Travel and Vaping PETN explosive

[TropicalBob]

For those who have watched CNN on the airplane bomber: He tried to use what promises to be a new favored explosive for terrorists, PETN. The stuff shown was granular and did not explode under the roughest of conditions (a tester hammered it!).

It needed to be triggered in order to explode. Hit it with a charge and ..

And that's why electronic cigarettes might face a total ban on commercial airlines, for those companies who haven't foreseen the possibilities already.

An e-cig is a perfect terrorist's device. It has a battery that produces a current, a manual trigger in the form of a button, a heating element and a reservoir for liquid .. or granules. It could be converted to fire a single bullet, spray Sarin gas, or trigger PETN in a quantity to blow a huge hole in an airplane.

Threads now more than a year old warned of the possibilities. The reality came home today when a bomb expert held up a ballpoint pen -- looks just like my Kissbox -- and said the amount of PETN in the cap could take down an airplane. And PETN is not detected by present equipment. No chemical signature. No telltale beep on an x-ray machine.

A very bad omen for anyone hoping to happily vape their way across an ocean or country. Look for tightened restrictions before long.

 

[kodykills]

why did you post this? any terrorist could google E-cigarette/Bomb/PETN and this post would pop up. Plus its just one more thing to make e cigs look bad.

 

[TropicalBob]

I never run from truth. Even when unpleasant. This is reality. This is unpleasant. Deal with it. It has long been a topic on ECF, BTW. What's new is the advanced PETN.

 

[Caesarea]

I think there may come a time when the only way to travel by air will be under verifiable anaesthesia, strapped to recliners.

C.

 

[BuzzKill]

Bob thanks for the heads UP !!

You can find anything on the net GUY ! remember these are NOT STUPID people ! , they are VERY determined and have many USA trained personel .

Religion is a very hard core drug

Later
Buzz

 

[Martin2277]

While I will agree that this could affect the use of Ecigs and air travel I do have to point out a couple of things.
1st. PETN is not a new technology. It has been around since World War I
2nd. This is detectable by current airport safety measures. Unfortunately the airports that could have stopped this event didn't use the devices or dogs that would detect this type of device.

But that's my $.02

 

[MaxUT]

An e-cig is a perfect terrorist's device. It has a battery that produces a current, a manual trigger in the form of a button... ...It could be converted to fire a single bullet...

Hey, thanks for the idea T-Bob!

 

[MaxUT]

I think there may come a time when the only way to travel by air will be under verifiable anaesthesia, strapped to recliners.

C.

Recliners? I can see you're an optimist!

 

[Caesarea]

Recliners? I can see you're an optimist!

yea, possibly the budget airlines will think of space-saving ways to stack people....

 

[TropicalBob]

This is a way to understand why restrictions are coming for electronic devices like ours. And restrictions make sense. National security and safety concerns trump the desires of a few to blow vapor from between airline seats.

The job for e-cig makers is to figure out if there is ANY way e-cigs can be made to meet forthcoming regulations. Certainly the radical mods will end up staying at the airport.

But e-cig makers need to work with government agencies -- boy, that would be a first for them -- toward an agreeable end. Either that, or give up on permitted use of their devices on common carriers. Because that's the threat.

The hard truth is that it is probably easier for security and airlines to simply ban all electronic smoking devices than to try to determine if each brought by an individual passenger is safe to allow on board. I see that coming unless issues are resolved to the satisfaction of all regulatory agencies.

 

[Lithium1330]

There is no such a thing like undetectable chemicals.

Google Traducir

Also, technically, you can produce a spark and even fire with any kind of battery and just imagine the whole pletora of things using a battery this days.

 

[Dark Knight]

the quantity of any type of substance would be checked before entering the secured area so I really dont think an ecig would be a concern.

 

[13ways]

Bob though you do bring up some valuable points there are a few flaws in what you are saying.
First let me say that PETN is not new to anyone who works for homeland security. We have many ways of detecting it no matter the form they bring it through an American checkpoint. It is not new to terrorists either, they have known and used this type of explosive many times before just not on an aircraft that I know of.

Second, the volts put off by a single battery in one of our PVs is not enough to start an initiator. I dont want to say too much so I will leave it at that.

Third if you want to make an inconspicuous IED you would not start with an item that is already conspicuous. Knowing what these look like on X-ray I can say that our PVs draw a lot of attention that a terrorist would not want. You want an electronic device that would be ripe for something like that? take a look at a first generation Sony Playstation 2. It already has a compartment in it that not many people know about or would notice upon first glance where an optional hard drive would plug in.

Though we do play a game of catchup every time we see something new that last attempt was not something new. Remember this flight originated in Amsterdam, not in the States. There is a reason why it wasn't done here. Terrorists are not dumb, they do not take unnecessary risks. Though our security here in the states is far from perfect it is not the weak link like it used to be.

To sum it up I do not see a ban on any electronic devices in the near or distant future. I would believe a ban on ALL liquids and foods before electronics.

Now I just hope I did not say too much as I would hate to be called into Uncle Sams office and have him read this back to me.

 

[TropicalBob]

Thanks for an intelligent contribution, 13Ways. And you're right about PETN not being new; the shoe bomber tried it eight years ago and it's been around a long time, just not the favored explosive for terrorists.

There are other electronic devices that more easily lend themselves to conversion to a small bomb, for sure. The TSA has its hands full trying to make sure all the carry-on and baggage stuff is safe and secure. Heck, the favorite bomb detonator is a cell phone.

I still think the easiest route for airlines will be a ban on e-smoking devices. What airline wants to see "smoke" rising from non-smoking seats and wonder WTH is going on? Other electronic devices will also be banned; this incident seems to mark a new terrorism chapter featuring Yemen's Al Qaeda cells.

The one point I would take exception to is choosing something besides an e-cig. This forum wants e-cigs to become common items for use in flight. A common item, carried by many, would be exactly what I'd expect a terrorist to desire. Anything that would stand out would be avoided, I'd think. So the easily converted e-cig -- carried on person and not stowed -- would be a logical choice.

 

[telsie]

The three seconds of thin vapor someone might see from an e-cig could not possibly be mistaken for smoke from a fire. I think e-cigs are of the least concern among the electronic devices airlines allow on board.

 

[Dillan]

Perhaps there are riskier electronics, but we have to keep in mind the current political climate. If some terrorist uses, say, a laptop, cell phone, iPod or other "mainstream" consumer electronic device, the public at large will be greatly annoyed and probably vocal (after an initial period of being cowed) if they were, as a result, not permitted to carry on or use such devices in flight at all.

However, society has decided, largely, that it's perfectly fine to impose restrictions and regulations on nicotine addicts. That being the case, if a terrorist uses an e-cig to attempt to bring down a passenger jet, etc., much of the public at large will only hear the word "cigarette" and will be outraged that such things got on planes in the first place. Right now we don't have a lot of friends.

Hell, if this guy had used a can of snuff instead of a rubber, you'd see a smokeless tobacco on planes ban the very next day. The only reason they loosened up on cigarette lighters (the shoe bomber, remember, used a match) was because it was too expensive for TSA to dispose of the thousands they were confiscating daily.

It's also the case that, while an e-cig is smaller and probably less potentially dangerous in and of itself than, say, a digital camera or iPod sized device, it's also a far simpler device. A single button activates current? A chamber almost immediately heats to a fairly constant temperature? Built in reservoir for potentially flamable fluid? It wouldn't be hard at all to spin that into "this thing was practically designed to be an explosive trigger for a larger bomb." And once that spin hit, it'd be almost impossible to undo by explaining the legitimate purpose for it. Combine that with the FDA saying that they're banned in the first place? Dream come true for big Pharma and Altria.

Not to be overly cynical, but if I were a big Pharma guy, and I was seeing these e-cigs potentially cutting into my patch/gum/Rx sales, or I was a big tobacco exec watching my customers switching to something cheaper and healthier, I'd want to quietly send a few hundred 510s to the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, possibly along with electrical diagrams in Arabic.

 

[13ways]

I can not speak for Airlines, though they seem to all hate the PV to begin with, but TSA has not spoken anything about electronic devices. Remember this latest attempt did not involve any electronics at all. I read the news report and know what I am able to share of what I know and the person used PETN taped to his leg and injected a liquid into it. No electronics at all. I was not informed as to what chemical he had in the syringe but I know what I would use if I wanted a similar result and we are able to find that chemical rather easily.

As far as the airlines go I believe the majority of American airlines have already banned use of them on their flights anyway. People vaping in their seat without a worry in the world is a Utopian dream I believe.

*edit*
Forgot to mention that a single battery from any PV either mod or factory does not produce the voltage required to initiate a detonator. The Coil doesnt even get hot enough to ignite gasoline (flash point of Gasoline is 475, if I remember correctly our PVs heat up to around 300 degrees). If big pharm or the tobacco companies thought this was a plausible attack plan they would have pushed for it by now.

 

[TropicalBob]

I'm not that cynical, 13ways. What I hope is that those in charge of public safety see possibilities and act on them before they become probabilities or realities.

Just how long would it take one of this forum's modders to make an explosive device from an e-cig? Heck, that could be done in an easy afternoon.

Do you not believe the airlines have good reasons to ban e-cigs? If you were in charge of an airline, would you allow these sometimes strange-looking vapor producers to be used aboard your planes? You wouldn't. We e-smokers argue to feed our nicotine addiction during flight. We are trumped by safety concerns of others.

I find no reassurance that TSA is not alert to this, as you dismiss concerns from e-smokers, while airlines are staking out their position. Frankly, your posts can only make people feel less secure about flying our increasingly unfriendly skies.

I'd like to use my devices in a crowded public situation fraught with danger. That's not going to be possible if those in charge connect some dots and look at what could be.

 

[Dillan]

Overall, I think we're going about security in almost entirely the wrong way. THINGS don't blow planes up - bad people do.

I probably could, with a few days and a little ingenuity, turn my 510 into a little bomb (and use that to detonate PETN or whatever else). But I have no intention of doing so - and not just because that's a horrible way for a poor 510 to die, but because I'm not a person who would do such a thing. Well... ok, I might do it as an experiment, but certainly not to actually harm any living creature bigger than a spider. The point remains - I'm not who TSA is looking for, and neither are (I would hope) any other people on this board.

Similarly, I would be perfectly safe having most contraband on a plane - because I have no intention or desire to bring a plane out of the sky (I'm usually more inclined to want that plane to land safely as quickly as possible, so I can get off of those torture seats!)

If we really want to ensure safety in the air, we need to change our focus from looking for bad "things" to looking for bad "people." When's the last time you heard of terrorism on an El Al flight? It might not be easy to implement such procedures more widely, but I know I'd personally rather go through such screening, than be treated like a prisoner once on board - flying is torturous enough.

Then again, since I avoid flying whenever possible anyway (I'd rather sleep on a bed of nails than sit seven hours in coach), maybe my opinion isn't worth as much as the frequent fliers' are.

 

[13ways]

I'm not that cynical, 13ways. What I hope is that those in charge of public safety see possibilities and act on them before they become probabilities or realities.

Just how long would it take one of this forum's modders to make an explosive device from an e-cig? Heck, that could be done in an easy afternoon.

Do you not believe the airlines have good reasons to ban e-cigs? If you were in charge of an airline, would you allow these sometimes strange-looking vapor producers to be used aboard your planes? You wouldn't. We e-smokers argue to feed our nicotine addiction during flight. We are trumped by safety concerns of others.

I find no reassurance that TSA is not alert to this, as you dismiss concerns from e-smokers, while airlines are staking out their position. Frankly, your posts can only make people feel less secure about flying our increasingly unfriendly skies.

I'd like to use my devices in a crowded public situation fraught with danger. That's not going to be possible if those in charge connect some dots and look at what could be.

Because a device can be altered into something that it was not intended to be used for you feel it will be banned? You realize that you are saying that all devices that have batteries will be banned right? It would take far less time to turn a portable DVD player into an IED than a PV. Let me come back to the point where I say that the battery in a PV is not powerful enough to ignite an explosive. No matter how you alter it you wont get enough volts out of it. You need a larger battery end of story. As far as turning it into an initiator with an outside source of power that is where our X-rays come into play. You would need to pack it pretty full and explosives are rather dense. Knowing what can be turned into a detonator much easier and remain less conspicuous is why I say PVs are not to be feared. TSA doesn't put items on the prohib list because of public opinion. Items are put on there because they are a danger to either the aircraft or the flying public. If you feel like scaring yourself about what is possible do a youtube search for binary explosives.

As far as the airlines banning PVs, I feel that was done more for the benefit of the nonnic addicted public. If someone sees another person on an aircraft vaping they will think they are smoking because of the similarities in the look and the act. It is easier for the airline to ban them than it is to have to explain to everyone on board the difference between vaping and smoking. Even if they did decide to explain it there are plenty of people that wont accept that something that looks like smoke isn't actually smoke. I know from experience as I was almost kicked out of a local pub by the owner because he wouldn't believe there was no second hand smoke.

To Dillan we are looking at the people as well. We have a group of people who are specially trained in behavior who walk around airports dressed in street clothes observing.