we blew hole in fuselage with mix of easily disguised liquids

This is the result of an aircraft bomb made using only materials that can be publicly carried through airport security checks.
Channel 4\'s dispatch program and evening standards researchers blew a 6ft hole in the side of the plane\'s fuselage, which could crash any flight.
The test exposed potential catastrophic loopholes in the security regime introduced after the so-called \"liquid bomb\" plot in August 2006.
Explosives are made by mixing two readily available chemicals in a container that allows for 100, by safe transportation.
A security guard, chemicals.
The standard is not recognized and costs only a few pounds-
No color and smell, looks like water.
They can easily be disguised as toiletries if necessary.
Dr Sidney Alford, a leading explosives expert who built bombs for US, said: \"It\'s easy for terrorists to make this device.
They can get these chemicals without difficulty.
They\'re not particularly tight.
Controlled liquid.
\"Dr. Alford\'s company, Alford Technologies, specializes in the production of improvised explosive devices that have saved many lives in Iraq.
The company won the Queen\'s Enterprise Award in 2004.
A total of only about 400 ml of liquid is needed to make bombs, which means that two or three terrorists can pass security checks without causing suspicion.
These liquids are mixed in a water bottle of 500 ml purchased in the airport terminal.
Our explosion was caused by commercial detonators, but Dr. Alford said
To make one, it can also be carried out through the security of electrical appliances such as mobile phones or iPod, which will have the same effect.
We tested the bomb at Lasham Airport in Hampshire, testing the fuselage part of a decommissioned airliner that still comes with seats and other cabin furniture.
The explosion caused a huge fireball, with a huge hole on the side of the plane blowing out the seat in the cabin.
The bomb hit the plane\'s ribs.
The structure that connects it together
It can lead to rapid decompression and loss of control in the air.
Dr Alford said the loss would be even greater in places with high altitude.
The test was conducted at a leading airport security expert, Philip Baum, who told the Dispatch plan for tonight that a lot of airport security is \"theater\" and cannot solve the real danger.
Mr. Baum, who edited the International Journal of Aviation Safety and advised the government, said that airport X-
Ray and metal detectors have no effect on many threats.
\"I can\'t give an example of using the airport X-finding a bomb.
\"The light machine,\" he said . \"\"X-
Ray is introduced to identify dense metal objects, not bombs.
If you have a well
Hidden bombs, it\'s possible to pass through many X-ray machine.
Baum described a deeply disturbing trial of his campaign for the European government.
\"We brought a woman at 24 different airports.
\"She is a full component of the improvised explosive device,\" he said . \".
\"At every airport, she was shocked by the metal detector and was patted.
Search her body.
But none of the items were found in 24 searches.
\"Further tests leaked to the Dispatch show that even if it is easier to use --
Uk x-spots, complete assembly of weapons and bombs
Ray security operators did not see them in their hand luggage during the time. Mr Baum said X-
Rays found the bomb along with intelligence or passenger feature analysis.
He called for a shift in the focus of airport security from identifying suspicious objects to identifying suspicious persons.
\"We are currently using knives, not international terrorists,\" he said . \"
\"We should look more for behavior.
People with negative intentions will show signs of stress and tension.
Mr. Baum added that trained observers should be deployed at the terminal to observe suspicious behaviour and passengers who do not meet the flight\'s normal traveller profile should be marked, and software such as voice stress analysis should be used to select some travelers to conduct more thorough inspections to obtain better detection opportunity weapons.
This technique, called pattern recognition of behavior, is controversial because there is concern that it will be used in a racist way.
But its supporters say the goal of the idea is specific behavior, not skin color.
For example, to pick out all the young people in Asia, they will not be able to use the technology correctly.
Norman Shanks, former security director of BAA, the UK\'s largest airport operator, told the Express that he tested pattern recognition in Stansted, but the experiment ended by the government.
\"The process we use is no different from the one customs officers use to discover potential smugglers,\" Mr Shanks said . \".
\"It was very successful.
But when the worker bee of the Department of Transport, who was in charge of checking the safety process, couldn\'t find a way to satisfy himself, we hit a brick wall and they could test it correctly.
\"The real definition of success must be something we can\'t measure --
Lack of attack.
In Israel, for example, we know from elswhere that this technology can prevent attacks.
The British government said: \"The new hand baggage screening machine recently launched at the British airport is more likely to detect explosives than previous machines.
Aviation safety minister Jim fitz Patrick added that it was \"appropriate\" to determine the 100 ml limit for the safe delivery of liquids through safety and risk assessment \".
\"No one is absolutely protected, but we need to do our best to protect people and make sure terrorists don\'t get away easily,\" he said.
Dispatch by Andrew Gilligan: check in on Channel 4 at eight o\'clock P. M. tonight.