Lessons In Chemistry... Explosives vs Incendiaries

Fear is horrible thing mostly caused by ignorance.  The press manages to terrorize people again.

Liquid gasoline is not an explosive. It is an incendiary.   Gasoline fumes can explode but even if it "explodes", it lacks the power of of "true explosives" like dynamite, gun powder or Semtex.  Simply put, the London luxury bombs (...hey they put them in Mercedes Benzes not Fords) are crude, ineffective and highly unlikely to kill hundreds of people unless there was a rave planned directly around the cars.  

The cars were reported to have 2 sealed 25 gallon canisters of gasoline, a propane tank and nails. The car windows were also closed.  Hint to press:  Anything incendiary requires oxygen to work.  Also sealed propane tanks do not explode unless there are structural problems on the tank itself and the propane gas escaped and is within an optimum environment to ignite and explode.  The press can test the theory on 4th of July.  My guess is there won't be a single propane tank explosion in the US on 4th of July.  The cars would have been the most poorly designed incendiary cars much like a Cadillac Escalade or any large SUV.

What do we really have? Quite possibly 2 or more Al Qeida or Real IRA knuckleheads, disgruntled, unemployed, alienated, uneducated and radicalized with a Rambo and Die Hard DVD collection.  They are evil dumb asses who wanted to terrorize London and the world but since they surely flunked chemistry, they would have failed.  Their crude luxury bombs would have failed.

The Al Qeida or Real IRA wannabes failed.  Chemistry and physics were not on their side.  They did succeed in getting the inept press led by Faux News to to characterize the cars "as bombs that would have killed hundreds of people."  

The press managed to scare and terrorize people again.

•  thanks for the diary

  This is obvious to people with a knowledge of high school chemistry, or to anyone with access to the internet and the ability to read.

  I guess that excludes CNN and Faux News reporters.

  by mathGuyNTulsa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

  •  NEVER rely on journalists to get science right

    they rarely have a clue

    of course the weather person on TV ( if he/she is actually a meteorologist ) would be one common exception

    by RumsfeldResign on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:34:10 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      I think you have provided a fill-in-the blank, all-purpose sentence.

      "NEVER rely on journalists to get <put any topic here> right."

      Mostly lazy, stupid, shallow and ill informed, at least in my experience, even when well-intentioned.

      by mathGuyNTulsa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:37:34 AM PDT

    •  On some stations

      The meteorologist is the science person. It usually works well.  

      Even if well away from their specialty, they usually pronounce things right and know enough to look up and understand what they look up.

      by Bronx59 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

•  Good diary.. thanks n/t

  by ExStr8 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:31:22 AM PDT

•  Gunpowder...

  Gunpowder isn't much worse than gasoline. It burns when ignited in open air. The difference between a fire, and an explosion isn't about what you are burning, it's about the amount of pressure that builds up.

  Dry ice is a dangerous explosive if it is placed in a confined space. As you can see by watching these idiots narrowly avoid serious injury.

  The reason some things are "always explosive" is because they "burn" so quickly that the atmosphere itself is unable to get out of the way fast enough.

  But I totally agree that anyone who thinks a couple dozen gallons of gasoline and a propane tank will make an effective bomb is an idiot.

  by bartman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:32:52 AM PDT

  •  low explosive

    Gun powder is usually considered a low explosive, relative to dynamite, TNT, and so on.  One can make a bomb out of the stuff, and people in the past used to do it all the time.  They used to take down fortress gates with the stuff.  For the purposes of a blast, it's way better than gasoline.

    No one put that in the cars, though.  Considering it's easy to make, the London wannabes would have been more dangerous with the stuff than what they were using.

    by nanoboy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:57:05 AM PDT

    •  Hell

      black powder, guncotton, and even nitroglycerine are easy to make, especially if you have a few expendable henchmen to assign to the task.

      by TJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:11:36 AM PDT

  •  flour works OK

    or some other flammable dust, so long as it is mixed well with air.  There's a number of grain elevators that were damaged or destroyed from dust explosions.  Any car carrying a sack of flour and a way to make flame is a potential terrorist bomb.

    by wondering if on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

  •  All you could want to know about explosives.

    This kid has been like a hero to me for a long time.  Check his site, Powerlabs.  The Chemlabs tab includes all you might ever want to know to about every single explosive.

    http://www.powerlabs.org/

    by Capn Guts on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:43:29 AM PDT

    •  This guy is nuts! N/T

      by Bronx59 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:02:06 PM PDT

      •  His discovery channel clip

        is pretty freaking cool if you want a look at that guy who is so nuts.

        http://www.exn.ca/...

        by Capn Guts on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:48:40 PM PDT

        •  That is cool!

          The electromagnetics are as much fun and less risky than the explosives.  

          by Bronx59 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

    •  Holy crap!

      Glancing over that web site, the first thing that comes to mind is "how much crap can one guy mess with before he manages to blow himself to pieces?"

      Just looking at the photo of the microwave gun makes me cringe. Talk about dangerous stuff. (Not to mention the 1 megawatt laser!)

      Hell, picric acid and potassium permanganate are nothing compared to that stuff!

      (Although perhaps I just feel that way because I'm a chemist, and not a high energy physicist!)

      by bartman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:55:36 PM PDT

      •  Could you imagine raising that kid?

        Somewhere he has a story about how he first got started with a simple potato gun.  He shot a tennis ball through his sister's bedroom door.

        by Capn Guts on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:05:43 PM PDT

•  Bartman Is Right

  Oh... How ignorant of me!  You're absolutely right, 100%...  gun powder indeed is no worse than gasoline!  In open air, it is also an incendiary.  It has be be in a perfect physical environment such as enclosed casings (bullets) to be explosive.

  by yobie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:39:00 AM PDT

•  As someone else said here on DK...

  "It's the work of enthusiastic amateurs."

  Sorry, I forgot who posted that.

  Anyhow, given that firebombs are so easy to make (the kind that start fires, not the kind that explode in massive fireballs) I'm surprised we don't see more arson. Could it be that the rest of the world isn't so interested in attacking us, after all?

  by Shaviv on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Arsonists Could Terrorize California

    Look what one illegal campfire is doing to Tahoe. Now imagine a line of a  fires set deliberately at the same time, during a windy dry week (i.e. any day June-Oct) in the coastal hills from San Diego to Eureka. Ten million acres of wildland fire, an area the size of Ohio up in flames. We actually worried about this type of attack during WWII, thinking the Japanese saw the vulnerability. In fact, one Japanese pilot did in fact drop an incendiary bomb, I believe it landed in Oregon in 1943. Luckily, trying to start a fire in a temporate rain forest didn't work. Had it been the Bay Area of California...

    by easong on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:58:32 AM PDT

    •  I have not said that for 8 years.

      I truly wish you hadn't said it now.

      by 88kathy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

      •  We handle lightning storms....

        I don't see why a group of terrorists roaming through the forest would be any worse than a lightning storm during fire season. Some fires get out of control, but there's already a large well-coordinated system in place to spot fires and respond as soon as they start.

        I'd think terrorists would be more interested in more direct forms of terror. And especially trying to exploit weaknesses we haven't spent the last 100 years preparing for.

        by bartman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:11:56 AM PDT

        •  it's a question of fire line length + high winds

          A coordinated attack such as described could be designed to overwhelm California's initial response capacity. Probably the biggest operational consideration would be how many helicopters and crews were available. Whether a small group could organise that securely I have no idea. But see above re the single illegal camp fire at Tahoe.

          by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:17:22 AM PDT

          •  I understand the single illegal campfire issue...

            I was just thinking that part of the problem with using the single campfire as an example is that it is bad luck which causes one campfire to result in widespread damage, while most are controlled relatively quickly.

            I guess I just figured that if the group of terrorists is "small," then they probably can't overwhelm the system, while if they are "large," then the chances of being able to coordinate it successfully (timing, operational security, etc) would seem to be low.

            I have no idea what "small" and "large" would be in this case though.

            by bartman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:30:03 AM PDT

            •  I hope you are right

              by 88kathy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:31:54 AM PDT

            •  one person with car and cell phones

              could do a lot of damage given a few hours driving time and lot of 'IEDs' strategically placed in areas a high fuel loading. Just wait for the high winds, and dial.

              It actually doesn't bear thinking about. Same would work in the front ranges, or certain parts of Canada, which I'll never tell.

              In a certain way, these thought experiments highlight the foolishness of the untrammeled development of high end real estate in dangerous fire areas, occurring throughout the western US.

              by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:17:28 AM PDT

    •  The Japanese attack on Oregon

      was via balloon.

      It was actually part of a very large project, and a sustained attack over a period of several months.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by bartman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:07:23 AM PDT

    •  Japan had balloons!

      Oh, I hope there's a wiki link to back me up on this.  Japan launched many laquered paper balloons across the Pacific with incendiary bombs and crude timers or other detonators to approximate arrival time or landing in the prevailing wind currents.  One blew up an Oregon family while picniking.

      Here's a link
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by Capn Guts on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

  •  quote from explosives expert in UK Guardian

    in yesterday's story, "Gas canister bomb 'an amateur job'"

    The builders of the bomb found in central London today would have probably been "keen amateurs", an explosives expert said.
    Patio gas cylinders found by police in the light green Mercedes would have been an unlikely weapon for experienced terrorists unless they wanted to create a fireball for the cameras, Sidney Alford, founder of explosives company Alford Technologies, told Guardian Unlimited.
    ,,,

    "They are probably keen amateurs who could not get their hands on the real thing and do not realise the limits of what they are doing."

    ....

    A witness reported nails were lying on the floor of the car, which Mr Alford said was another indication the bomb makers were inexperienced.

    "Nails could be considered as an additional way of extending the potential damage and lethal range of the device but putting them on the floor is an incompetent way of building a bomb. They would go straight into the ground," he said.

    by jennifer poole on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:53:33 AM PDT

    •  Oh thanks

      Couldn't imagine someone not on this site coming up with such a nifty phrase. ;)

      by Shaviv on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:03:36 PM PDT

•  they are living in a Jack Bauer

  alternate universe

  by 88kathy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:44:23 AM PDT

•  I take exception to using

  the Al Quada meme. It's as bogus as the bomb. This label is being used on anything or anyone the gov wants to target.

  by raindrop on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

  •  Meme

    Point taken...  For all we know, the perpetrators could have been "Tim MacVeigh Fan Club" members.

    by yobie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM PDT

•  I Don't Believe You

  I have seen cars blow up plenty of times in movies. It's a terrible thing, people die! Maybe you should see Die Hard a few times to convince yourself.

  by easong on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:48:55 AM PDT

  •  actually...

    cars don't blow up like you see in the movies without some kind of explosive charge.  

    Mythbusters had an episode on this. It's almost impossible to "blow up" a car with just the gasoline in the tank.

    by kmiddle on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:40:32 AM PDT

    •  I can vouch for this.

      Well, I can vouch for the one time I saw a car start on fire, at least.

      In high school I was helping my brother work on my car. It ended up catching fire and the garage ended up burning down before the fire dept came.

      There was no explosion at any time. Not only did my car have a full tank of gas at the time, it also had 2 containers of nitrous in the trunk, and they didn't even explode. There were all sorts of flammable things in that garage. Sure it burned to the ground and burned fast, but there were no fireballs, no explosions.

      We were surprised by the lack of explosions, after all the movies we'd watched we thought there was going to be a freaking mushroom cloud or something.  

      by MichiganGirl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:25:00 AM PDT

    •  I think that was his point

      Unless my snark detector is busted

      by twcollier on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:25:37 AM PDT

    •  They can burn up real good w/o explosives, though

      Back in my Bronx days, my mother once woke me in the middle of the night to tell me that the car parked in front of mine on the street was on fire.  

      I have to say I was scared, but I got in and backed my car up the street anyway.  Once I was out of the parking space, my biggest concern was the fire truck that would be cresting the hill in a few moments.

      by Bronx59 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:53:59 AM PDT

•  al Quaeda wannabees?

  There is no shortage of people in and around the British isles who know how to manufacture powerful and devastating car bombs.  Just ask the people of Omagh or Belfast in the north of Ireland.  And there's no shortage of potential Islamic martyrs who could have been imported to do the job from the Middle East or elsewhere in Europe.

  So, I don't know who was in charge of this amateur hour, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion it was al Quaeda wannabees.  Could just as easily have been English skinheads eager to provoke retaliation in Muslim neighborhoods.

  Was the car stolen?  Probably.  But we'll learn more once the car is identified.  Certainly seemed odd to see this gleaming, well maintained Mercedes as the delivery mechanism, even if the "bomb" turned out to be a squib.

  by blaneyboy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

  •  Wrong Assumption

    It could be also the REAL IRA who are in opposition to the peace accords.  Your critique is so right on.

    by yobie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:53:50 AM PDT

    •  Doubtful

      The IRA has a devastating record of building and detonating powerful bombs. What we saw in London was the work of a person or persons with no understanding of how bombs work.

      Because it is fairly easy to acquire the knowledge and resources necessary to construct an efficient explosive device, we can posit that these bombers were acting on the spur of the moment with off-the-shelf materials. That's a safe bet, because a half-hour spent on Google would have led to better design.

      More likely, we have a couple dudes drinking at a bar, chatting and working each other into a state of rage about something or other and deciding to "do something." We'll find out soon, as these clowns won't get far.

      by The Raven on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:10:15 AM PDT

  •  The absence of drivers

    is a give away. Al Qaida car bombs, as far as I know, are always used as guided missiles. The suicide bomber is essential to targeting and triggering. As others have pointed out, this was a very amatuerish operation, a bit like the loony Richard Reeve. Al Qaida plans carefully and targets strategically. This not the work of professionals.

    by Batfish on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:56:31 AM PDT

•  Science, Schmience

  MacGyver could easily make a Neutron Bomb from a Mercedes, gasoline, hairspray, a hank of hair, a piece of bone, a bobby pin, a  zippo lighter flint, 5 golden rings and a photo of Prince William.

  Easy!

  and Jack Bauer couldn't find him in 49 hours.

  by Zwoof on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:56:04 AM PDT

  •  You forgot the cell phone

    That was a dead give away to me.  Careless of these terrorists to leave behind such clear evidence of their evil intentions.

    You don't want to make light of things like this.  Car bombs are lethally destructive and even this kluge job might have hurt passers-by. And this might have been a real effort.  On the other hand, it might be much ado about nothing.

    I would imagine that if you stopped a hundred vehicles at random in my Seattle neighborhood, you could pull a full gas can, a pound of nails, a propane tank and a cell phone out of the trunks of 20 or 25 of them.

    by blaneyboy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:06:40 AM PDT

•  Glasgow airport incident

  Driving a burning SUV into the doors of an airport and then jumping out and running seems like a relatively amateurish effort.  Maybe these latest actors were also exhibiting a shaky grasp of high school chemistry.

  by twcollier on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:15:10 AM PDT

  •  More likely too much TV (nt)

    by TJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:16:30 AM PDT

  •  Burning SUV

    Hilarious now that a burning SUV in Scotland is being touted by the press as another terrorist plot before anyone has done any investigation.  Here we go again.

    by yobie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:24:11 AM PDT

    •  Not just "a burning SUV"

        A burning Jeep Cherokee that was driven at speed into Glasgow Airport's main doors and intentionally torched.  Amateurish, yes.  Terrorist, possibly.  Dismissable, absolutely not.

      by WIds on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:27:39 AM PDT

    •  If we're quibbling over how big the explosion is

      to make it a terrorist attack, then we've lost our moral compass completely. Civilians were injured deliberately and a structure was destroyed. That's terrorism.

      by Me on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:53:45 AM PDT

•  Gasoline and propane in tanks

  are often used as accellerants in IEDs.  However a rather large charge of TNT or equivalent is needed to achieve the desired effect.  These guys had a big molotov cocktail firebomb, would have been a large fire, but wouldnt have turned the nails into missiles.

  The whole story doesnt add up.

  by Eiron on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

•  The bombs on US highways- An RV and a boat

  There will be well over a hundred of these on the roads this weekend.

  Here's one scenario for you..

  A 2006 Winnebago Vista RV (75 gallons of gas and an 18 gal propane tank) hauling a Baja speedboat (101 gallon gas tank) hurling down the road at 70 mph.

  I guess it's a matter of intent, considering the damage such a combo could cause.

  Have a great holiday weekend.

  by goofticket on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

  •  Propane transport trucks

    9000 gal propane with a couple hundred gallons diesel, on a freeway near you.

    by TJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:23:51 AM PDT

•  Glasgow Airport attack

    The uses of "incendiaries" were just shown as a gasoline-doused car was just a few minutes ago driven into the entrance at Glasgow Airport in Scotland.  The two drivers (at least one badly burned) have been apprehended, reportedly after putting up a fight.  Considerable damage was caused, and the airport has been closed down.  It has not yet been characterized as a "terrorist" attack.

  by WIds on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:25:44 AM PDT

•  down-to-earth and short to boot: great piece!

  i love it when the hype is taken out of stories and the facts and perspective force them back to reality-on-the-ground (that's a phrase that's been co-opted, no?).

  thanks! and rec'd

  by pfiore8 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:29:07 AM PDT

•  The press should portray

  these people as the pathetic, vicious fools that they are. They deserve nothing but contempt and loathing. They are not worthy of fear. They should rot quietly in jail until the day they die with minimal notariety.

  Perhaps even more than the occupation of Iraq our own media helps to create these people.

  by global citizen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:34:06 AM PDT

•  Now that the airport in Glasgow is on fire

  from these same incendiaries, I don't think it's the press that has managed to make people afraid tonight.

  by Me on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:42:46 AM PDT

•  Thank you for the scientific background.

  We should all try to be better informed on these matters.

  However, low-tech terrorist activities still have the power to inflict carnage and we should not be in the business of brushing them off as mere nuisances.

  It's easy to pooh-pooh what is going on in Glasgow unless you are trying to fly out of there today or unless you have a loved one working there or unless you are a taxpayer who will have to foot the bill for repairs.  

  by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:51:57 AM PDT

  •  I don't think anyone is arguing against...

    law enforcement and legal system investigation, arrest and trial of these criminals.

    by mike101 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:05:03 AM PDT

  •  As far as I have read

    Nobody but the "Terrorists" were hurt at Glasgow, the SUV hit a security barrier and damaged some doors, and the only thing destroyed was the SUV.  Seeing as how they could have done more damage just by driving at full speed into a bus, I think lame-ass attempts like this are no big deal.

    by TJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:05:41 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    Even amateurs can cause significant death, mayhem and destruction on occasion.  If any given attempt has only a 5% chance of "succeeding" to do so, it will take only 20 tries to cause the intended result, on average.

    by twcollier on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:31:01 AM PDT

    •  And

      Unless the local police were a bunch of Barney Fifes, they would be in jail after thier 2nd or 3rd attempt.

      by carver on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:58:17 AM PDT

      •  Needn't be the same crew

        So far there seem to be a number of different small groups willing to attempt to mount acts to further their shared goals, including the London and Madrid bombers who did manage to cause lots of death, destruction and terror.  I was just thinking of 20 separate attempts.  Most will fail, either falling short of the final effort, or stopped by the authorities, or fizzling in the attempt.  But a few will manage to achieve their aims.

        by twcollier on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:37:16 AM PDT

        •  I should have

          labeled that comment with a snark ..the comment was in the same vein as.." In the world, there is a baby born to a woman every 3 sec - WE HAVE TO STOP THAT WOMAN!!   You are right; if only 1 in 30 times some group pulled it off, those are better odds than than rolling "snake eyes".

          by carver on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:11:03 PM PDT

          •  lol!

            Good luck finding that prolific woman!

            by twcollier on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

    •  look up the geometric distribution.

      With a p=0.05 it will take a lot fewer tries than you'd think.

      by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:49 AM PDT

•  another timing issue too:

  I was watching KO's interview with Larry Johnson on this subject last night, but was surprised he didn't bring up his nexus of terror argument....again!

  Isn't it amazing that while we talk about the timing regarding the British anniversary and the new PM, we don't discuss the media frenzy here and the diversion it created from Cheneygate, Gonzogate, the new resignations, more Iraq shit, Immigration, etc.....again, the White House has a really bad week and there's a 'terra scare'.  I guess we ran out of doofusses here in the US (like the ones trying to storm an army base disguised as pizza guys), so we had to devote full coverage to a few in Britian who may not even be "Al Quaida wannabes".  For all we know, this could have been done by some kids looking to make a statement, or the IRA or, like you said, some disgruntled dumbass who saw Die Hard..

  I still think that this was a manipulated event, but I find it so odd that they keep going back to this trick and each time, its a little less effective, even though Fux and CNN and MSNBC spent all the time covering it, the people just don't seem to be buying into it as much.

  by Webslinger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:20:13 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    If these clowns were Al Queda wannabes then they are now ain'tgonnabes.  Making an effective bomb is not all that difficult.  There are a number of low tech devices, with instructions, readily avaliable on the web that they could have used with serious effects.  This leads me to believe that they were either completely, incompetent morons or they weren't serious about doing real harm.  

    by carver on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

  •  And now can we stop buying into this one?

    and keep our shoes on please??? Here's some more science-based reality. Don't be Sheeple.

    Don't you think it would smell like a hair and nail salon in there? I guess it would have to be an international flight or something, since it's not just a drop of liquid going kaboom that we were worried about (are they also taking away
    Grampa's heart medication?), what They are saying We are threatening others and ourselves with is the kind of stuff that, if you are concocting it yourself, after you cook it, you have to spread it out for several more hours to dry... Here,
    wikipedia says it for me:

    Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that it's highly questionable whether such a plot could have been executed, due to the supplies needed, the smell mixing would create, and the time it would take to prepare without drawing suspicion from passengers and the flight crew.[13]

    So I say again: Mass Protest-
    Stop quaking in your boots and Stand Firm IN THEM! (and somebody give that baby something to drink so his ears won't pop so much and he'll stop crying!)

    by peaceloveandkucinich on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:33:50 PM PDT

•  BOO! ...Scared Yet?

  This wasn't the work of some real, or incompetent terrorist group.

  If the "supposed" car bombs were really the work of some fiendish minds with the intent of committing real damage, then at least they would have exploded (at least one of them) because they would have been designed, and assembled properly to achieve the goal of killing.  I think this was merely a test, and a wake-up call drill for the brand, spanking new British government who, within but a few hours, assumed their job duties.

  Honestly now...... I've read better B movie scripts than this "plot".  It reminds me of the JFK airport bombing plot exposed along with the liquid bomb plot that was busted some time ago. This is also probably just another story to also scare the heck out of the "sheep" that want more of their rights to be taken from them for the feeling of being "safe" from the harsh, cruel world.

  P.S. - The first car's cell phone had already received two calls while in the vehicle parked at the site prior to it's dismantling.  This "car bomb" was an incendiary device on "minor steroids" without any major threat with regard to spreading shrapnel to public.  It would have at the very best, only caused the car to catch fire if it was constructed properly, ion conjunction with a loud "boom" to boot (and that's the opinion of those who know about

  "Yobie" is correct in his/her post on chemistry:  Thank you for clarifying the difference.

  by LamontCranston on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:07:03 PM PDT

•  Sorry about the dropped words in my post

  This wasn't the work of some real, or incompetent terrorist group.

  If the "supposed" car bombs were really the work of some fiendish minds with the intent of committing real damage, then at least they would have exploded (at least one of them) because they would have been designed, and assembled properly to achieve the goal of killing.  I think this was merely a test, and a wake-up call drill for the brand, spanking new British government who, within but a few hours, assumed their job duties.

  Honestly now...... I've read better B movie scripts than this "plot".  It reminds me of the JFK airport-bombing plot exposed along with the liquid bomb plot that was busted some time ago.  This is just another story to also scare the heck out of the "sheep" that want more of their rights to be taken from them for the feeling of being "safe" from the harsh, cruel world.

  P.S. - The first car's cell phone had already received two calls while in the vehicle parked at the site prior to it's dismantling.  This "car bomb" was an incendiary device on "minor steroids" without any major threat with regard to spreading shrapnel to public.  It would have at the very best, only caused the car to catch fire if it was constructed properly, in conjunction with a loud "boom" to boot (and that's the opinion of those who know about ordnance).

  "Yobie" is correct in his/her post on chemistry:  Thank you for clarifying the difference.

  by LamontCranston on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:11:42 PM PDT