A Question for Explosives Experts

[sophia8]

Yesterday, the UK's Independent On Sunday ran an article on the July 7th London bombings. And it looks like we might have a UK version of Loose Screws developing here - the article was implying that things were being covered up.
Anyway, what specifically caught my attention was this statement:

Furthermore, the substance that the bombers were said to have mixed from household products - TATP - produces neither flame nor heat upon detonation. But eyewitnesses reported both.

Is this true? Is it possible for an explosive not to prouce heat?

 

[Hellbound]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TATP

The explosive decomposition of TCAP, in contrast, results in "formation of acetone and ozone as the main decomposition products and not the intuitively expected oxidation products." [1] It is the rapid creation of gas from a solid that creates the explosion. Very little heat is created by the explosive decomposition of TCAP. Recent research describes TCAP decomposition as an entropic explosion.

So it is true that TCAP produces little heat. However, it produces acetone, and the blast can easily cause other things to ignite (electricla equipment that is damaged and throws sparks, etc), and acetone burns pretty well.

More available under entropic explosions.

Of course, witness statements are secondary to actual physical evidence. Was there heat, or was this simply imagined by witnesses who expect (duer to TV and movies) that explosions are acompanied by lots of flame and heat? Was there evidence of heat-blasting in the area? How many people had experienced explosions before, and knew what level of heat to expect?

 

[gumboot]

Of course, witness statements are secondary to actual physical evidence. Was there heat, or was this simply imagined by witnesses who expect (duer to TV and movies) that explosions are acompanied by lots of flame and heat? Was there evidence of heat-blasting in the area? How many people had experienced explosions before, and knew what level of heat to expect?

Just from memory, I don't recall any early eye witness reports mentioning heat. Bear in mind many of them stayed on the trains for a little while. The only really common thing I remember them describing is a loud bang, lots of smoke, and screaming. Those three things were mentioned over and over again. I honestly can't recall a single person specifically talking about heat OR flames.

(Many, IIRC didn't even think it was any sort of bomb until they found out later)

-Andrew

 

[Hellbound]

Just from memory, I don't recall any early eye witness reports mentioning heat. Bear in mind many of them stayed on the trains for a little while. The only really common thing I remember them describing is a loud bang, lots of smoke, and screaming. Those three things were mentioned over and over again. I honestly can't recall a single person specifically talking about heat OR flames.

(Many, IIRC didn't even think it was any sort of bomb until they found out later)

-Andrew

Good info

I was simply taking th assertion at face value, to point out that even witnesses describing heat or flames are likely to be wrong, especially if they were not facing the blast or came on the scene later. Even those close enough and looking in the right direction would be colored by their expectations of an explosion.

The physical evidence should trump this readily. IN the witness vs. evidence battle, evidence wins.

 

[geni]

And it looks like we might have a UK version of Loose Screws developing here

Been going for a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings

 

[Lucky]

sophia8: I am completely staggered by your description of the article, and find it difficult to believe that you actually read it. It says nothing even remotely resembling what you imply. The authors accept without question that the bombers were who we all know them to have been, and that they were motivated by Islamist fanaticism. The point they are making is that the government, for political reasons, is promoting an unjustifiable line about a small, isolated group of disaffected youths with little connection to organised terrorism, and no intelligence or security failures.

I think they are right about this, and I don’t understand why you find it implausible. The government most certainly is concerned to obscure the disastrous failings in its policies for combating terrorism. These include the insane policy of making our country a safe haven for known Arab terrorists and recruiters (not especially the fault of the present government; it’s been happening for decades), failing to see the job through in Afghanistan, the Iraq invasion etc. The government particularly wants to draw attention away from the criminal lack of resources that our police and defence forces, and security services, have to cope with.

Obviously the article might be wrong about some details. I don’t know whether there’s anything in the suggestion that the explosives weren’t entirely from household ingredients. But it’s presumably true that the Whitehall narrative doesn’t definitely state what the explosives were, which I find somewhat suspicious.

Now, you are right that there is a disgusting Loose Change type of conspiracy theory about the bombings, which claims the bombers were innocent and it was all a plot by the British government, or the New World Order, or some such crap.

But this article isn’t part of it.

 

[sophia8]

sophia8: I am completely staggered by your description of the article, and find it difficult to believe that you actually read it. It says nothing even remotely resembling what you imply.

If you read the article, you'd have seen I was quoting what they attributed to a "terror analyst" who has just written a CT book on the bombings. They don't question anything of what he says at all, even though his statement about TATP is exteremely easy to debunk - as I have just demonstrated.
I am quoting from the print version, which seems a whole lot longer than the online version. I suspect that the online version has been severely edited.

 

[sophia8]

double post

 

[Lucky]

If you read the article, you'd have seen I was quoting what they attributed to a "terror analyst" who has just written a CT book on the bombings. They don't question anything of what he says at all, even though his statement about TATP is exteremely easy to debunk - as I have just demonstrated.
I am quoting from the print version, which seems a whole lot longer than the online version. I suspect that the online version has been severely edited.

I do not care for the politics of the Independent, and I think it is sometimes irresponsible, but I would be quite shocked to find that it is promoting any kind of Loose Change conspiracy theory about the bombings. I'd say that is a very serious claim, and yet you provided no evidence for it.

You say that the original article was a lot longer, so it's possible that the abridged version completely changed the tone and left out some accusations (or hints) that the bombings were perpetrated by the government. I would find that surprising, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong by examining the original article. Perhaps you would provide some quotes from the printed version (in context, please).

The article makes it clear that it is reporting views from a recent book; it’s not claiming to be based on independent investigation. But in any case, the book’s author doesn't believe in a Loose Change conspiracy. That's not what he's saying at all. His claims are quite possibly sensationalised and exaggerated (he has a book to sell), but he is clearly charging the government and the intelligence services with failed policies, spin and secrecy rather than a murderous conspiracy.

I’m not so sure the suggestion that the explosives weren’t made entirely from household products has been 'debunked' (though I do agree that the point about the flames is a weak one). I don't know whether the bombers could have got hold of some military or industrial explosives through al-Qaida contacts. I haven't seen enough evidence to have an opinion, and, it seems from your OP, neither have you. But in that case why do you want to 'debunk' the suggestion? Investigating it would be more to the point.

I do not see a vigorous questioning of the official account (especially concerning possible intelligence and security blunders), and a suggestion that the government is trying to downplay its failings, as any kind of conspiracy theory. Yes, a small bunch of fruitcakes is claiming that our government massacred its own citizens and blamed Islamist extremists, as part of a conspiracy to ..... goodness knows what (I don't understand what goes on in their twisted minds).

And many others are saying that, yes, the primary responsibility for acts of terror rests with those who commit them (and their backers and recruiters), but terrorism cannot be understood simply as the acts of crazed or disaffected individuals, that government actions (or lack of them) over the decades have greatly increased the terrorist threat in this country, and the government is still failing to do enough to repair the damage caused by their previous irresponsible policies.

Can you honestly not see the difference?