New terrorist weapon, should we be worried ???

It's way easy just to get a few hundred pounds of Potassium Nitrate or Ammonium Nitrate from fertilizer or whatever oxidant, Mix it up with white sugar or whatever. And then pour it into capped off lengths of steel pipe.

All you'd have to do is buy an RC TX and RX at a hobby store, get an RC relay, couple of batteries plus an Estes model rocket igniter. You don't even need to know how to solder LOL!

From this commonly available crap, anyone with any level of knowledge, intelligence, resources or time could blow up anything they want, safely and reliably from up to 1 mile away. I bet I could give all this stuff to a 5th grader, ask him to build a bomb and he could figure it out and do it.

I'm not afraid of this, I'm not afraid of binary explosives, I'm afraid of the people who wish to blow others up. Because the only thing someone needs to kill people is the desire to do so. The ability to brainstorm will take care of the rest.

Thankfully most people know it's not nice to cause others to explode in a fiery upsurge of burning flesh and shrapnel.

I just asked my 10 year old little brother if he knew what these materials were for. He smiled and said, "You're forgetting to put nails or busted up glass in the pipes".

So yeah, explosions don't kill people, terrorists do.

YAG said:

Thankfully most people know it's not nice to cause others to explode in a fiery upsurge of burning flesh and shrapnel.

Click to expand...

The way you said that made me laugh out loud.

-Trevor

I didn't post this to start a 'war' about if this was a fake or not, just to show what our Military has to contend with on an almost daily basis.
Also, I think that the watermelon demolition was performed by Military personnel, as evidenced by the BDU'S, combat boots, & the fact that he used a 2 way radio to (in my opinion) alert other personnel about "fire in the hole". I know that anyone can don the clothing, but fakers generally don't use a radio to alert others in the area about the up-coming explosion.
However you choose to look at this, I for one have a lot of admiration for the Demolitions Experts in our Military that have to deal with IED'S every day.
I didn't mean to offend anyone in any way.

Benm said:

whereas a subway or club attack will have a number of casualties regeardless of how well the attack is perormed..

Click to expand...

Lunch time would suck if someone blew up subway.



"Guns don't kill people! Bullets do, guns just get them going really really fast"

Quoted from Charlton Heston

^ lol. Nice quote. :crackup:

Benm said:

Nitroglycerin is very easy to make using commonly available chemicals (glycerin, nitric acid and a bit of surfuric acid), but its very tricky to use. Not only can it detonate prematurely with little agitation, it can also refuse to function with mechanical impact.

If stabilized as dynamite (absorbed in sawdust or a particular kind of dirt) its less prone to spontanous detonation, but you'd need a blast cap or other primary to set it off reliably.

Click to expand...

True, and of course a few other measures are needed when making nitroglycerin. primarily regarding the thermal state of the liquids when they are being mixed. I refuse to mention more, as there is no need to add to the number of sites telling how to make it. (the dirt is of course diatomaceous earth as you probably know) I believe my point still stands If you aren't worried about survival, one can quite easily make a lot, really fast, and detonate it with no need of fancy equipment. It would be a dirty less then maximum power explosion, but still a major bang for your buck. It could even be done on a plane. All the difficulty in making nitroglycerin revolves around NOT blowing yourself up in the process and making it still function well. + I think it's more powerful then the explosive stated in the video. (7700 meters per second for nitro, but I can't remember the det speed listed on the video) And the main reason terrorists don't use it? Too much work. too many other things easily available.



Either way my point still stands. There's easier methods to blow things up, that don't require 30 min waiting periods. There's other explosives to make bombs with. You could even literally nitrate a cotton shirt, walk onto a plane wearing it, and build a bomb out of it on a plane. And nitrocellulose is old tech from the mid 1800s. Nothing new or fancy. Worrying about all the things a terrorist COULD do, only makes them win.

The goal of a terrorist is to make people fear you. If you let yourself get scared, then simply: They Win. In fact they win without needing to do anything else.

Look at what they have accomplished. At some airports already you are virtually strip searched by full body scanners. When you have that level of personal privacy being effected, in a hopeless battle, as you can't prepare for the unknown, the terrorists win. imho they have already won too often. Videos like this merely help them more.

StridAst said:

You could even literally nitrate a cotton shirt, walk onto a plane wearing it, and build a bomb out of it on a plane. And nitrocellulose is old tech from the mid 1800s. Nothing new or fancy. Worrying about all the things a terrorist COULD do, only makes them win.

Click to expand...

Well.. i suppose that would take your chance to have a smoke before your final flight away

And I agree firmly on the last part: All these, often quite idiotic and useless, security measures show that the terrorist have in fact already won. Not in terms of any political success, but they manage to remind every single person in the western world they are there every time someone travels.

Some basic security measures are fine, like they had 20 years ago, but it really got out of hand, becoming mainly a nuisance, while preventing few or no actual attacks. The terrorist still have plenty of targets to choose from that are not (well) secured, so if they want to strike again, they will.

Benm said:

Well.. i suppose that would take your chance to have a smoke before your final flight away

And I agree firmly on the last part: All these, often quite idiotic and useless, security measures show that the terrorist have in fact already won. Not in terms of any political success, but they manage to remind every single person in the western world they are there every time someone travels.

Some basic security measures are fine, like they had 20 years ago, but it really got out of hand, becoming mainly a nuisance, while preventing few or no actual attacks. The terrorist still have plenty of targets to choose from that are not (well) secured, so if they want to strike again, they will.

Click to expand...

Well.... smoking IS hazardous to your health....:crackup::crackup::crackup:

Since the 911 Airplane hijack attacks and the stepped up security at
airports... I haven't seen another Airplane attack taking down a building...
Unless I missed that one...:undecided:

It seems...according to you... we should all do basically nothing or the
minimum about the Terrorist's attempts to attack us because it is a
nuisance to you by trying to prevent them in their quest to do us harm...

They (the Terrorists) must think those anti-Terrorist measures are a
nuisance as well...


Jerry

Neither did I see any before that, and there were not security measures at all. And if you really think those measures are aimed at anything else than keeping the population quiet, you fail. If a terrorist wants to fuck you up, he will, regardless of how many scanners he is supposed to go across before getting into the plane.

There used to be some security before 9/11, mainly geared to prevent hijacking of airliners. This mainly focussed on preventing firearms and such entering the cabin, and to a lesser degree on bombs taken as cargo with a remote detonator or similar scenarios.

For some reason those measures have been considered adequate until 9/11, despite quite a number of planes being hijacked over de decades, some resulting in fatalities among the hostages.

Security scans will not be effective at preventing planes being used as a weapon against ground targets. It would take some funding, but there is very little that prevents someone from achieving a CPL, a typerating for a large airliner, and simply hiring one and fly that into a building. Obviously no passengers would be killed, but with 9/11 in mind the number of lives at risk on the ground vastly outnumber the few 100 passengers anyway.

Shooting down such planes by military aircraft could be effective, but that could be done as a last resort to prevent ground casualties on the ground when the plane has passengers too.

After all these new security measures, who wants to bet that the next plane gets blown up by someone on the ground with a STINGER missile or something similar. Then what? Security checkpoint when you pass withing 5KM of the airport? :crackup:Out of the all the millions of flights every year so few get attack by terrorists that I'd prefer to take my 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the plane I am on gets blown up than piss around with all this extra security. Okay one train, bus, or plane gets attacked every so often, what about the BILLIONS of miles and trips traveled without incident? You probably got a better chance of being blow up by some stupid kids trying to make homemade explosives than by a terrorist attack.

lasersbee said:

Since the 911 Airplane hijack attacks and the stepped up security at
airports... I haven't seen another Airplane attack taking down a building...
Unless I missed that one...:undecided:

Click to expand...

ok I couldn't resist this one

Looks like you did in fact miss this one

IRS Plane Crash: Was it Terrorism? : Discovery News

Granted this wasn't a hijacking. It was an individual small plane pilot going crazy. At any rate, no "airport security" even cared about a man taking his own plane up. So the end result is, a plane was still used to attack a building. And he succeeded in pretty much gutting it. And this was only last month. It could have been much worse if the target was a high rise. A wide building like this allowed for an easier time evacuating people who were above the impact site. Also if he had taken the time to put more combustible material on the plan before crashing it, he could have made things worse as well.

Since when is "vaporizing" the same as nudging off a post? I think the crappy low frame-rate camera use was deliberate.

lasersbee said:

Since the 911 Airplane hijack attacks and the stepped up security at
airports... I haven't seen another Airplane attack taking down a building

Click to expand...

Post hoc

A Lear filled with TNT or C4 would be expensive as hell, but I bet it could knock down a high rise.

I think the risk of smaller private planes is still accepted, and should be.

Honestly, with a little piper cherokee noone is going to do any damage that would not be possible by driving a (rental) truck into the same building.

On that note: these private planes often fly domestic routes, and in many countries domestic flights are exempt from rules like no-more-than-100-ml liquids and such. This exemption is not limited to small planes however, it also applies to big passenger jets (737s, A320s and such).

Originally Posted by lasersbee
Since the 911 Airplane hijack attacks and the stepped up security at airports...
I haven't seen another Terrorist Airplane attack taking down a building

Click to expand...

What I was trying to say was referring to Terrorist Attacks bringing
down buildings since 911.... not disgruntled American citizens..


Jerry