It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Damage of a Truck Bomb

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This photo was taken of Wormwood Street after the IRA detonated a truck bomb in April of 93.

I am really only posting it because I was just so amazed at how much damage it did. How much TNT did it really take in the truck to do all this? Or was it a different kind of explosive?





posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

Home-made fertilizer bomb.

A truck full of it.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman
I think the IRA had access to semtex, a plastic explosive ive heard mention during the troubles....
A lot of stuff was getting blown up with it around the world for a while....maybe still is for all I know...
My thoughts are this is possibly a fertilizer mix too.....the outward force is different....and theres a lot of blown windows at a fair distance....
I hasten to add that the Oklahoma bombing was augmented by explosives within the building to augment the truck bomb outside....
tests conducted at a later date confirmed the truck bomb was incapable of tearing out the front half of the structure....
This photo you have presented also shows the inability of fertilizer to bring down buildings from the street explosion of a large quantity .....





edit on 18-3-2016 by bandersnatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
That is some severe damage- I remember the OKC bombing. it looked similar, maybe not as bad; the bomb was felt 100 miles away!






posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
the cia funded the IRA so they had access to good stuff.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

The blast did little by way of actual structural damage.

It was mostly torpedoing glass fragments and the material of which the truck was made, that got wrecked, as well as non structural elements within the buildings. It was mostly over pressure damage as far as I know.

To do serious structural damage, charges would have had to have been placed on supporting elements of the surrounding architecture. This was not done, so all that actually happened was a number of glaziers got some serious overtime in.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I think the oklahoma bombing shows it better. That picture fills me with horror. It's a great (for lack of any other word) example of the power of these bombs.

I remember looking at it in the newspaper when it happened. Some sick people out there.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

That bomb was an ANFO bomb, ANFO isn't a high explosive itself as it needs a primer to combust in this case probably semtex. The IRA had tons of it courtesy of Qaddafi. ANFO is primarily used in the industrial sector for mining and stuff like that. This bomb was about a ton of the stuff, smuggled in prior to the attack.

1993 Bishopsgate bombing


Although only one person died, a reporter who ignored police warnings to evacuate. It did injure 44 people, destroy a church and create about a billion in damage. Not sure how accurate that price tag is, London is expensive after all


Wiki quote:


The bomb exploded at 10:27 am causing extensive damage to multiple buildings along a significant stretch of Bishopsgate; the cost of repair was estimated at the time at £1 billion.[10][11] Buildings up to 500 metres away were damaged, with 1,500,000 sq ft (140,000 m²) of office space being affected and over 500 tonnes of glass broken.[12][13] The NatWest Tower — at the time the City's tallest skyscraper – was amongst the structures badly damaged, with many windows on the east side of the tower destroyed; the Daily Mail said "black gaps punched its fifty-two floors like a mouth full of bad teeth".[9][10] Damage extended as far north as Liverpool Street station and south beyond Threadneedle Street.[14][15] St Ethelburga's church, seven metres away from the bomb, collapsed as a result of the explosion.[14][16] Civilian casualties were low as it was a Saturday morning and the City was typically occupied by only a small number of residents, office workers, security guards, builders, and maintenance staff.[10][14] Forty-four people were injured by the bomb and News of the World photographer Ed Henty was killed after ignoring police warnings and rushing to the scene.[14][17][18][19] The truck-bomb produced explosive power of 1,200 kg of TNT.[20][21]


A sad, recent time in history. It's still a political problem today with upstarts in IRA linked violence. It's impossible to tell though as it's all smoke and mirrors...The actual IRA have MI6 moles and informants and they know it, it's probably murder figuring out who is ordering who.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The end game for the IRA was to force the hand of the British by causing disruption and mayhem, they were probably hoping the world would think England is a poor place to house a business. They wanted to hurt us fiscally and mentally scar the British public in hopes that they will pressure the government to deal with them diplomatically since militarily is and always will be a bad idea with Ireland.

It never worked. We always came back heavy-handed. The peace process has somewhat worked so far in that the political field is more "open" in Ireland and I'm sure it's EU membership has helped in swathes cementing that process into the future. But the IRA will always exist, I also doubt the end goal has changed either... A unified self-governing Ireland.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: TrueBrit

The end game for the IRA was to force the hand of the British by causing disruption and mayhem, they were probably hoping the world would think England is a poor place to house a business. They wanted to hurt us fiscally and mentally scar the British public in hopes that they will pressure the government to deal with them diplomatically since militarily is and always will be a bad idea with Ireland.

It never worked. We always came back heavy-handed. The peace process has somewhat worked so far in that the political field is more "open" in Ireland and I'm sure it's EU membership has helped in swathes cementing that process into the future. But the IRA will always exist, I also doubt the end goal has changed either... A unified self-governing Ireland.



I was right across the river from the royal festival hall when an IRA bomb went off. It's was LOUD. A split second after the flash. We were all evacuated.

I remember not being allowed to lock my bike up on Oxford Street at Xmas time because the police there told me it could be a bomb.

Crazy times. I don't remember ever being that scared though. I was in my late teens at the time.

Maybe because of growing up with the IRA threat looming over us I am very aware if packages and bags left alone and do not hesitate for a second to ask the whole carriage or people on the platform if it's their bag. Not worth the risk.
edit on 18-3-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

I am aware of their desired aims. I just think they went about it cack handed. I mean, obviously blowing things up was never going to be a good plan, as it was clear to result in remedial measures, most of which were either going to come in the form of lead or a stay at Her Majesties convenience. But given that they chose that route, I never understood why they never did any lasting damage with their big attacks. They could have RUINED those buildings, which WOULD have been too costly to fully repair to their original state. As it was, they wrecked some glazing, worried some gas board officials, and may have caused some leakiness of pipes and taps in the buildings, not to mention causing a big mess.

But it was superficial. If they were serious, you would have thought they would have devised a way to take something important completely off the map, or ruin it beyond reasonable repair!



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: RAY1990

I am aware of their desired aims. I just think they went about it cack handed. I mean, obviously blowing things up was never going to be a good plan, as it was clear to result in remedial measures, most of which were either going to come in the form of lead or a stay at Her Majesties convenience. But given that they chose that route, I never understood why they never did any lasting damage with their big attacks. They could have RUINED those buildings, which WOULD have been too costly to fully repair to their original state. As it was, they wrecked some glazing, worried some gas board officials, and may have caused some leakiness of pipes and taps in the buildings, not to mention causing a big mess.

But it was superficial. If they were serious, you would have thought they would have devised a way to take something important completely off the map, or ruin it beyond reasonable repair!


Interesting take on things. I never though of it like this.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I think that is reasonable. When one is close in proximity to an event like this, the very last thing on ones mind is "well...that seemed a bit half arsed to me!"

Ones mind is occupied by the noise and the shock of the thing, the feeling in your torso as all the organs within it vibrate in sympathy with the ribcage and surrounding skeletal structure. You are neurologically busy at the time, which flavours the way one tends to think about the event in question.

The way I see it, they would have been better off causing such hideous damage to the electrical grid, or the stock exchange infrastructure underground, or the gas mains, that the city ground to a halt for a couple of weeks. With the amount of explosive they had to hand, they could have placed precision charges designed to take out specific pipes and cables, throwing London into the dark ages, for a fairly hefty chunk of time. Back in the day, that would have played merry hell with communications, because more communications methods were hardline reliant back then, as well as being reliant on having a constant powersource.

The issue I always had with what they were doing, is that they always seemed to either pick a target which the establishment did not really care about, or hit it in such a way as deep pockets could solve it. Yes, they killed people right left and centre, and don't get me wrong, the people they hurt and their relatives must have been devastated, and in a sympathetic way I would agree that they were a serious threat to human life. But they never presented themselves as a threat to the stability of our nation, not really. They would have, if they had proved that they could switch off the capital as easily as pressing a button on a detonator, or if they had destroyed the stock exchange or its connections to the outside world, but they never went there, never even got close.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


I like your style kid.....well have need for such talent in future......regards Paddy....



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch

I am a proud citizen of Britain though.

Should my particular manner of thinking ever be needed, it will be deployed in defence of my town, not with the aim of destroying my nation.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I think that is reasonable. When one is close in proximity to an event like this, the very last thing on ones mind is "well...that seemed a bit half arsed to me!"

Ones mind is occupied by the noise and the shock of the thing, the feeling in your torso as all the organs within it vibrate in sympathy with the ribcage and surrounding skeletal structure. You are neurologically busy at the time, which flavours the way one tends to think about the event in question.

The way I see it, they would have been better off causing such hideous damage to the electrical grid, or the stock exchange infrastructure underground, or the gas mains, that the city ground to a halt for a couple of weeks. With the amount of explosive they had to hand, they could have placed precision charges designed to take out specific pipes and cables, throwing London into the dark ages, for a fairly hefty chunk of time. Back in the day, that would have played merry hell with communications, because more communications methods were hardline reliant back then, as well as being reliant on having a constant powersource.

The issue I always had with what they were doing, is that they always seemed to either pick a target which the establishment did not really care about, or hit it in such a way as deep pockets could solve it. Yes, they killed people right left and centre, and don't get me wrong, the people they hurt and their relatives must have been devastated, and in a sympathetic way I would agree that they were a serious threat to human life. But they never presented themselves as a threat to the stability of our nation, not really. They would have, if they had proved that they could switch off the capital as easily as pressing a button on a detonator, or if they had destroyed the stock exchange or its connections to the outside world, but they never went there, never even got close.


Ok. I laughed out loud at your first line. It wouldn't have sounded so funny if an American had said it. Haha.

Yeah. Being next to a bomb blast is interesting. Of course we were perfectly safe as we had the Thames in between but i just remember us all turning to see the flash a split second before the bang was heard and we all instinctively crouched down. All the car alarms also went off. As I said, I was never scared, im fact, I snuck past the police cordon a few hours later to collect my bike from where I'd locked it. The only thing that scared me that night was the guy who followed me in the middle of the Strand and kept calling me "boy"

I think you make some good points. .but i think the reason terrorists don't do what you say would make sense for them to is that they are not interested in crippling the country..they want to cause panic. And a bomb at the Royal Festival Hall or on Oxford Street will be far scarier to Londoners than the power going out for a few days. Look at how NY reacted during their blackout.

A picture of half a building missing or a street showered in glass is much better propaganda for them than people helping their elderly neighbours during a blackout.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bandersnatch

I am a proud citizen of Britain though.

Should my particular manner of thinking ever be needed, it will be deployed in defence of my town, not with the aim of destroying my nation.


Same. I might be lebanese from birth but ive lived in London for over 30 years and i certainly would fo anything for this country and city.....well maybe not London. Getting a bit sick of the prices of things here



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

But with the power out and the infrastructure destroyed, it would not be mere hours, but days, perhaps weeks until the power was reconnected. During that time, the night would belong to whomever could make the best use of the shadows.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: 3danimator2014

But with the power out and the infrastructure destroyed, it would not be mere hours, but days, perhaps weeks until the power was reconnected. During that time, the night would belong to whomever could make the best use of the shadows.



Maybe I'm not as pessimistic as you. No offense intended. But i don't believe that the city would become a free for all of crime. I honestly think people would work together and help each other out.

Honestly. Look into the NY blackout of 5 or so years ago. It worked out fine.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes but with a city blacked out, it would be easier for more incidents to be set up. The moment the power comes back on, another blackout comes up. Why? New attack vector. It would have cost the city billions in lost revenue, and more than that in loss of face on the wider economic front.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join