Panorama I think went into the most detail, with reconstructions of what the camera installed by MI5 in the bomb-making flat picked up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7540926.stm

My response to which is here: http://www.septicisle.info/2008/09/crying-over-spilt-liquid-part-4.html

(Yes, I’ve been sad enough to write another 3 posts on the same topic after this one.)

Personally speaking though, I’d have more faith in the police preventing terrorists from acting out their fantasies if it was just the police doing the whole job. As it is, the job is a tug-of-war between the spooks, the military, the politicians, the “interested” parties and the fuzz. And the result is Jean Charles de Menezes.

By the way, did you see the C4 news piece about the Preventing Violent Extremism Projects debacle. Now there’s cause for concern.

Cheers again and peace.

As for ‘unlikely’, I think it depends on how you look at it: each individual instance of terrorism is unlikely; but I don’t think it’s unlikely that we will have an instance of domestic terrorism at some point (I think it’s inevitable). My comment about unlikely was really relating to the actual danger we were in (I have faith the police would have prevented those terrorists from exploding their bombs) rather than the probability of any one event occurring. (I’m not sure I’ve explained that very well.)

What I didn’t agree with was Septicisle’s highlighting of the testing of the materials and I tried to explain why legally it’s done. Go back and re-read the 2.26pm comment. There’s no nerve touched, I purely take issue with one “element” of what he’s written. That’s all.

But I also didn’t like your blanket slight against the entire media. Yes, I work in it and frankly I’m fed up with the “oh, the bloody media”. It’s the sort of crap I expect from Guido Fawkes who’s endlessly trying to score points against the “dead tree press”, but not from Liberal Conspiracy for cyring out loud.
A broad swipe against “the media” is like lumping William Hague and Margaret Thatcher in with Michael Foot and Mo Mowlam in attacking the Government.

Please, if you want to have a go at the culprits, be specific. If you read the tabloids or any partisan broadsheet then you can’t expect them not to go down that road. But please keep in mind the media is bigger than just the seven or eight national newspapers which account for a very small percentage of all newspapers sold in the UK. I accept, and I say this as a reporter, that you can’t believe as gospel everything that’s written in the press… but that doesn’t mean it’s all shite, does it? Look, I hear what you’re saying, but I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition for explaining how the legal process works in relation to whether a bomb works or not. Your reply of – effectively – “well, it’s all the bloddy Government [a given] and the media’s fault [not a given]” got my goat. Apologies if I went off on you.

Anyway, lastly – these days, what is “unlikely”? Like I said, look at Exeter. I’m not saying “let’s buy into the Sun’s doom-mongering”, I’m saying just think to yourself, as an individual, “what’s unlikely these days”..

As for “unlikely to happen”… well, so was the World Tracd Centre. Frankly, anyone who posited that “plan” in a Hollywood film was laughed at. The film “The Seige” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133952/ was considered preposterous right up until Sept 11. So what’s “unlikely” these days?
It was “unlikely” that Exeter would ever be a target for a terrorist attack… oops.

I think you’ve missed the point here, too, and that’s about the impression we were given of a plot, one where we were in imminent danger of being blown up while going on our holidays, that the authorities were aware of and could disrupt at any time (you’ll note that among the recriminations in the media is the accusation that we arrested the suspects only because the USA was going to move against Rashid Rauf), as opposed to one which the authorities were merely speculating about in the general sense (and one where the authorities failed to follow advice, intelligence and procedure).

I think it is fair to say that most members of the public following coverage of the arrests and the trial would have believed that the terrorists were capable of building liquid bombs and exploding them on board our aircraft and that we were in imminent danger of them doing so prior to their arrests. We were made afraid (intentionally or not) by such coverage.

But in fact the prosecution said there was no evidence to confirm that the defendants had managed to build a “viable device” (let alone be capable of smuggling the components on board and build them in the aircraft toilet) – something, by the way, very poorly covered by some (OK?) of the media, as Septicisle says in the article here – and apparently the authorities had been watching them experiment with chemicals for some time, so it strikes me as highly unlikely the suspects would have been allowed to board the aircraft.

Similarly there are some people with the impression that no-one from this trial has been convicted of anything because of the (apparent) focus by the CPS, police, and some of the media on the failure to reach a verdict on the specific charges relating to exploding devices on aircraft, when in fact three people have been convicted of conspiracy to murder and will receive a life sentence and a possible 30-40 years in prison.

It seems to me reasonable to say some of the media is interested more in selling sensationalist stories than reasonable stories, while some are more interested in the truth. I think there are politicians interested in the Climate of Fear and some of the media jump on what they say and resell it.

If there is a suggestion by the accused that there was never any intention of actually making a working bomb, the prosection have to prove there was capability. And the only way to do that is to have it built using the same ingredients. So the experiment takes place.

Well, the prosecution has to prove intent – this may or may not involve evidence of capability. Evidence of capability does come in handy when it comes to sentencing – someone incapable will receive less of a sentence than someone capable.

A prosecution for conspiracy to cause an explosion can be brought when the alleged perpetrators believe that they have a viable bomb. That their chemistry is wonky is irrelevant; prosecution simply requires that the alleged conspirators think that they have a bomb and design to use it.

The Tang bombers had a good idea but were prevented from implementing it. Fortunately, we don’t know whether our airport controls would have spotted the detonator. But we do have more knowledge to improve controls so that they are less likely to get on a plane. To maintain a functioning society, we can’t apply the same controls to buses, trains, shopping precincts etc, so we have to look beyond a technological fix.

As for “unlikely to happen”… well, so was the World Tracd Centre. Frankly, anyone who posited that “plan” in a Hollywood film was laughed at. The film “The Seige” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133952/ was considered preposterous right up until Sept 11. So what’s “unlikely” these days?
It was “unlikely” that Exeter would ever be a target for a terrorist attack… oops.

As for “it seems to me that sometimes the Government and media do the terrorists job for them”.

Well – I can’t speak for the former, but can for the latter. If you’re told something as a reporter, you try to verify it before reporting it. If you can’t veryfiy it, you report it, but state that’s what the speaker (Minister, PM, MP) has claimed, and counter it with any other sources which agree or disagree.

But thanks for your blanket criticism all the same, it’s much appreciated. By the way, I think some bloggers are really exceptional journalists with incredible writing skill. Others are just fucktards.

Cheers

It seems to me that sometimes the Government and media do the terrorists job for them.

The “experts” are asked by the CPS “here’s the ingredients, here’s the rough quantities… could this be turned into a bomb or not”.

The professional bomb-makers then go off and play with pipettes and measuring jugs and keep trying until they get one that goes “bang”. Whether they do it first try or 20th try, they’ve got to show it either is or is not possible.

Then they come back to the CPS and say “yes, you could actually make a bomb from this material”.

If they can’t then the case against the suspects loses a central pillar and the defence team have a better chance of clearing their clients

I agree with that.

Unfortunately part of that rational approach probably involves profiling…

I’d like to know exactly what substances he was using and the preparation that went on beforehand before passing judgement, considering the other experts attempts that as you say either failed or resulted in the explosive becoming incredibly volatile, far too volatile to be used in the way the bombers were meant to. In any event, the damage done there, although it looks alarming would still not probably instantly result in the deaths of all on board: the damage is similar to that which the recent Qantas explosion resulted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_30 and is on nowhere near the scale of the catastrophic incident that befell the Aloha Airlines flight which still managed to land safely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

More likely, however, they would have been spotted because of the detonators. They planned to use HMTD, derived from camping firelighters, as the detonator, concealing it in batteries. Anyone who has disassembled a consumer dry cell battery knows how difficult it is, and it is implausible to believe that one might be reassembled without it looking obvious.

HMTD doesn’t like being in contact with metal, so the use of dry cell batteries with their metal cases seems even more bizarre. A small leakage of HMTD from a container within the dry cell would cause a pop, followed by a minor bang as the detonator charge went off, which could happen at almost any time. There are ways around that, but the suggestion that dry cell batteries would be used indicates that the Tang bombers didn’t fully understand the problem.

At airport temperature, HMTD will decompose very rapidly unless it is well insulated, which is implausible if it is stuffed inside a dry cell case. As it decomposes it will give off fumes similar to acetone, possibly other fumes similar to ammonia. Sniffer dog training and electronic devices to identify traces of HMTD have been available for three or four years; spotting the crude TATP would be more difficult if it was in a sealed vessel.

The scientists who were asked to build a Tang bomb identify a further problem: it is very difficult to build one that works, and when it does work, it is very difficult to prevent almost spontaneous detonation. If you remember, the 21/7 London bombers got the detonator right but the primary explosive (crude TATP) was too wet and decomposed to explode, performing like a damp firework. Contrarily, if you are impatient during the chemistry, quality TATP will blow your hand off.

Conclusions? The ban on liquids on planes is irrational; Bruce Schneier argues the case better than I could, but here is a summary. Irrationalists will try to blow us up anyway, and if they can’t do it on planes they’ll do it somewhere else. Plane bombs are symbolic, so we have to defend them better (and rationally), but it is impossible to apply the same inspection regime on a train or bus.

I take it we can expect Labour to lift the ridiculous and unnecessary restrictions now?