Djlawman

Pan Am 007 was brought down over Lockerbie with approximately 12 ounces of Semtex in a Toshiba cassette recorder. Reid had on him approximately 10 ounces of C-4 or PETN explosives (I have seen references to both).

I'm not confident that any of you have the technical expertise to distinguish the respective capabilities of the two amounts, and two different explosives, to bring down the aircraft. I readily concede I do not have the technical expertise to be assuring anyone that Reid's 10 ounces of C-4/PETN was insufficient. I am amazed by how many explosive experts there apparently are here, though.

GUWonder

Of course you are not confident. You shouldn't be confident when your "facts" above aren't even wholly correct or when people don't buy the fake expression of amazement conveyed in your post.

Also, not everyone has to be an explosives expert themselves to have some familiarity with explosives or to have access to explosives experts or those who deal with equipment-design that requires some resistance.

I am not amazed that apologists for DHS-TSA and for the antics of this Bush Administration would find it inconvenient when the facts are that it is highly unlikely that Richard Reid's flight would go down CessnaJock's way.

Wally Bird

I can't, which is why I'm skeptical. I do know that videos* purporting to show the effects of Reid's bomb are purposely misleading (from tests years prior).

I admit that one does need to entertain the possibility that we are being propagandized before questioning what we are fed. Some may choose to believe everything they are told.

Free county; for a while.

* as used in the Moussaoui trial.

Spiff

I know the difference between these explosives and how to detect them, neither of which the TSA seems to have any clue about. The information is freely available, too.

It's easy enough to design tests which will answer these questions. I wonder if the TSA has bothered to do that...

Djlawman

Well of course. YOU've said it several times, and therefore it must be true.

GUWonder

No, not that either.

If you want it to go down CessnaJock's way, that's your belief but it doesn't change the laws of science or the absence of scientific demonstrations that confirm your belief. Those few -- in governments or outside -- who claim that it would go CessnaJock's way have failed to change the laws of science (inclusive of engineering) so as to demonstrate that it would happen his way. Everything else says that it is highly unlikely to have gone CessnaJock's way.

GUWonder

DHS-TSA doing tests that would stand up to independent public scrutiny would be great, but they might just prefer a DHS-FEMA-type "press conference" so no hard challenges come their way.

Fortunately there are private parties interested in sales that have reason to do demos.

Djlawman

And your sources for this? ..... Reread the whole thread (carefully, I might add), and can't find any verifiable sources cited for your claims (i.e., that it is unlikely that Richard Reid's 10 ounces of plastic explosive could down a plane). Maybe I missed those.

I certainly don't want it to happen. But I conceded earlier in the thread (and do again) that I have no technical knowledge of the capabilities of 10 ounces of C-4, Semtex or any other plastic explosive, and what it could do to an airliner. I didn't say it would or could happen. I simply expressed the opinion that I don't know if it could or not. It hasn't been proven to me one way or the other.

I've read you claim that it can't happen, but that's about it. So, all we have is your word for it, as far as I can tell. That's the point I made in the earlier post, and your response did not address it. Lot of blather about laws of science, etc. etc., but nothing substantiating the claim that 10 ounces of plastique could not do it.

GUWonder

Lots of blathering above to the side, you couldn't have read "[my] claim that it can't happen". Do you know the meaning of "highly unlikely"? I would hope so.

Djlawman

Oh, I understand full well that you caveat what is essentially a bare-naked and unsupported opinion by saying "highly unlikely", while simultaneously and condescendingly describing others' opinions as "pretending" that it would happen (when at least one person has given you at least some sources for that belief--however much credibility you might ascribe to those sources).

Its the "laws of science" and "everything else" which supposedly supports your opinion that you keep referring to that I am getting at. Donde estas?

"Ignore that man behind the curtain!! There is a Wizard because I say there is a Wizard."

GUWonder

Wrong characterization, again. Of course you are free to believe what you wish, based on your bare-naked and unsupported opinion.

Djlawman

Pressed to explain, the "laws of science" and "everything else" demur, apparently.

JDiver

It's such exciting news a search using "explosive shoe" and "blasting cap shoe" reveals nothing on the BBC. I just sincerely hope they keep sending idiots as stupid as Mr. Reid to us, because the TSA is pretty unlikely to catch much more than a cold, witness the horrible stats released about TSA allowing 75% of simulated bombs through at LAX, 60% at ORD (the non-TSA folks at SFO failed 20% of the time -any hints for you here, Mr. Chertoff?)

GUWonder

Wrong characterization, again.

If someone doesn't understand what I was getting at, I am not going to spend my time paying up for their education, particularly when such party is prejudiced so as to blindly accept the state's position regardless of a lack of scientific demonstrations independently verified that demonstrate anything contrary to what I've said.

If a party to the conversation is either unwilling or incapable of accessing the requisite material or resources relevant to scientific approaches to such matters, it's their own limitation not mine. The truth is that not everything is on the internet, and there's nothing demur about mentioning that.

Unfortunately DHS-TSA's fetish for shoes does nothing for securing the flight from far more substantial explosive threats that are far more likely to do as CessnaJock suggests.

Djlawman

Ah, the "I claim I can prove it but I choose not to" position. Well supported. I'll try that one on the judge next time I am in court.

So, to summarize: a person who accepts the government's position (which you claim lacks any "independently verified" "scientific demonstrations") is blindly prejudiced [and I will note again that I have no idea whether it could or not, and have not seen enough one way or the other], but a person should instead believe your "law of science" and "everything else supports" position? Because you say so. That's better than independently verified scientific demonstrations in my book any day of the week.

And, what part of "I don't know if it could or not" [take down the plane with 10 ounces of plastic explosive] do you not understand? I don't know if his 10 ounces of plastic explosive would have been enough. (Or if, for example, he would have needed 2 comrades with another 10 ounces each. Would 30 ounces of the stuff have been enough? 3 compatriots for a total of 40 ounces--is that enough? What do the "laws of science" -- and don't forget engineering! -- and "everything else" say about that? What is the magic number of hollowed out shoes full of plastic explosive that would have been necessary to take down an airliner? Is it airliner specific? How much do I need for a 757? 747? 777? 330? 380? (Or haven't they computed the 380 yet?)

Oh, I forgot, some people "know" (they assure us) but can't tell us. They don't want to educate us.

Fine.