|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2007 : 23:15:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Dude
Half said:
| it's beginning to appear that this may have been a part of a long-planned Al Qaeda operation. |
As one investigator from the UK said on TV today (I'll paraphrase), the lack of sophistication of these attacks indicate that Al-Qaeda was likely not involved. The people responsible were obviously radicalized, but were just copycats who lacked any real skill at causing harm. They had to set off their "bombs" with matches at close range, and there was no way their "bombs" were capable of exploding.
You can't just mix up propane, gasoline, and nails and expect it to explode...
These guys were (thankfully) complete amatures.
|
Actually, a very, very powerful explosive device can be created with propane and/or gasoline -- and air -- for the main ingredients, with only a small amount of explosive used to disperse the fuel into a large volume of air prior to ignition. (Propane is nearly ideal as the fuel.) It's called a thermobaric weapon, or a fuel-air bomb. Such weapons used by the US Air Force are the most powerful bombs in its arsenal, short of nukes. I don't know what was on the list of materials that were found in those vehicles, nor how they were arranged. Until we know more, it's impossible to know whether the devices were of effective design.
Wiki says:| The effects produced by FAEs (a long-duration high pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiation. However, this is inexact; for all current and foreseen sub-kiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heating; very little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great. |
|
One point that's been bugging me about that.
The FAE weapons that I am familiar with (through research) are Hades bombs. Petroleum air burst. Primary (dispersing) detonation at several hundred meters above the surface followed a second later by the ignition charge. Causes damage three ways, death by immolation, death by concussion, and incapacitation by concussion. (Particularly effective in the first Gulf War against the Republican Guard) It is the airburst portion which seems to be a common element and key to the greatest effect. One lacking from a ground based IED.
The presence of the nails seems to indicate a single detonation producing shrapnel, not a FAE device. Seems like from the materials described, they were looking for the gasoline and propane to produce the concussive force to propel the nails into bystanders. Absent any primary ignition explosives, this was an amateur job. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 23:59:27 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
Actually, a very, very powerful explosive device can be created with propane and/or gasoline -- and air -- for the main ingredients, with only a small amount of explosive used to disperse the fuel into a large volume of air prior to ignition. (Propane is nearly ideal as the fuel.) It's called a thermobaric weapon, or a fuel-air bomb. Such weapons used by the US Air Force are the most powerful bombs in its arsenal, short of nukes. I don't know what was on the list of materials that were found in those vehicles, nor how they were arranged. Until we know more, it's impossible to know whether the devices were of effective design.
|
Propane doesn't work for FAE, you need liquid that can be aerosolized by the initial explosive blast and then ignited by the ignition charge, or a powder explosive like H6 (which is used in the MOAB)
Also, such explosions lack the power to propel shrapnel from the ignition point of the explosion. The damage is done, mainly, by the overpressure wave created by the ignition of the dispersed and aerosolized fuel/explosive. The heat pulse covers a much smaller area, with a FAE, than the pressure wave does, and doesn't do as much damage. Tossing in a box of nails indicates a lack of even basic explosives knowledge, as neither gasoline nor propane are suitable (alone or in combination) to propel nails as shrapnel.
If you knew a bit of welding, you could easily make a powerfull small explosive out of a propane tank though, just cut a hole in one side to place a detonator, weld it up so it could be fully pressurized, and mix the propane 50/50 with pure O2 (and hope it doesn't detonate while you are filling it). Glue a bunch of ball bearings to the outside of the tank.... then you'd have something capable of taking out a small crowd at a public market.
Now take your gasoline and turn it into napalm, by saturating the gasoline with styrofoam, and put several cans of that on the outside of your propane/O2 bomb... and now your ready to do some real damage in a crowd.
I think these guys were complete amatures. They didn't know didly shit about IEDs.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 00:37:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Half said:
Actually, a very, very powerful explosive device can be created with propane and/or gasoline -- and air -- for the main ingredients, with only a small amount of explosive used to disperse the fuel into a large volume of air prior to ignition. (Propane is nearly ideal as the fuel.) It's called a thermobaric weapon, or a fuel-air bomb. Such weapons used by the US Air Force are the most powerful bombs in its arsenal, short of nukes. I don't know what was on the list of materials that were found in those vehicles, nor how they were arranged. Until we know more, it's impossible to know whether the devices were of effective design.
|
Propane doesn't work for FAE, you need liquid that can be aerosolized by the initial explosive blast and then ignited by the ignition charge, or a powder explosive like H6 (which is used in the MOAB)
Also, such explosions lack the power to propel shrapnel from the ignition point of the explosion. The damage is done, mainly, by the overpressure wave created by the ignition of the dispersed and aerosolized fuel/explosive. The heat pulse covers a much smaller area, with a FAE, than the pressure wave does, and doesn't do as much damage. Tossing in a box of nails indicates a lack of even basic explosives knowledge, as neither gasoline nor propane are suitable (alone or in combination) to propel nails as shrapnel.
If you knew a bit of welding, you could easily make a powerfull small explosive out of a propane tank though, just cut a hole in one side to place a detonator, weld it up so it could be fully pressurized, and mix the propane 50/50 with pure O2 (and hope it doesn't detonate while you are filling it). Glue a bunch of ball bearings to the outside of the tank.... then you'd have something capable of taking out a small crowd at a public market.
Now take your gasoline and turn it into napalm, by saturating the gasoline with styrofoam, and put several cans of that on the outside of your propane/O2 bomb... and now your ready to do some real damage in a crowd.
I think these guys were complete amatures. They didn't know didly shit about IEDs. |
Do we know if they had no proper explosives as well in the car bombs?
I they did, the propane and gasoline may have been included for incendiary effect.
However, if they expected the gasoline to explode, they must have been watching too much television.
As I understand it, the Glasgow attack failed largely because the vehicle was stopped by the "bollards" that were placed there to prevent just such an attack. I am beginning to wonder if these attacks were a diversion to draw attention away from preparations for a future attack. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 00:49:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If this is a "long-planned Al Qaeda operation", why was it relatively amature in comparison to the defeat of Americas air defense system?
This make little sense.
|
Gee, Dude said that based on the amateur nature of the bombs (Al-Qeida actually makes things go boom) it likely wasn't Al-Qeida.
And the defeat of the American air defense system? What? This is giving credit where none is due. The operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks used the history of terrorist usage of planes and merely getting on the plane with concealed weapons.
Until 9/11/2001, terrorists blew up airplanes in flight (Lockerbie) or hijacked them to foriegn nations. They had not used the aircraft as a projectile to bring down tall buildings. This was a one time deal and the terrorist knew it.
|
America and Canada have had in place an air defense system for over 50 years; this was defeated.
|
That is a load of crap.
It was by no means defeated. There was no contingency for this form of attack because it had never been tried before. Before you go making such absurdly wrong statements like that, perhaps you could try, just a little bit, to actually research your claims before you make them.
|
Ahh, here is some evidence of Americas air defense and the things they planned for:
GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, isn't that a bit fatuous given the specific information that I've given you? It wasn't in the minds of script writers when the Algerians had actually hijacked the plane, which they were attempting to fly into the Eiffel Tower. And all of the other scenarios which I mentioned to you.
http://tinyurl.com/2hhvg
So, yes the terrorists defeated Americas air defense system.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 00:53:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If this is a "long-planned Al Qaeda operation", why was it relatively amature in comparison to the defeat of Americas air defense system?
This make little sense.
|
Gee, Dude said that based on the amateur nature of the bombs (Al-Qeida actually makes things go boom) it likely wasn't Al-Qeida.
And the defeat of the American air defense system? What? This is giving credit where none is due. The operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks used the history of terrorist usage of planes and merely getting on the plane with concealed weapons.
Until 9/11/2001, terrorists blew up airplanes in flight (Lockerbie) or hijacked them to foriegn nations. They had not used the aircraft as a projectile to bring down tall buildings. This was a one time deal and the terrorist knew it.
|
America and Canada have had in place an air defense system for over 50 years; this was defeated.
|
That is a load of crap.
It was by no means defeated. There was no contingency for this form of attack because it had never been tried before. Before you go making such absurdly wrong statements like that, perhaps you could try, just a little bit, to actually research your claims before you make them.
|
Yet more evidence found.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
Yep, NORAD trained against hijacked airliners flying into buildings.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 04:50:53 [Permalink]
|
Again Jerome cherry picks:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise
The exercise was solely to test procedures and was no indication that NORAD had any reason to believe the scenario would happen in the real world, according to a spokesman.
It is unclear whether the simulated scenario was that of a hijacked plane being "used as missile" -- intentionally crashing into a building -- or that of an out-of-control hijacked plane.
...
NORAD officials emphasized that if it had been a real event, NORAD would have instituted standard procedures to try to contact the aircraft and keep it from crashing.
"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised," said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD.
|
Why are you so dishonest? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/04/2007 04:52:32 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 06:09:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:| Propane doesn't work for FAE, you need liquid that can be aerosolized by the initial explosive blast and then ignited by the ignition charge, or a powder explosive like H6 (which is used in the MOAB) |
Well, yes, propane does work, and has often been so employed in improvised bombs (Google "propane bomb.") Many fuels would work, even flour dust. Why would you think that propane would not?
I do think that the inclusion of nails does show these doctors, being laymen in that field, didn't know a good deal of detail about how fuel-air bombs work. But that could have been someone's dumb idea of an "extra" thrown in in addition to an effective design in the instruction manual they were using.
From "The Scotsman":Dr Clifford Jones, an expert in explosives and petro-chemicals at the University of Aberdeen, said a propane cylinder bomb could kill or injure people tens of metres away and do structural damage to buildings.
"A mixture such as propane and air doesn't detonate but erupts in flame," he said. "The contents of the gas cylinder reacts with the air, and releases heat and if it is confined, the 'overpressure' brings a destructive blast." |
"Wired" has this article:| The BBC reports that the car was "packed with 60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails," and noted the similarity to a plot by Dhiren Barot, who "was jailed for life last November for conspiring to park limousines packed with gas canisters underneath high-profile buildings before detonating them." |
Google also has this video of someone setting off a very much smaller propane fuel-air bomb, apparently only using matches and straw, without even any explosives for dispersal or ignition.
Maybe our resident explosive expert, Filthy, could give an opinion?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 07:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Dude wrote:| Propane doesn't work for FAE, you need liquid that can be aerosolized by the initial explosive blast and then ignited by the ignition charge, or a powder explosive like H6 (which is used in the MOAB) |
Well, yes, propane does work, and has often been so employed in improvised bombs (Google "propane bomb.") Many fuels would work, even flour dust. Why would you think that propane would not? |
It should work, because the propane is in liquid state within the propane tank. And upon initial release by an explosive, the temperature of the propane drops drastically because of the pressure drop. For an instant, the temp of the expanding propane cloud would be below flash point, allowing it to be dispersed before ignition.
Also, I distictly recall news reports from the Middle East of successful car bombs using propane tanks. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 07:50:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If this is a "long-planned Al Qaeda operation", why was it relatively amature in comparison to the defeat of Americas air defense system?
This make little sense.
|
Gee, Dude said that based on the amateur nature of the bombs (Al-Qeida actually makes things go boom) it likely wasn't Al-Qeida.
And the defeat of the American air defense system? What? This is giving credit where none is due. The operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks used the history of terrorist usage of planes and merely getting on the plane with concealed weapons.
Until 9/11/2001, terrorists blew up airplanes in flight (Lockerbie) or hijacked them to foriegn nations. They had not used the aircraft as a projectile to bring down tall buildings. This was a one time deal and the terrorist knew it.
|
America and Canada have had in place an air defense system for over 50 years; this was defeated.
|
That is a load of crap.
It was by no means defeated. There was no contingency for this form of attack because it had never been tried before. Before you go making such absurdly wrong statements like that, perhaps you could try, just a little bit, to actually research your claims before you make them.
|
Ahh, here is some evidence of Americas air defense and the things they planned for:
GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, isn't that a bit fatuous given the specific information that I've given you? It wasn't in the minds of script writers when the Algerians had actually hijacked the plane, which they were attempting to fly into the Eiffel Tower. And all of the other scenarios which I mentioned to you.
http://tinyurl.com/2hhvg
So, yes the terrorists defeated Americas air defense system.
|
And tell me, Sunshine, did any of these scenarios have the hijackers ramming a building?
Since you have failed to research this at all, you don't know that they did not.
Still not defeated. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 10:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, the logic of your argument would lead to the conclusion that Germany did not defeat France in WWII because the French anticipated that Germany would attack the Maginot line.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 11:02:08 [Permalink]
|
Pleco, so NORAD ran games using jets that would crash into buildings, and stating this is dishonest?
You have a strange definition of honest.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 11:05:19 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer said:
| And tell me, Sunshine, did any of these scenarios have the hijackers ramming a building? |
Yes, I posted the link. Here it is again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 13:01:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, the logic of your argument would lead to the conclusion that Germany did not defeat France in WWII because the French anticipated that Germany would attack the Maginot line.
|
How completely and utterly wrong of you.
The correct phrasing would be that during WWII, the Germans never defeated the Maginot line.
Apples to apples instead of apples to cheese flavored dog food, if you don't mind. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 13:02:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer said:
| And tell me, Sunshine, did any of these scenarios have the hijackers ramming a building? |
Yes, I posted the link. Here it is again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
|
And as was shown above, the answer was no. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 13:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
Well, yes, propane does work, and has often been so employed in improvised bombs (Google "propane bomb.") Many fuels would work, even flour dust. Why would you think that propane would not?
|
Mab said:
| It should work, because the propane is in liquid state within the propane tank. |
Sure, you can cause an explosion with enough propane, but you can't use it to generate thermobaric effects like a real FAE would.
Propane can burn in a liquid state(flashpoint -104C), but could require the constant presence of an ignition source to continue to burn at in a liquid state.
Yes, some of the propane in a cylinder liquefies, but the boiling point of propane is ~-42C, it vaporizes to fast to make it useful for this purpose, the low density and the fact you can't put enough of it into a small enough volume are the reason.
There is also the matter of explosive limits for gasses. Propane is only explosive, in air, at concentrations of ~2-9%. Below 2% you don't have enough propane, above 9% you have displaced to much oxygen.
Aerosolized liquids and solid explosives don't have these limitations.
Besides, you'd think a doctor could just cook up some RDX. Not like it is difficult to make, or the ingredients rare and tightly controlled. All you need is formaldehyde, ammonia, and nitric acid. (or some hexamine fuel tablets and nitric acid), and a tiny bit of chemistry knowledge.
(spelling edit)
(also, I'm not contesting the idea that you can use propane to blow shit up, just that it sucks for an FAE effect, and that you aren't going to echieve much of an explosion just by setting it on fire)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 07/04/2007 13:29:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
UK: Holy Smoke!
