[QUOTE=Lemur866]
But if you are a suicide bomber, then carrying around an insanely dangerous combination of chemicals in a backpack is no risk at all. You expect and embrace death, if you die prematurely, so what?
[/QUOTE]
So you blow yourself up without taking any infidels with you. Do not go to Paradise, do not collect 72 virgins. (However, as a consolation prize for your effort, we’ll set you up with a couple of skanks who did every guy at your madrassa except you.)
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
So you blow yourself up without taking any infidels with you. Do not go to Paradise, do not collect 72 virgins. (However, as a consolation prize for your effort, we’ll set you up with a couple of skanks who did every guy at your madrassa except you.)
[/QUOTE]
The scholars of Islam have landed.
:dubious:
I think he was making a joke GorillaMan…
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Since you can’t safely mix the explosive on a plane…well, Q.E.D. it was impossible to do, so therefore these guys weren’t REALLY serious. They were just playing at terrorist, blah blah blah.
[/QUOTE]
You are misrepresenting the argument. As the Register article quite clearly notes, the issue is not whether the terrorists could mix the explosive safely (which is something suicide bombers obviously don’t care about), but whether they could mix the explosive effectively – i.e. whether they could make an explosion big enough to take any infidels with them (which is something they clearly care about a great deal).
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
You are misrepresenting the argument. As the Register article quite clearly notes, the issue is not whether the terrorists could mix the explosive safely (which is something suicide bombers obviously don’t care about), but whether they could mix the explosive effectively – i.e. whether they could make an explosion big enough to take any infidels with them (which is something they clearly care about a great deal).
[/QUOTE]
No, I was only pointing out that the OP was saying this as part of HIS arguement. Only if you want to make the explosive into a safe and stable form do you need to go through the proceedures listed in the OP’s cite. If you don’t care if the end product is stable, and you don’t care that the effect will vary wildly, it IS possible to create a liquid explosive from common household components AND mix them on an airplane.
I have said in other posts, how energetic the suspension is will be a matter of luck…and could run the gammit from a loud bang (and a very surprised, and probably handless terrorist wannabe) to something with enough force to put a good sized hole in the side of the airframe. At altitude and with a pressurized cabin this MIGHT be sufficient to bring the plane down. Even if it doesn’t, its going to scare the holy hell out of everyone on the flight and cause the kind of panic we are seeing even from the failed attack.
To me, the beauty of such a plan is to cause just the effect we are seeing…common, ordinary ingrediants are now being banned from flights, people are now more scared than ever to fly…and all for the purchase of some chemicals at an ordinary store and the locking up of some deluded mopes. Think of the cost to benifit of such an attack…even if it brings down not a single airplane.
-XT
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I don’t understand your premise at all. Are you saying you can’t produce a peroxide based explosive? That’s what they used in the London bombings.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not what I’m fucking saying. I’m saying, in part, that it is highly, highly unlikely that you can produce a explosive powerful enough to do serious damage on an airplaine without other passengers noticing and having a chance to stop you.
xtisme has been going on and on about how “the terrorists wouldn’t care if they blew themselves up in the process”. Fine. But I am, in part, contesting whether or not the people arrested in London would have been able to construct a chemical powerful enough to do more than blow their own face off in the washroom.
(BTW xtisme you don’t speak for me and if you want me to clarify what I’m saying, please ask me rather than jumping to conclusions.)
I’m also pointing out (which both you and xtisme seem to be ignoring) that the people arrested in London weren’t any danger because law enforcement was all over them. They were under surveillance for over a year. The only reason they hadn’t been arrested sooner is because the authorities wanted to give them more rope to hang themselves with. They had about as much chance of harming a plane as would a prisoner in Leavenworth.
The threat posed by these bozos was miniscule.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
xtisme has been going on and on about how “the terrorists wouldn’t care if they blew themselves up in the process”. Fine. But I am, in part, contesting whether or not the people arrested in London would have been able to construct a chemical powerful enough to do more than blow their own face off in the washroom.
[/QUOTE]
YMMV. If you don’t think that the chemicals described can be combined in a fashion to produce an energetic response sufficient to blow off someone’s face then thats fine. I think you are wrong…or at least, I think that you are only describing one level of potential for what is possible with those chemicals combined on board an airplane.
Even if you are 100% correct, and its physically impossible to get an explosion enough to damage the plane ( :dubious: ), it would STILL be a hell of a loud explosion and would probably freak out the passengers and crew. Not to mention the scene of the now faceless prospective terrorist.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
(BTW xtisme you don’t speak for me and if you want me to clarify what I’m saying, please ask me rather than jumping to conclusions.)
[/QUOTE]
What gave you the impression I was speaking for you Orbifold? Did I say something to the effect of ‘I think Orbifold is saying…’?? I was answering the question from my own perspective…feel free to answer it from you. Don’t assume I’m speaking for you though…I have enough trouble speaking for myself.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
I’m also pointing out (which both you and xtisme seem to be ignoring) that the people arrested in London weren’t any danger because law enforcement was all over them. They were under surveillance for over a year. The only reason they hadn’t been arrested sooner is because the authorities wanted to give them more rope to hang themselves with. They had about as much chance of harming a plane as would a prisoner in Leavenworth.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly true…though I don’t think such surveillance is ever 100%, or that its impossible that some of the terrorists could slip through unexpectedly. Maybe the Brit police force is filled with super cops that never fuck up, and these folks really had zero chance of harming anyone. Maybe not too.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
The threat posed by these bozos was miniscule.
[/QUOTE]
Probably true…BECAUSE the authorities had them under surveillance. I was getting the impression from the OP though that there was no threat regardless of the surveillance…i.e. even if the cops knew nothing these guys were no threat. That was kind of the thing I was talking too myself.
-XT
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
No, that’s not what I’m fucking saying. I’m saying, in part, that it is highly, highly unlikely that you can produce a explosive powerful enough to do serious damage on an airplaine without other passengers noticing and having a chance to stop you.
The threat posed by these bozos was miniscule.
[/QUOTE]
We know the subway bombs work, we know they make a big-ass hole. If these bozos explode the same HMDT bomb on an a pressurized airplane at 30,000 feet traveling at .75 mach then it will bring the plane down.
you’re argument is that it can’t be done. It’s already a demonstrated fact that it CAN be done. Unless you can tell me what is magical about walking on an airplane vs a subway the threat is just as real. The only way to prevent such an event would be to… make people leave behind anything that could contain an HMDT slurry-bomb.
I’d really like it if the authorities would finally settle on which explosive these guys are supposed to have planned on using. First it was Triacetone triperoxide (TATP), then Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP), then TATP again, and now it’s Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD). It’d also be nice if they decided whether the explosive was to be synthesized on board or carried on ready to blow.
Surely with all the searches, arrests and charges filed, they should now have some idea of what was planned? The absence of a clear story makes me think that perhaps the conspirators were merely an collection of evil, incompetent assholes. We’ll know that for sure if the papers come out with evidence that the baddies also prepared a diet coke/Mentos based scenario.
How serious were they?. Very serious.
If not, then why are the police asking for, and getting, extra time to interview/question these characters?
My opinion of you Pjen is that you are a person that looks at life through rose tinted glass. You see innocence where non exists.
There is a very REAL threat of terrorism striking again not just in the UK but throughout the whole of Western civilisation. These people (Terrorists) care not for our way of life and all the benefits we enjoy, they are intent on bringing about its downfall and implementing Muslim law? in place of our own.
It is time you took off the glasses and had a look at the world around you like, the real world and not the one you appear to occupy
[QUOTE=chowder]
My opinion of you Pjen is that you are a person that looks at life through rose tinted glass. You see innocence where non exists.
There is a very REAL threat of terrorism striking again not just in the UK but throughout the whole of Western civilisation. These people (Terrorists) care not for our way of life and all the benefits we enjoy, they are intent on bringing about its downfall and implementing Muslim law? in place of our own.
It is time you took off the glasses and had a look at the world around you like, the real world and not the one you appear to occupy
[/QUOTE]
From our previous discussions, my opinion of you is that you are the sort of person who believes that people found innocent of crimes should be punished and vigilantes are to be encoraged, and that revenge killings are quite acceptable.
I’ll keep the rose tinted glasses thank you.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
The part about less freedom in the U.K. is a matter of law. The idea that this suppression of the public’s right to know produces greater “due process” is a matter of opinion.
[/QUOTE]
They are both matters of law. The law in the UK curbs press freedom and the law in the US curbs the defence of its day in court if the powerful press takes on the prosecution of the case against an individual.
And you still don’t get it do you. I never defended the British position.
There are more than one Liberty (go and read your political philosophy). None of them are absolute. One Liberty is Freedom of Expression, another is the right to a fair hearing and a court system that allows a defence against accusations. Both are limited by restrictions in any polity.
Freedom of the press is limited in the USA by libel laws, restrictions on the publication of state secrets, restrictions on the publication of corporate data and other privacy issues.
Similarly in the USA, the right to a fair trial and to present ones case fairly in court is restricted by the fact that any powerful press organ is free to prejudice public opinion against a defendent.
Freedom of the press is somewaht limited before a trial in the UK.
In the UK the defence in a trial is able to present its arguments without having to compete with a public and non-judicial hearing of the case.
These are not matters of opinion but matters of fact. The Press in the US is freer than in the UK, but the chance of a fair trial unimpeded by any external publicity is higher in the UK.
As I said, balancing liberties is a close call. I happen to come down on the US side (probbaly because I grew up and was educated in the American education system to University level).
I did not defend the UK system, merely pointed out that there were alternative takes on a problem than the US one.
There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction when a non American calls into question one of the tenets of American polity that they are being anti-American (note that the epithet anti-British does not exist in the same way- maybe we are just thicker skinned.)
[QUOTE=xtisme]
What gave you the impression I was speaking for you Orbifold? Did I say something to the effect of ‘I think Orbifold is saying…’?? I was answering the question from my own perspective…feel free to answer it from you. Don’t assume I’m speaking for you though…I have enough trouble speaking for myself.
[/quote]
You were replying to Magiver’s question to me, where Magiver asked me what I was saying, and in that reply you said “No, thats not what they are getting at…No, their claims seem to revolve…” Unless you’re in the habit of referring to yourself in the third person, “they” and “their” don’t refer to your own perspective.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Unless you can tell me what is magical about walking on an airplane vs a subway…
[/QUOTE]
[ul]
[li]Your bags don’t get searched on entering your typical subway station, making it far more feasible to create the explosive beforehand.[/li][li]Subway stations, unlike airports, are far, far more likely to be both accessible and deserted at the same time, making it easier to transport and hide an unstable package.[/li][/ul]
Nothing “magical” about it.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
From our previous discussions, my opinion of you is that you are the sort of person who believes that people found innocent of crimes should be punished and vigilantes are to be encoraged, and that revenge killings are quite acceptable.
I’ll keep the rose tinted glasses thank you.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely what does your response have to do with your thread 
However I hark back to the previous discussion…
[QUOTE=Pjen]
And you still don’t get it do you. I never defended the British position.
[/quote]
I am sorry you don’t like being quoted.
I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in your posts. I regret that you are so thin-skinned about it that you must dredge up stereotypes about Americans to try to cloud the issue.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
You were replying to Magiver’s question to me, where Magiver asked me what I was saying, and in that reply you said “No, thats not what they are getting at…No, their claims seem to revolve…” Unless you’re in the habit of referring to yourself in the third person, “they” and “their” don’t refer to your own perspective.
[/QUOTE]
My bad then. I was actually relating my answer to Magiver’s question to the OP’s position and just spinning my own thoughts off of that…not off of the quote he used from you.
Apologies.
-XT
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
[ul]
[li]Your bags don’t get searched on entering your typical subway station, making it far more feasible to create the explosive beforehand. [/li][/QUOTE]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. How does not searching a bag make it more feasible to create something beforehand?
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
[li]Subway stations, unlike airports, are far, far more likely to be both accessible and deserted at the same time, making it easier to transport and hide an unstable package. [/li][/QUOTE]
[/ul] Again, I don’t understand your point. There are many ways to make an explosive. HMDT was successfully used in London by a terrorist group.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
Nothing “magical” about it.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, there’s nothing magical about walking up to an airplane with carry-on luggage vs a backpack on a subway. As long as the bomb appears to be an innocuous product it will pass inspection.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. How does not searching a bag make it more feasible to create something beforehand?
[/QUOTE]
Disclaimer I am NOT speaking for Orbifold. The following statement does not necessarily support the views or feelings of Orbifold and is solely the responsibility of XT, LLC. Thanks for your support!
The point is that in its more stable form, the explosive is detectable at a security checkpoint…like the kind used at most major airports. A subway however doesn’t have those checkpoints or methods to detect explosives (for the most part), so its easier to get explosives into that environment than it is to get them on a plane.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Again, I don’t understand your point. There are many ways to make an explosive. HMDT was successfully used in London by a terrorist group.
[/QUOTE]
There are myriad ways to combine the ingrediants listed in the OP’s original cite to make an explosive compound. However, if you create the stable explosive a la the OP’s later cite, that explosive is detectable by airport security. Thats why appearently these folks were going to try and smuggle onboard the separate elements (which WOULDN’T be detectable) and then attempt to combine them on the spot. The results of trying it this way would be variable, and luck would be a factor in what kind of reaction they ended up with.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I agree, there’s nothing magical about walking up to an airplane with carry-on luggage vs a backpack on a subway. As long as the bomb appears to be an innocuous product it will pass inspection.
[/QUOTE]
It would only pass through security if they brought the elements separately and then attempted to combine them. The problem I THINK some of the people (but not Orbifold who I’m not going to even attempt to hazard a guess over…see above disclaimer. 
) are having is that it would be bloody dangerous to attempt to combine these things on an airplane without all the proper proceedures. Also, attempting to do so would not have a uniform result…like you get when you combine them properly. So, the bang you get would vary, as well as when and how it would go off. The OP takes this to mean that the plan was foolish (it probably was) and couldn’t possibly work (it could if the terrorists got ‘lucky’).
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Disclaimer I am NOT speaking for Orbifold. The following statement does not necessarily support the views or feelings of Orbifold and is solely the responsibility of XT, LLC. Thanks for your support!
The point is that in its more stable form, the explosive is detectable at a security checkpoint…like the kind used at most major airports. A subway however doesn’t have those checkpoints or methods to detect explosives (for the most part), so its easier to get explosives into that environment than it is to get them on a plane.
There are myriad ways to combine the ingrediants listed in the OP’s original cite to make an explosive compound. However, if you create the stable explosive a la the OP’s later cite, that explosive is detectable by airport security. Thats why appearently these folks were going to try and smuggle onboard the separate elements (which WOULDN’T be detectable) and then attempt to combine them on the spot. The results of trying it this way would be variable, and luck would be a factor in what kind of reaction they ended up with.
It would only pass through security if they brought the elements separately and then attempted to combine them. The problem I THINK some of the people (but not Orbifold who I’m not going to even attempt to hazard a guess over…see above disclaimer. ) are having is that it would be bloody dangerous to attempt to combine these things on an airplane without all the proper proceedures. Also, attempting to do so would not have a uniform result…like you get when you combine them properly. So, the bang you get would vary, as well as when and how it would go off. The OP takes this to mean that the plan was foolish (it probably was) and couldn’t possibly work (it could if the terrorists got ‘lucky’).
-XT
[/QUOTE]
OK, the disclaimer was just funny.
I’m not aware of any currently installed detection devices that would recognize HMDT or it’s individual components (note I said installed). This is different than nitrogen based explosives which detectors are designed around (again, pulling that from memory).
If the intended goal was to avoid detection by bringing individual components onboard then any danger involved would be meaningless. I’m sure a suicide bomber is not hugely concerned about it exploding since this would be the desired goal. That goes back to the suicide video.