On 04/07/07, ArchLinuxUser dick_turpin <dick_turpin(a)archlinux.us> wrote:
On 04/07/07, Russ Phillips <russ(a)phillipsuk.org> wrote:
> I'm far from convinced about that. They *might* have killed a lot of
> people in the terminal, maybe. But, I'm not convinced the gas
> canisters would have exploded, even with no intervention.
Um they do just ask the local fire brigade, its a favourite of arsonists
stick one in the middle of a fire the resulting gaseous explosion will spew
an accelerated fireball across the room.
I don't know much about this, and I was basing my argument on things
I've read that indicated that the canisters weren't likely to explode.
Looking a bit further, this  would seem to suggest that the
canisters *could* have exploded, if they'd done things like wound down
a window to give the fire some air. That also fits in with your
argument about arsonists - there's more air in a room than in a car,
especially if the arsonist leaves a window open. Interestingly,
though, the expert quoted also says "Even if those tanks exploded,
they don't burst apart into thousands of pieces of shrapnel. They tend
to break apart at the seam."
> If they did explode, I'm far from convinced that it would go
> 5" concrete wall - explosions have very poor armour-penetrating
> performance (except in the special case of HEAT/HESH rounds, which are
> far from simple explosions). Consider that a flak jacket (light enough
> to be worn) is generally proof against shrapnel, and that's a lot
> thinner & lighter than a 5" thick wall.
I've seen a couple of H&S training films where they've demonstrated it but
hey maybe they was Spielberg's movies?
I wouldn't put it past people making training films to exaggerate the
effects of something in order to make a point. I've seen training
films that showed how things *could* go, but failed to point out that
it'd only go that way if a long series of unlikely events all went in
just the right way.
There is a difference you know, the Glasgow attempt was not a bomb in
sense you are thinking of this was just petrol and gas cylinders while there
would have been an explosive sound and some residual percussion damage the
main emphasise was fire.
If there's not much explosion, and the main effect is fire, doesn't
that affirm my belief that it'd be unlikely to damage the
planes/whatever beyond the walls?
True you have a point regarding the fire services
however as always happens in these types of things you'll probably find they
are geared up for runway stuff rather than terminal buildings which in turn
would/might create a delay giving the fire more chance to take hold.
I suspect you may be right - I don't know, but it seems reasonable to
assume that they're primarily geared up for runway accidents.
:-) I remember the likes of Bada Minhoff (Probably spelt wrong)
they we're not very international.
I vaguely remember the various terrorist groups of the 1970's, and
I've read a fair bit about them. I can't help feeling that the threat
then was at least as great as it is now, but people seemed a lot less
What really bothers me is that people seem to be so scared of
*everything* these days. Unlikely risks seem to be blown out of
proportion, while likely risks are ignored. I'm sure it's always
happened, but it seems more extreme these days.