Neil Sluman wrote:
[...]
There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

Neil Sluman wrote:
[...]
There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

"Simon Lane" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neil Sluman wrote:
[...]
There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?


I imagine it'd be a bit hard to complain about faulty detonators too!

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:37:52 +0100 someone who may be "Robin Mayes"
wrote this:-

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

I imagine it'd be a bit hard to complain about faulty detonators too!

It would be rather difficult for private individuals to take their
suppliers to court. However, there are other ways they might
complain.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:37:52 +0100 someone who may be "Robin Mayes"
wrote this:-

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

I imagine it'd be a bit hard to complain about faulty detonators too!

It would be rather difficult for private individuals to take their
suppliers to court. However, there are other ways they might
complain.

I would suspect those who deal with these scum are even scummier and nastier
so have a complaints department sign at the barrel end of an AK47.

On 21 Jul 2005 08:50:23 -0700, "Neil Sluman"
wrote:



Simon Lane wrote:
Peter Trei wrote:
[...]
One of the reports on BBC World service (30 minutes ago) had the bus
driver reporting a split open rucksack, with white powder spilling
out.

My suspicion is that these were real bombs, but the main charges
failed to detonate.

Modern high explosives are pretty insensitive, and it require a
detonator or blasting cap to get them going.

Another theory - these guys were set to go but police nabbed the
explosives they were planning to use, but they decided to go ahead
anyway (with fake explosives!).

Doesn't seem likely, but neither does being as organised as they seem
to have been but none of the devices working...

There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

"Co-op mixture" made with the wrong type of weedkiller wouldn't seem
to be too far-fetched a mistake for an amateur bomb-maker to make. One
of various news reports had mention of a "white powder" in conjunction
with a rucksack at one location.

Robin Mayes wrote:

snip

I imagine it'd be a bit hard to complain about faulty detonators too!

Yep! The Sale of Goods Act is unlikely to be invoked here methinks.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Simon Lane wrote:

Neil Sluman wrote:
[...]
There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

The detonators worked, though.

A theory i heard is that they were real bombs, made using the same batch
of explosive as the 7/7 ones, but that in the intervening two weeks, this
had basically gone off, and was no longer active. I'm slightly dubious
about this; i believe the explosive in question is acetone peroxide, and
i'm not aware of a 'going off' pathway for that which operates that
quickly - there are mentions of it degrading in long-term storage, but two
weeks is not what i think of as long term. IANAchemist, though.

My own personal theory is that there's a strict alternation between proper
terrorists and what we might call 'joke terrorists' or perhaps
'irritationists' - the September 11th terrorists, clearly very seriously
proper terrorists, were followed by the shoe bomber, a man who PUT BOMBS
IN HIS SHOES for ****'s sake. Our own 7/7 tube bombers, again proper
terrorists, although by no means as successful as the September 11th mob,
are followed by the clowns we had today. We should expect another proper
bombing before too long, but after that, we can relax until the next round
of no-hopers do their thing.

tom

--
Batman always wins

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Ross wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:52:20 GMT, Bob Wood wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
In ,
Bob Wood typed:
[...]
Eyewitness claiming small explosion in a rucksack - no
casualties. I don't know which site this refers to.

Also, train managed to continue to Warren Street where it was
evacuated. I don't know whether this is the same incident.

Radio 5 has just reported that these might be very small explosions - they
are suggesting "detonators only".

BBC News 24 report that LU "sources" are saying that nailbombs
*without explosive* are involved

I am curious as to what this "bomb without explosive", nail or otherwise,
is. It seems to me that explosive is a rather important, perhaps even the
defining, characteristic of a bomb. Are we perhaps dealing with some sort
of zen buddhist or dadaist terror faction?

tom

--
Batman always wins

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:07:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Simon Lane wrote:

Neil Sluman wrote:
[...]
There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.

I'm hearing (PM, R4) that these devices were of a similar construction
to the 7/7 ones. They all worked that time, none this time; maybe they
had someone else provide detonators this time?

The detonators worked, though.

A theory i heard is that they were real bombs, made using the same batch
of explosive as the 7/7 ones, but that in the intervening two weeks, this
had basically gone off, and was no longer active. I'm slightly dubious
about this; i believe the explosive in question is acetone peroxide, and
i'm not aware of a 'going off' pathway for that which operates that
quickly - there are mentions of it degrading in long-term storage, but two
weeks is not what i think of as long term. IANAchemist, though.

If it was a fresh batch made up by amateurs then there could be plenty
of scope for the use of wrong ingredients (especially if domestic
preparations rather than "proper" chemicals were used, thus allowing
for e.g. the wrong type of drain cleaner not containing sulphuric
acid) resulting on this occasion in a benign mixture being produced.
snip