[QUOTE=jjimm]
Way to entirely miss the point of yojimbo’s post.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve completely lost me. Please explain.
[QUOTE=chowder]
Reports say that there was over 60 liters of petrol. That combined with large calor gas cylinders and the nails could cause a hell of a lot of harm/damage.
The two cars were parked/situated close to each other (before one was towed away) if they had exploded with the figure given of 5-10 mins between each the carnage would have been terrible given that the cars were in the heart of Londons theatre land.
Johnny LA I can’t really comment of London CCTV cameras as I live in the North West about 250 miles from London. I’ll say, however, that I’m all in favour of CCTV if they help in catching or deterring criminals
[/QUOTE]
If a terrorist is willing to die the cameras prevent nothing. They might show pictures of what happened . That is all.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
If a terrorist is willing to die the cameras prevent nothing. They might show pictures of what happened . That is all.
[/QUOTE]
But a picture is worth a thousand words. It can show who someone was if there are no identifiable parts left. It might show accomplices. Any number of clues to find the higher-ups. Well worth the investment, I think.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
I’m curious about whether the Muslim community in Britain has come out with any sort of denunciation of these people and their actions. The impression I have is that they always get rather defensive about these things rather than disowning the wrongdoers involved.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps making remarks about how it’s only a small percentage of their community who were involved in these attacks? Or maybe saying that people who have an issue about their communities involvement in these attacks have a chip on their shoulder?
I have just been talking to a guy who reckons that a so called “expert” has stated that the London car bombs, if they had gone off would NOT have caused any casualties. He said the bomb was just an “incendiary device” and
would destroy the car it was in, but would likely cause no casualties other than ear damage to persons nearby.
I don’t believe this at all. A car packed with petrol, propane gas cylinders and nails would surely have been a killer. Any experts out there?
[QUOTE=Rayne Man]
I have just been talking to a guy who reckons that a so called “expert” has stated that the London car bombs, if they had gone off would NOT have caused any casualties. He said the bomb was just an “incendiary device” and
would destroy the car it was in, but would likely cause no casualties other than ear damage to persons nearby.
I don’t believe this at all. A car packed with petrol, propane gas cylinders and nails would surely have been a killer. Any experts out there?
[/QUOTE]
We did a version of the “car bomb” for CNN. The story aired over a week ago and you can find it on youtube. We lit the gas remotely and it made a lovely fireball, but there is no blast. We had gas cylinders in the car but they would not have exploded. We cut a hole on one cylinder with a linear shape charge and all it did was come out a window still intact. The nuts we taped on (nails are hard on our tires) fell off but none were thrown with a high velocity.
In short, if one was too close, you’d be in danger of serious burns. More that 10 feet away, all you’d have to do is change your shorts.
Don’t get me wrong, with the proper added ingredients, it could be quite dangerous. But these guys had neither the proper equipment or knowledge to make the bomb a danger to more than themselves.
I’m no expert, but I think the answer is: It depends. How were they planning on setting it off? Was the gas confined or were they planning on allowing the fumes from the gas into the cabin until it was basically saturated before ignition? Gas CAN explode violently…if the conditions are right. Were they? No idea here.
As to the propane tanks…well, I’d have to go with THOSE would certainly explode even if the gas only burned. How big a boom? Gods know. But I think that any ‘expert’ who comes out with a definitive statement that no one would be hurt is full of shit. I’d need to see the context of the statement however…maybe there were qualifiers in there…or maybe the guy isn’t an expert at all.
-XT
[QUOTE=sishoch]
We did a version of the “car bomb” for CNN. The story aired over a week ago and you can find it on youtube. We lit the gas remotely and it made a lovely fireball, but there is no blast. We had gas cylinders in the car but they would not have exploded. We cut a hole on one cylinder with a linear shape charge and all it did was come out a window still intact. The nuts we taped on (nails are hard on our tires) fell off but none were thrown with a high velocity.
In short, if one was too close, you’d be in danger of serious burns. More that 10 feet away, all you’d have to do is change your shorts.
Don’t get me wrong, with the proper added ingredients, it could be quite dangerous. But these guys had neither the proper equipment or knowledge to make the bomb a danger to more than themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Any chance of a link?
[QUOTE=Rayne Man]
He said the bomb was just an “incendiary device” and
would destroy the car it was in, but would likely cause no casualties other than ear damage to persons nearby.
[/QUOTE]
That would seem to be the guy on this youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZo5MHEM90
Can’t find the article sishoch refers to, though.
[QUOTE=matt]
Can’t find the article sishoch refers to, though.
[/QUOTE]
Might be this one by former bomb disposal officer Lewis Page, he basically calls these terrorists “clownish amateurs” in comparison to the PIRA.
[QUOTE=e-logic]
Any chance of a link?
[/QUOTE]
Okay, found it now:
It’s quite instructive. The fireball was bigger than I would have expected, and could have resulted in a lot of burn victims. Certainly not harmless.
There’s a few things worth noting, though. Firstly, despite the voiceover saying “watch as the car is blown to pieces” the car is NOT blown to pieces. The tailgate comes off, the left front door pops open and the rear right passenger window blows out. Watch as the firefighters hose the car down - most of the windows are intact. Also keep an eye on the wooden prefab building right beside it as the car goes up - 3:15-3:20. The building doesn’t react to blast in the slightest, although it is set on fire.
This is the video on youtube:
I don’t necessarily agree with CNN’s coverage though. We just did the test, they made of it what they wanted.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
But a picture is worth a thousand words. It can show who someone was if there are no identifiable parts left. It might show accomplices. Any number of clues to find the higher-ups. Well worth the investment, I think.
[/QUOTE]
Cameras in every house. That would make us real safe.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Cameras in every house. That would make us real safe.
[/QUOTE]
Somehow, I’m reminded of the near-riots in some parts of the US as schooling was made mandatory in the 19th century. They felt state control was getting out of hand.
No one is suggesting cameras in every house. Such 1984 scenarios are entertaining, though, so keep 'em coming.
In fact, we had several bombs go off simultaneously in Bangkok last New Year’s Eve, with deaths resulting. Cameras were able to determine it was NOT the Muslim separatists who have been waging a 3-1/2-year uprising in our deep South, on the Malaysian border, but rather minions of the Thai Rak Thai Party that was overthrown in our military coup last September. The Muslims got the blame at first, but the cameras proved otherwise. So there’s a case where Muslims were absolved.
[QUOTE=matt]
Okay, found it now:
It’s quite instructive. The fireball was bigger than I would have expected, and could have resulted in a lot of burn victims. Certainly not harmless.
There’s a few things worth noting, though. Firstly, despite the voiceover saying “watch as the car is blown to pieces” the car is NOT blown to pieces. The tailgate comes off, the left front door pops open and the rear right passenger window blows out. Watch as the firefighters hose the car down - most of the windows are intact. Also keep an eye on the wooden prefab building right beside it as the car goes up - 3:15-3:20. The building doesn’t react to blast in the slightest, although it is set on fire.
[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed. They should stop calling them car bombs. A few cans of gasoline, some propane tanks and boxes of nails do not a bomb make.
[QUOTE=sishoch]
I don’t necessarily agree with CNN’s coverage though. We just did the test, they made of it what they wanted.
[/QUOTE]
I did wonder about that. Seems I could have thrown the nuts by hand further than the car did, and yet the voiceover man seemed to think the test had demonstrated dangerous shrapnel.
Earlier you mentioned a linear shaped charge was used on one of the gas cylinders? I was most surprised to see that one cylinder had ruptured longitudinally, with the lips of the split protruding inwards. Yet CNN didn’t mention a shaped charge. My respect for journalism has never been very high, but if they can’t even accurately describe a test they commissioned, I despair.
[QUOTE=matt]
I did wonder about that. Seems I could have thrown the nuts by hand further than the car did, and yet the voiceover man seemed to think the test had demonstrated dangerous shrapnel.
Earlier you mentioned a linear shaped charge was used on one of the gas cylinders? I was most surprised to see that one cylinder had ruptured longitudinally, with the lips of the split protruding inwards. Yet CNN didn’t mention a shaped charge. My respect for journalism has never been very high, but if they can’t even accurately describe a test they commissioned, I despair.
[/QUOTE]
You are quite correct, the cylinder did not rupture, it was cut on purpose. The other cylinder did not burst.