London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 01:18 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2004
Posts: 53
Default More bombs??

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, and the explosions are indeed
detonators only. All unconfirmed, of course.

1 person injured at Warren Street according to BT Police (via BBC News
24).

No injuries reported at the other two LU locations, nor on the bus.


Some very sick copycats?
--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 01:35 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 141
Default More bombs??



Ross wrote:
Some very sick copycats?



My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".

PhilD

--


  #5   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 01:50 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 258
Default More bombs??

The worry is how many of us could lay our hands on dets and the
knowledge to use them in less than 2 weeks in order to cash in on
someone else's work? No doubt the conspiracy theorists will be having
another field day soon.



  #6   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 01:59 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
Default More bombs??

In oups.com,
PhilD typed:

Ross wrote:
Some very sick copycats?



My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".



I doubt it. I don't think a copy-cat would go to the extent of 4 almost
simultaneous incidents.


--
Bob


  #7   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 02:13 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 1
Default More bombs??

Bob Wood wrote:
In oups.com,
PhilD typed:

Ross wrote:

Some very sick copycats?


My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".


I doubt it. I don't think a copy-cat would go to the extent of 4 almost
simultaneous incidents.


I think London got lucky this time.

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.

Perhaps they were constructed incompetantly, or home made explosives
were used which did not work.

We'll know in a few days, I guess.

pt

  #8   Report Post  
Old July 21st 05, 03:16 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Default More bombs??

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...

  #9   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 05, 12:15 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,188
Default More bombs??

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
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 05, 12:53 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2004
Posts: 53
Default More bombs??

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:15:08 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:
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?


Buggered if I know, I'm only reporting what the BBC were telling us.

Although I'm told by someone who used to play with such things that a
detonator alone is quite capable of taking your hand off, so perhaps,
had there been an intent to frighten rather than kill/injure huge
numbers, a detonator only option would be quite good from a terrorists
POV. Big perhaps as I don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking
about!

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More bombs? Simon Lane London Transport 160 August 14th 05 04:40 PM
LONDON BOMBS COVER-UP: BOMBS WERE UNDER TRAINS Terrorism London London Transport 4 July 31st 05 03:34 PM
LONDON BOMBS COVER-UP: BOMBS WERE UNDER TRAINS Terrorism London London Transport 0 July 25th 05 10:40 AM
More bombs?? Bob Wood London Transport 18 July 25th 05 07:36 AM
2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?) Peter Vos London Transport 78 July 16th 05 09:33 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017