I'd like to see the real science and threat that stops us having liquids on planes..
So this liquid explosive is I assume is not powerful enough to damage a plain if only 2x100ml sources are used, much easier to produce than any other type of explosive or very common?
Volume doesn't mean a massive amount in terms of damage potential.
The reason liquid "explosives" are a danger is is that there are various ways to make them, they're not necessarily massively powerful but they don't need to be, IIRC one of the reasons you tend not to get liquid explosives in general use is because they tend to be unstable and hard to use precisely unlike say TNT, or even better modern "plastic" explosives (c4 etc is exceptionally stable and easy to handle safely).
You also don't need to do "much" damage to an aircraft to cause serious loss of life, or even bring the aircraft down if you do it in the right place (simply causing a fire or damaging the wiring can bring an aircraft down*, no need to blow a huge hole in the side of it).
Even 100ml of the "right" liquid (not even explosives) applied in the right area could be an issue.
Simple chemical heat reactions can be a major threat, as can corrosives, solvents...
There are reasons why a lot of things are banned from being sent in the post without very explicit warnings, and banned from being sent airmail/airfreight altogether.
*waves to GCHQ*
*As can be seen from the numerous accidental fires and wiring damage that has caused crashes in the past.