Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (340603)	12/30/2009 5:17:54 AM
From: unclewest	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 793939

"If he could have" "he could have" "he could" "next time" Concur. He had options, but he only did what he did. I have been trying to discuss and critique what he actually did and the likely results from that viewpoint as well as possible motivations - not what he could have done nor what might happen next time. The "could have" list is endless. the real lesson the bomb-maker will take away from this incident is, use Velcro next time. I would never assume that people who work with sophisticated, unstable explosives and develop unique field craft to successfully place an explosive charge on board a packed US Airliner need many lessons. The lessons learned classes need to be attended by our folks. Charge placement is all about intent. You seem to be assuming the charge was placed improperly if the intent was to blow up the fuel tank or fuselage. I agree it was placed improperly for that. That does not mean that that was their intent. Our enemies are experts at charge placement. We can tell a lot about intent by examining charge placement. I am saying the charge was very well placed for a suicide bombing mission. PETN is a high explosive, but not exceptional. It is rated on the military scale between TNT and C-4. C-4 being more powerful. If the intent was to blow up the fuel tank or to create a large hole in the fuselage, the charge was too small and poorly placed. If the intent was to use a minimal charge to create a real bloody and messy suicide with a possible few murders, the charge was very well placed. If you accept the latter for a moment, then the only problem they had was with ignition. That is hardly unusual and in my experience always fixable. TNT and C-4 need a blasting cap or det cord to fire properly. The likely reason for using PETN is it offers other ignition solutions. Once a proper charge is placed, every misfire is caused by an ignition system malfunction. I doubt we see that problem again.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next