London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

Andy K · Jun 11, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Same idea, we are supposed to stand there and takes whats coming, looking t the all powerful authorities for solutions (which there rarely are).

I don't see the problem. If I am mugged or assaulted, as I lie robbed, bleeding, battered and unconcious in the gutter, I can be happy in the knowledge that a policeman saw the whole incident, while sitting safe and sound in some police 'Control Centre', on a monitor via CCTV, and that the incident will be useful as filler on some 'real crime' late night tv show. :rolleyes:

Tom Stanworth · Jun 11, 2005

Andy K said:
I don't see the problem. If I am mugged or assaulted, as I lie robbed, bleeding, battered and unconcious in the gutter, I can be happy in the knowledge that a policeman saw the whole incident, while sitting safe and sound in some police 'Control Centre', on a monitor via CCTV, and that the incident will be useful as filler on some 'real crime' late night tv show. :rolleyes:

Well at least this principle has been well communicated to the public by the govt. Gotta hand it to them [slow clap].

Tom

Rock Poper · Jun 13, 2005

had a day a few weeks back when I was asked to move on twice in one day - and then a week later again...

first one was looking through a new lens on my RZ at the engineering school at uni, security guard asked what I was doing - "well i;m looking through my camera" I replied - apparently they have had complaints about "people taking photos" - I told him he should instead head down to the photography dept at fine arts, and he'd have a field day ... not received well at all, he asked for my student ID (without giving it he would have escorted me out pronto) and then radioed back to his station or whatever and mentioned i had a 'spy type' camera (an RZ!) - this had all taken so long i had to leave anyway...

couple of hours later same thing happened down in town - too boring to talk about - blue suited little parasite bureaucrats with their belts'n'radios and badges ugh! - the false sense of security that these guys perpetuate only increases the irrational fear in the first place... (speaking from New Zealand, that is)

anyways, great thing with the RZ (and others) is that you can shoot from the hip and still get an ok glance at the viewfinder, and also a good trick for removable backs is to pull them off with the dark slide in, and point to the steel slide itself and say "don't worry, theres no film in it anyway"

>> grin <<

gbroadbridge · Jun 14, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
To be fair, what they were suggesting was that kitchen knives should be made without points. It probably won't happen anyway, but it would in fact be little hardship to use this type of utensil (when did you last need to stab a carrot?) and might just save the odd life or two.

Thank goodness no one's thought of banning sharpening tools that may just perhaps be used to sharpen knives.

Gee, I can turn a butter knife into a pointy steak knife in less than 10 mins with a diamond stone.

Oops, shouldn't have said that. Now I'm going to have to squirrel away my sharpening stone, and only use licensed knife sharpeners in future.

Graham.

TPPhotog · Jun 14, 2005

PANIC !!!!! I just realised that I have a HB Pencil and sharpener in my camera bag. I could run riot and cause someone an injury :rolleyes:

Ed Sukach · Jun 14, 2005

Two "Anti-Terrorist" ai travel regulations, especially, make NO sense:

1. Nail clippers are forbidden!!!
What??? Fly this plane to (choose destination here) or I will pinch you with these nail clippers?

2. "Explosives in shoes":
Two possibilities: THe explosive is so sensitive that it may be detonated without blasting caps; or, blasting cap(s) will be imbedded in the charge.
Either way, the last place on earth anyone, including a "terrorist" would want to have sensitive explosives is in the soles of their shoes. Why take off the shoes? Just instruct suspicious types to jump up and down a couple of times, and see what happens.
What a mental image - A terrorist trying to decide whether it is better to surrender to authorities, or to try to escape by running on blasting cap laden shoes.

Andy K · Jun 14, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
blasting cap laden

A relative?

Seriously, a British man has already boarded a flight with explosives in his shoes, with the intention of detonating them in flight. He was foiled when he was caught trying to set light to his shoes in the toilet.

Tom Stanworth · Jun 14, 2005

Andy K said:
A relative?

Seriously, a British man has already boarded a flight with explosives in his shoes, with the intention of detonating them in flight. He was foiled when he was caught trying to set light to his shoes in the toilet.

Yes he is known as 'the shoe bomber'. I think it was an air france flight from paris. The swines name is Robert Reid. He was caught when he tried to light the fuse with some matches. He failed the first time, someone spotted him and he was bundled by quick thinker. Very, Very lucky. His heel contained enough to down the plane, no problem. Hopefully he spends the rest of his life in utter misery. The device was inspected and would have functioned....

Ed Sukach · Jun 14, 2005

Andy K said:
A relative?
Seriously, a British man has already boarded a flight with explosives in his shoes, with the intention of detonating them in flight. He was foiled when he was caught trying to set light to his shoes in the toilet.

I'm familiar with that episode. Idiot-ness beyond comprehension.
One has to realize how much *smoke* is involved in the burning of time fuse. I once attended a class in demolitions where a *brilliant* Second Lieutenant lit a length of time fuse indoors!!! We did not - COULD not stay indoors for more than thirty seconds. We could barely see well enough to leave.
If it was a bona fide terrorist attack, electric blasting caps would have been used --- but see that message ... *no way* could electric blasting caps be considered viable in the soles of anyones shoes. One step - or maybe two or three with extraodinary luck - and - no shoes - and - probably - hamburger for feet.
Really doubtful that the amount of explosives that could be placed in shoe soles could have a material effect of the structure of an aircraft, anyway.

Ed Sukach · Jun 14, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
His heel contained enough to down the plane, no problem.....

We used to "practice" with semi-dummy anti-personnel mines containing one-half pound of TNT. A trainee not paying attention would set one of these off and probably be deafened for a period of time, but without shrapnel or such, there was no real danger from that mount of explosives. Forget the James Bond idea of blowing up a bridge with the explosives contained in a fountain pen ... It will NOT happen.

The Homeland Security people (???) or whoever they were - ran a "test" where an aircraft fuselage was destroyed by an internal explosives blast. At the time, they inferred that it was the same amount of explosives contained in Reid's shoes -- BUT -- later on, they broke down and admitted that the charge was FAR greater - something like twenty or thirty POUNDS (twenty or thirty pound shoes??) and they had taken something of a "poetic license" for effect..

Like I've said, pure Idiot-ness.

Flotsam · Jun 14, 2005

Thank goodness he didn't have a _real_ deadly weapon, like a camera, with him.

Tom Stanworth · Jun 14, 2005

the ability of explosives to do the job depends where they are placed, how it is contained and what sort of explosive was used. 750g will be plenty enough to do the job if it is the right explosive in the right place (I was under the impression he was in a window seat. Foot against fuselage perhaps as thats where mine would have been if I was him? Dont forget the plane is doing 500mph at altitude.... tho I have no idea what the explosive was - use of a incandescent fuse seems strange tho....

TNT is nothing compared to some military materials, which altho not james bond-like have incredible burn speeds and thus blast effect. Regular commericial TNT is pedestrian in comparison, but cheap and more readily available.

I am sure we have an army engineer with recent experience who can shed light on the potency of C4, semtex etc. My experience is limited to firepower demos. I have seen tiny amounts off british stuff do amazing things.

Ed Sukach · Jun 14, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
I am sure we have an army engineer with recent experience who can shed light on the potency of C4, semtex etc. My experience is limited to firepower demos. I have seen tiny amounts off british stuff do amazing things.

Well, I can't claim recent experience, but I was one of those, once.
We used a LOT of TNT... Our "mainstay explosive" ... and our favorite, Bangalore Torpedos (??? never thought of this before .. they WERE called "torpedos"..!?).

I've talked to a few current Combat Demolition Specialists over the years - one of my granddaughters has had quite a bit of explosives training (Marines), and apparently there isn't a whole lot of difference between then and now. The only MAJOR difference is that they use a LOT of "Body Armor" now when clearing minefields. We used to pray - a lot.

750 grams ... 3/4 kilo. Maybe, if well tamped. Running shoes are not efficient tamping material, especially when on someone's feet.

Ole · Jun 14, 2005

I thought the "shoe bomb" was more like 25g? It should still be sufficient to threaten the structural integrity of a commercial airliner in flight...

Like Ed, in my army training we used LOTS of TNT. They always emphasised that placement was more important than amount, but as soon as we got to the practical exercises we just used as much as we could cram in. Most of the targets were demolished to "military standard" - i.e. not a trace left.

Tom Stanworth · Jun 14, 2005

Ole said:
I thought the "shoe bomb" was more like 25g?

If so, why bother. Prosthetic legs are expensive.

Like Ed, in my army training we used LOTS of TNT. They always emphasised that placement was more important than amount, but as soon as we got to the practical exercises we just used as much as we could cram in. Most of the targets were demolished to "military standard" - i.e. not a trace left.

Armies are the same the world over, evidently.

Flotsam · Jun 14, 2005

All I know is, that at a very bad time in this country, the news that that plot was disrupted and all the people on that airliner landed safely and went home to their families gave me a much needed boost. Imagine the alternative.

Thank God for the good endings.

arigram · Jun 14, 2005

Ole said:
Like Ed, in my army training we used LOTS of TNT. They always emphasised that placement was more important than amount, but as soon as we got to the practical exercises we just used as much as we could cram in. Most of the targets were demolished to "military standard" - i.e. not a trace left.

Never piss off a chemist with army training of explosives!

Ole · Jun 14, 2005

arigram said:
Never piss off a chemist with army training of explosives!

Andy K · Jun 14, 2005

"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

127 · Jun 15, 2005

Some TV show preasurised the inside of a (scrap) 727 to simulate altitiude, then shot a bullet (via remote control) inside the plane - no effect. They then fired it at a window - holed window, no effect. They then used explosives to blow out the window - no window, no other effect. They then used a LOT of explosive, and it finally had a very spectactular effect - however the conclusions were pretty self evident: it takes a LOT more to take down a plane than you might think.

Ian

Andy K · Jun 15, 2005

127 said:
Some TV show preasurised the inside of a (scrap) 727 to simulate altitiude, then shot a bullet (via remote control) inside the plane - no effect. They then fired it at a window - holed window, no effect. They then used explosives to blow out the window - no window, no other effect. They then used a LOT of explosive, and it finally had a very spectactular effect - however the conclusions were pretty self evident: it takes a LOT more to take down a plane than you might think.

Ian

As has been proved by the Aloha Airlines plane which landed safely after losing a large chunk of it's fuselage in flight. See picture.

noseoil · Jun 15, 2005

Small planes are made differently than large commercial jets. The small plane, like a high wing monoplane, has a completely different structure than a 747. The picture Andy posted is a good example of structural integrity. You can see how the keels (similar to the backbone of a ship, longitudinal members to which ribs are connected, then the skin) function without the skin's support.

The aircraft in question had a problem with corrosion, which caused a catastrophic failure of a part of the airframe and skin during flight. It's amazing to me that the ship didn't fold and crash on landing, but I would wager a large stout against a small pilsner that the pilot's pucker factor was 10.0 on touchdown. tim

London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

Andy K

Tom Stanworth

Rock Poper

gbroadbridge

TPPhotog

Ed Sukach

Andy K

Tom Stanworth

Ed Sukach

Ed Sukach

Flotsam

Tom Stanworth

Ed Sukach

Ole

Moderator

Tom Stanworth

Flotsam

arigram

Ole

Moderator

Andy K

127

Andy K

noseoil

London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency