Cover-up" on this subject (& 9/11) - a great read!

[elehhhhna]

46. Ist he JonBenet Ramzi's Dad? OMG. He's even nastier than I thought!

[librechik]

64. omg--I just read that aloud--ROFL!!!

that explains everything!

[MikeyJones]

59. That's of course assuming Ramzi Yousef wasn't a CIA asset in the.....

first place. Go to wikipedia and read the guy's biography. He has virtually no known history and a like 100 aliases. Very strange for a "terrorist." Most of the time they just go down swinging like Osama and friends and dare the evil Americans to come and get him.

I still to this day do not believe Ramzi Yousef blew up the trade center in 93'. There's simply too much speculation against it.

[Straight Shooter]

39. Thanks for the replies.

From elehhhhna's response, though, seems to me the possibility existed that they could have carried out this attack. But I guess that sort of attack is possible with other means, too.

So, what is necessary to enhance security is absolute scrutiny of carry-on as well as checked-in luggage. And if someone wants to bring on a beverage bottle, why can't they just have the person with the bottle take a swig as they go through the security clearance measures before boarding, or at least have water bottles sold pre-flight.

[elehhhhna]

48. Answer; too logical! You sciencey logical liberals....sheesh. Annoying.

sarc/off

[Straight Shooter]

56. I hang my head in shame.

:P

[warrens]

3. I can already see THIS coming

"We can't print that. It will give terrorists help."

[Joanne98]

9. Oh! But they could blurt the phoney directions all over the earth..

And the dim-shit media didn't know the phoney directions were phoney anyway, because THEY'RE STUPID!

[elehhhhna]

29. Oh. Come. On. A trained monkey could make a molotov with

some duty-free booze and a tampon.

WE ARE NOT SAFE until booze and tampons are outlawed.

Not sure which I'd miss more.

[leftchick]

43. the booze

definitely the booze. :rofl:

[elehhhhna]

45. Yes, at least three quarters of the time. lol

[Hubert Flottz]

54. They could have plugged every drain on the plane with a box of

those fascist tampons.

EDIT...This terra thing, had Al PNAC's fingerprints all over it!

[Dems Will Win]

5. I liked this comment on the Washington Monthly blog

where the Greene article also appeared:

You mean there really wasn't a serious terror threat from these bozos? No way! It's like the Bush Administration uses these so-called threats for purely political stunts. Shocking, absolutely shocking!

Does this mean the War on Liquids is over?

Posted by: kidkostar on August 17, 2006 at 2:29 PM

[OldSiouxWarrior]

6. Really? Take a look at Tannerite - a manufactured binary explosive.

http://www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html
VIDEO OF BINARY EXPLOSIVE BEING MIXED AND DETONATED HERE: http://www.tannerite.com/nu.mpg

Or there is FIXOR http://www.mrel.com/FIXOR.html

More on FIXOR http://oditechnologies.com/products/binary_explosives.html

Google is your friend. I merely googled: binary explosives.

[Bonobo]

7. You googled "Binary Explosive"? You're braver than me!!

[Subdivisions]

11. No kidding! Welcome to the Terra Watch List!

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. !

:yoiks:

[Protagoras]

8. Ever worked in a lab?

There are lots of ways to use chemicals to start fires.

But creating the pressure, working with the volume, or the concentrated power to detonate the crap at a level required to do much damage is an entirely different proposition.

And charges that just blow up randomly don't have that much force...being able to shape the charge is really what's needed and that can't be done with a Gatoraid bottle.

The simple fact is that this threat is a wildly remote and likely ineffective gimick. Anyone who could and would go to the effort to concoct a charge that could actually blow out a small chunk of insulation or window on a plane could achieve as much or more damage in a much more low tech way for a fraction of the effort.

Maybe the terra-ists are just stupid and explosion fixated though so till they figure that out I suppose we should all abandon our shoes and toothpaste in blind panic.

The fact that you are more likely to die driving in your car on the way to the airport should be ignored.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

10. Did you look at the links? Please do, and comment. NT

[Protagoras]

15. Yup

and the most simple comment is notice the mechanism for ignition on the movie... Think of the ways you can create pressure, or start a fire etc that don't even involve 1 course in inorganic chemistry. Do we ban baking soda on planes?

Beyond that the actual size of the explosion didn't appear to be much larger than that of a decent sized firework (though there was some smoke).

That doesn't mean a correctly placed small charge couldn't do some damage. But the lavatory may not be the place. (I'll defer to someone who understands airplane design if they can chime in).

We are not talking about something that has the power of a shaped C-4 charge here.

Is it theoretically possible to create an explosion from bathroom chemicals? Yep.

Is it as big a threat as a number of non-prohibited, easier to perform means of sabotage? nope...lots of other easier ways that I'm sure anyone with a moments imagination can come up with.

Thankfully all the terrorists appear to be utter fools. TSA isn't keeping us safe. Stealing our toothpaste isn't keeping us safe.

Dumb terrorists appear to be our greatest security.

[Dems Will Win]

19. Simple question: Do you agree with the Journal of American

Chemical Society paper that states TATP must be a dried powder, made at the right temperature, to pack a large explosion?

[Protagoras]

26. Haven't read the paper

and it's been a few years since I worked as a chemist however the qualifications sound about right. I'd have to have one of my more up to date friends take a look at it for a real educated response since I haven't read a professional journal in that area in about 6 years.

But creating a real large explosion is not as easy as McGyver makes it look. Starting fires on the other hand aren't that difficult but then you don't need to worry about toothpaste do ya.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

21. I will have to agree with you about TSA.

I don't know enough about chemistry or plane design to know if Tannerite would be effective, or if the mixture has been diluted down.

Yes, terrorists, with a modest amount of imagination could do really serious damage and get away with it. Let's hope they stay stupid.

[Dems Will Win]

12. Tannerite is detonated by a hot bullet, not electronic detonation

No guns on planes last time I checked...

[OldSiouxWarrior]

14. An electric blasting cap does the same thing. NT

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. If you can smuggle blasting caps onboard, why not dynamite?

Seems the tannerite is redundant.

I'm of the opinion that if preventing terror is the issue, outlawing starbucks cups is misguided. But preventing terror isn't really the point, is it?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

20. Size. A blastin cap is tiny, a stick of dynamite isn't.

You could fit a blasting cap inside a ball point pen. The stick of dynamite would be a bit harder to hide.

Actually, plastic explosives could be hidden lots of way. I have no idea why terrorists haven't do that. But then again, there are lots of things that terrorists could do that would be extremely effective, and are easy to do, but they haven't. I won't even try to guess why.

I am only addressing the technological side of this discussion.

[Dems Will Win]

23. Then why didn't they ban Tannerite years ago?

Still a blasting cap, if discovered, would put youin the poky. The main thing about this apparent hoax is that you were supposed to set it off with a mere battery, that was the whole point, no blasting cap required, just an electric spark.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

25. OK. Looks like what the Islamists were planning was impossible.

So they were arrested for being stupid.

[Dems Will Win]

31. I agree. But the point is Bush and Blair lied

to get themselves up in the polls. Only reason.

[rman]

76. "Islamists"? I think you mis-spelled "terrorists"

You aren't trying to create the impression that "Islamists" and terrorists are the same thing, are you?

[Ignis]

88. Didn't you get the memo?

FOX is calling them "Islamic fascists" this week. :eyes:

[Pawel K]

82. But a blasting cap is nothing more than a battery

don't get me wrong, I don't buy into this bullshit about liquid explosives after I read the OP and I hope someone with a background in chemestry can come in and shed light on the issue. But for the matter of accuracy a small, fully charged battery used in your Ipod can create a large amount of heat simply by shorting the positive and the negative leads. This is why electrical problems start fires all the time, because of the heat an electric short produces. Granted 120VAC used in your house will create a lot more heat than a 5VDC battery used in your Ipod, but it is still enough to ignite an explosive.

[Dems Will Win]

18. Nice try, but detonation caps are banned too.

Same question as above: if Tannerite is so easy why haven't the terrorists brought down a plane with it. Only $98! Or why hasn't the government banned bringing Tannerite on a plane before this election year?

[Dems Will Win]

13. The hoax was about TATP, not Tannerite

[flyarm]

75. heyyyy....you are now on the NSA terror watch list..SHHHHH N/T

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Not That Easy

Big deal. You googled. Have you ever actually run an organic reaction? I have. THOUSANDS of them. It is NOT that easy. Especially this one.
The Professor

[DWilliamsamh]

84. I googled it just for friggin fun. Like throwing * should be dead into ra

Like throwing * should be dead into random e-mails, and having assassination conversation on cell phones. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Botany]

16. So the bush admin lied to us about a terror threat?

What a shocker.

[TheWraith]

22. I'll just pat myself on the back a little...

Since I've been saying that same thing since the beginning of this whole pile of crap.

[orwell]

27. I did too...

...but it was hard to overcome the amen chorus.

I assume if it has any of the words, "terror", "terrorist", "Bush Administration Officials said", "Homeland Security", "Blair Government", that it is like a crock of crap.

The BS ditector was pinned on this one...

[elehhhhna]

30. Me too. Even though I made it up it sounded plausible! LOL

[Beelzebud]

33. /me proudly adjusts his Tin Foil Crown.

LOL

I said it was bullshit too. How many times do people need to be lied to and manipulated, by their media and government, before they start questioning what they are told.

"It's the timing, stupid!"

[NJCher]

81. well, I want to go on record as saying I didn't think it was BS

That's because I was flying at the time and too busy standing on their silly lines to get to DU and post that I thought it was BS.

Bastards! Just one more reason to fly drugged to the max.




Cher

[petgoat]

34. The hysteria was nutso because TATP is impractical, and

because the threat of liquid bombs was known a long time ago.

They just wanted us all to do the hokey pokey in the airports, and distract
from the story of.... what was it going on at that time? I forget.

Ramzi Yousef planted a liquid nitro bomb over the fuel tanks on a PAL
flight in 1994. It used a broken light bulb for an igniter and a casio
watch for a timer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434

See Peter Lance's book "1000 Years for Revenge" for this story and a
lot of other shockers:

1. Abdul Hakim Murad told Philippine intelligence in 1995 all about al
Qaeda's "Project Bojinka" plan to fly hijacked planes into Sears Tower,
the WTC, the Pentagon, and the TransAmerica Pyramid. Murad was then
turned over to the USA.

2. FBI informant Emad Salem infiltrated the al Qaeda cell of the "Blind
Shiekh" before the 1993 WTC bombing. He proposed that harmless powder
be substituted for the explosives. He has on tape his FBI superiors'
orders to allow the bombing to go forward.

3. Ali Mohammed was a Sergeant in the US Army who'd weekend in NYC to
give the Blind Sheikh people weapons training. He was never prosecuted
in connection with the bombing. Interestingly, Patrick Fitzgerald was
involved in the prosecution. Years later, Fitzgerald negotiated Ali
Mohammed's plea bargain with respect to his involvement in the African
embassy bombings. Ali Mohammed was never sentenced, and nobody knows
where he is today.

[Sal316]

35. As a chemist who works for the defense industry....

...the TATP scare is total crap. Period. Adding mineral acids to organics will produce alot of heat and will offgas substantially. In metal finishing, there is a sulfuric acid/hydrogen peroxide formula. I've made it and it gets incredibly hot...to the point where it will start to melt heavy plastics and PVC tanks.

Tannerite

I did a small impact test (Hammer drop test). This was done with a 5-pound & 15-pound hammer. A drop of twenty-four inches against a hard surface failed to cause a detonation. I was not able to detonate it with any hammer or drop test. Friction also failed to cause fire or detonation.

This makes Tannerite nearly impossible to use on in an airplane as the primary explosive. The 15lb impact test is the key. You could use it as a donor charge, but then most heavy duty explosives, which would be the receptor charge, are easily detectable by the sniffers. Most contain nitro or nitrato groups, which is what the sniffer looks for.

Fixor

I can't quite figure out what Fixor is, but it's a suspension that most likely will need a blasting cap or similar method to detonate. The most likely liquid it uses is nitromethane which, again, can be picked up easily by the sniffers.


It really tans my hide when the talking heads start pontificating about the chemistry of explosives. I've been doing this 10 years now and have seen a number of internet recipies that will most likely either get you killed or set your house on fire. Synthesizing explosives, like TATP, is something that takes alot of skill to do safely.

[Dems Will Win]

36. Thank you for this immensely!

The March for Blogocracy Goes On!

[Raster]

37. Kick it up for yet another *BOGUS* terra 'lert.

:kick:FORTY!!!

[malaise]

41. Duh!

The question is why the dumbos at MSM did not invite the experts to discuss the subject instead of bombarding us with the morons at CNN walking up and down supermarket aisles showing us shampoo and sports drinks.

I believe nothing on Cable news - zilch!

[Dems Will Win]

42. Right! I remember them mixing two liquids and saying "It's that easy!"

[EVDebs]

73. Vinegar and Baking Soda ? nt

[Solon]

87. Technically that's a liquid and a powder...

also, the end result is Hydrogen gas I believe(chemists correct me), which mean you have an excellent way to make flash balloons if done in a 2 litre bottle, but other than that, no real bomb.

[EVDebs]

89. Sorry. Same chemistry as the coke and mentos we're seeing on TV nt

[EVDebs]

90. Glycerin in hand sanitizers and homemade nitro is what MSM is leading to

[Solon]

92. Well, there's always the mixing of Bleach and Vinegar...

You can create a clorine gas bomb from that, could be deadly in a confined, airtight space, like an airplane, though how you would hide the smell getting either ingredient on board is anyone's guess.

Also, Nitro, especially homemade, is VERY volatile, they would more likely blow themselves up using THAT than anything else.

[spanone]

44. Between this & JBR, Rove must feel confident he owns the media.

With the right 'disaster' and timing, he could pull off a big coup for the Criminals already stalking our halls of Congress.

[elehhhhna]

49. Ramsey (JonBenet) Ramzi (Youssef) Whoa! So THAT'S why DHS was involved.

:tinfoilhat:

[Justice Is Comin]

66. Yes, the whole story has kind of drifted off to the shores of Loch Ness

we ought to be seeing that monster any day now. Run for your lives.

[elehhhhna]

67. Uh oh. Karr just confessed to being Nessie.

[TrueStory]

47. Bruce Schneier's security newsletter:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0608.html

It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

...

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 what can you 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 are arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.

[Kailassa]

50. Some pay-off.

"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."

Then why did they release them all last week?

[LUHiWY]

91. The scam?

"If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people."

Which is the reason that the "war on terror" is a self perpetuating scam.

Another "war to end all wars". These have ALWAYS worked out real well...don't you know.

You can't really protect EVERYTHING...but you CAN keep the terrorist threat stirred up in order to use it as a COVER for what you really want to do?

Now someone needs to ask our great leader what he is really up to. Like it isn't obvious?

[Zhade]

51. Yeah, and some of us here knew that and didn't buy into the scam.

I hope those here who did will be more inquisitive next time, and less fearful.

[frylock]

53. i hope those here who did will be more inquisitive next time..

yeah -- like that's going to happen.

[Zhade]

58. Hey, I became more inquisitive after I realized they were lying to us...

...ten months after 9/11 - I wasn't really aware, and now look at how well-informed I am.

It can happen!

[frylock]

65. some are able to take that lesson with them..

others here on the board seem incapable of separating the wheat from the bullshit. Myself? I don't believe a damned thing that comes from this admin, and so far it's worked very well for me.

[Zhade]

69. It's a great rule-of-thumb, works pretty much every time!

NT!

[Hubert Flottz]

52. Damn...sounds like being a terraist is "Hard Work!"

And what if someone else had to shit?

[indepat]

55. Neoconitis is holistically a big hoax on this Republic and we the people

[Supersedeas]

57. Nothing to see here-back to your Celebrity News-Terror Alert 5.1 next week

[jmowreader]

60. Now they tell us!

I called bullshit on the whole Terra Plot LONG ago.

The second the newspaper said the Evil Islamic Terrorists could use ANFO to blow up a plane, I knew.

[petgoat]

61. What's probably a greater risk is thermite placed over the

fuel tanks. Do you think their sniffers can detect
aluminum and iron oxide?

[lumpy]

62. Simple box cutters did the job

at the twin towers. I would think terrorists would be thinking of easier/simpler ways of doing their dirty work than using difficult to handle chemicals. I would think there would be a different target other than planes if another attack was in the planning.

[WinkyDink]

63. Did they?

[goddess40]

68. I'm stunned - you mean they lied to us

that can't be the bush administration would never lie to us!

[WestMichRad]

71. So TATP liquid bombs may be impossible, but...

...other formulas may be practical for the would-be bomber. I would probably look for a different oxidant that uses less water or no - like ammonium persulfate, which has been used in solid rocket fuels. You can probably get a much bigger bang out of that... just speculating here. Combining it with a highly flammable volatile solvent (such as acetone) and all one may need is a spark to make a big commotion, to complete the third side of that fire triangle (fuel - oxidizer - ignition source).

Go ahead, junior bombers, try it - hope you blow yrself up.

Hi agent Mike, go F*** yerself.

Seriously, why would the DHS want to give too much information about this? Let the wackos go on thinking that TATP liquid bombs are feasible, so they can catch idiots who think it will work.

But I definitely agree that the flight ban on all liquids is ridiculous overkill, designed to generate FEAR of boogeyman terrorists.

[roseBudd]

72. Now if only myth busters would take this on...

Then some of the sheeple may actually find out about this.

[Marie26]

74. Didn't they actually

create a liquid bomb as part of the Operation Bojinka plan?

"On December 11, 1994, Yousef built another bomb, which had one tenth of the power that his final bombs were planned to have, in the lavatory of an aircraft. He left it inside the life jacket under his seat, 26K, and got off the plane when it arrived in Cebu. Yousef had boarded the flight under the assumed name of Armaldo Forlani, using a false Italian passport. The aircraft was Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on a Manila to Narita route, stopping partway at Cebu. Yousef had set the timer for four hours after he got off the aircraft. The bomb exploded while the aircraft was over Minami Daito Island, near Okinawa, Japan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka#Phase_II.2C_CIA_plane_crash_plot

[DemReadingDU]

79. Yes, indeed

8/10/06
A decade ago authorities in Asia foiled an al-Qaeda plot eerily similar to the one just stopped in Great Britain
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225152,00.html?cnn=yes

[Marie26]

93. So how is it impossible?

Am I missing something? Was that a different type of bomb?

[ProfessorGAC]

94. It Was Different

And, the bomb was brought ONTO the plane, fully assembled. The explosive was NOT synthesized on the plane, and was not assembled there.

In addition, the yield of that explosive was about 30% (at best) of what it could have been, meaning that even under lab conditions, the explosive they made was of very poor quality. The conversions were poor and the unreacted raw materials, and partial reaction products contain far lower energy per unit mass.

Last point: These types of binary explosives are designed to be a low brissance tool, typically used in extremely contained spaces, like piling holes, or quarry face detonations. They do not create broad pressure waves in open spaces, and compared to a hole drilled into rock, a jetliner is a broad, open space.
The Professor

[NewJeffCT]

77. Thanks for posting

what a shock that Team Bush got it wrong again.

[ProfessorGAC]

78. Trust Me On This Folks: It's Even Harder Than This Suggests

This is very difficult reaction to control, and the molar ratio of reactants needs to be quite precise at each step. In fact, mixing the two and then adding the acid slowly will create a very low yield, as this is not the way the reaction is really run.

And i know of whence i speak: My first graduate degree is in theoretical chemistry and i was trained by the Army Corps of Engineers in a separate set of courses. This plot was a non-threat. This explosive cannot be made in an airplane lav.
The Professor

[oc2002]

83. I took chemistry and organic in college, I knew this was bogus unless they

produce a fairly extensive laboratory with lab instructions on how to convert the cleaners and peroxide yet make it stable enough to use as a bomb.

Doing it all in the airplane bathroom is a joke.

[ProfessorGAC]

86. One Other Note

I kept forgetting to mention this (see my post right above yours). The peroxide used in oxidation reactions like this is NOT the 3% solution we can buy at the drugstore. The commercially available grades are 35%, 50%, and 70%. Some special circumstance buying (like NASA) can obtain 90+%, but i think that requires some special privileges.

The reaction is decelerated in the presence of water. While there is no dehydration taking place (this is a nucleophilic addition), the rate is dependent upon reactant concentration. The lower the concentration of the peroxide, the slower the rate and the slower the rate, the lower the conversion.

So, this CANNOT be done in the laboratory.
The Professor

[benEzra]

85. I'd be a lot more worried about somebody mixing up a binary nerve agent

or some other chemical weapon. Manufacturing TATP in the lavatory seems a bit, well, farfetched.