GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Lestat]O-kay. Sorry, I thought you were suspicious they could obtain such large amounts of the stuff...

Well it depends on what they wanted to do, if you want to blow up a large building it might be needed but the logistics involved would be a bit difficult yes, though three tonnes might fit into a large van. I'd imagine they were going for a bombing run maybe (several smaller explosives) or part of it was just in case.[/QUOTE]

Maybe they were against hierarchy and they wanted one each?

One of the news reports said it would be enough for three mcveigh-sized truck bombs. Also, they were apparently 'inspired by al-qaeda', and al-qaeda likes to commit multiple simultaneous attacks.

So, perhaps they were planning to hit three different buildings in rapid succession?

That's a little bit paranoid. Anyway, why shouldn't this sort of thing get mad media coverage? It's how propaganda works: whisper it in lies and scream it in truth, I guess.

[QUOTE=Lestat]@ Fiona & Tony: the advantage of ammonium nitrate is that it is freely available, it's used as fertiliser. That's the problem with some of these bomb makers, the components to make them are freely available since they have a host of legitimate uses and you can't just forbid their sale.[/QUOTE]

There were a group of people in Australia who set out just to prove how easy it was. They purchased the required fertillizer, looked for a good recipe on the internet, then set about making it. They then gained approval to use an abandoned area to detonate it, and sure enough, it worked. Meanwhile, they filmed all this process of making the dirty bomb, as it is called.

This film was distributed, and shown on television by one program, with the names of the fertillizer, the sites accessed and things like that censored.

If I do remember correctly, two things happened
1) Laws were increased, and I believe some of the more dangerous fertillizers now need licenses to purchase
2) The people that did it were charged for a variety of offences:laugh:

[QUOTE=Lestat]@ Fiona & Tony: the advantage of ammonium nitrate is that it is freely available, it's used as fertiliser. That's the problem with some of these bomb makers, the components to make them are freely available since they have a host of legitimate uses and you can't just forbid their sale.

Of course I suppose they spread their purchases of the stuff and even then it might be that a large purchase of it triggered the interest of the police and intelligence services.[/QUOTE]
No, I know it's found in fertilizer that can be bought anywhere (that's why it's a popular choice for homemade bombs) but three tons of it? Are you kidding me? To have that much and still need to mix it with other chemicals to make the explosive? Why do they need all of it?

[QUOTE=Lestat]Dosage for fertilising is in the low hundreds kg/ha, so in terms of farm size in the US and Canada, the purchase of such an amount would not necessarily be suspicious, depending on who is buying.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point as I hadn't thought of it this way, but I just didn't figure they were the farming-types either.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]There were a group of people in Australia who set out just to prove how easy it was. They purchased the required fertillizer, looked for a good recipe on the internet, then set about making it. They then gained approval to use an abandoned area to detonate it, and sure enough, it worked. Meanwhile, they filmed all this process of making the dirty bomb, as it is called.

This film was distributed, and shown on television by one program, with the names of the fertillizer, the sites accessed and things like that censored.

If I do remember correctly, two things happened
1) Laws were increased, and I believe some of the more dangerous fertillizers now need licenses to purchase
2) The people that did it were charged for a variety of offences:laugh:[/QUOTE]

Is that the incident referred to in the first link I posted?

[QUOTE=Fiona]Is that the incident referred to in the first link I posted?[/QUOTE]It would be an awful coincidence otherwise

[QUOTE=Lestat]O-kay. Sorry, I thought you were suspicious they could obtain such large amounts of the stuff...

Well it depends on what they wanted to do, if you want to blow up a large building it might be needed but the logistics involved would be a bit difficult yes, though three tonnes might fit into a large van. I'd imagine they were going for a bombing run maybe (several smaller explosives) or part of it was just in case.[/QUOTE]

I think they were going to make smaller explosives as well. I remember reading somewhere that the Bali bombers (what year was that anyway? 2000, 2004?) used about 1 tonn in their main bomb, and that bomb was huge.

[QUOTE=Fiona]Is that the incident referred to in the first link I posted?[/QUOTE]

Ummmm maybe.

And here I was thinking I was all smart and knowledgeable, now I just look like an idiot because I probably got the facts wrong.

Thanks Fiona.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Ummmm maybe.

And here I was thinking I was all smart and knowledgeable, now I just look like an idiot because I probably got the facts wrong.

Thanks Fiona. [/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to be cheeky, DJ, though it obviously came across that way. It was just the link put such a different spin on it and I wasn't confident in what they were saying as the tone was odd.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Meanwhile, they filmed all this process of making the dirty bomb, as it is called.[/QUOTE]
Hehehe, it would be a dirty bomb if they used organic fertilizer (commonly known as dung)...

Any other dirty bomb involves a (small) quantity of (bio)chemical or nuclear material, IIRC.

Many governments are (or were) happy to sell you their nuclear waste. Strap it to any size of bomb and detonate it in a crowded area. All you need for transport is something big enough for your barrel(s) of waste plus some kind of explosive, which doesn't need to be big.

In conclusion, "we must remain vigilant".

*wonders why it is so hard to convince sheep that the main threat is not the wolf - it is the shepherd*

[QUOTE=Fiona]*wonders why it is so hard to convince sheep that the main threat is not the wolf - it is the shepherd* [/QUOTE]

It's sheep (human) nature

[QUOTE=Fiona]Didn't mean to be cheeky, DJ, though it obviously came across that way. It was just the link put such a different spin on it and I wasn't confident in what they were saying as the tone was odd. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, forget sarcasm doesn't come across well on forums, I did put in the ' '.

I'm joking Fiona, it serves me right for having not checked out the links .