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.

 

TERRORISM: Divers find explosives in harbor near L.A

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
its working see all the differnt theories which eventually leads to wide spread paranoia and fear.




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Yes its good fear factor to remind people that there is a terror war going on. There's a few ways to look at it

1, Terrorists planted them and didnt have a chance to go off
2, would be if I could be terrorists planted them
3, Idiots with nothing better to do and no brains dropped them or planted them
4, or they were planted to keep the fear factor of terrorism hyped up using innuendo.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A cell signal can set off an IED. Especially when you're dealing with blasting caps


only if that IED is rigged to a cell phone, and then only if you accidentaly dial the cell phone number.

Cell phones dont set off blasting caps. Blasting caps use less than stable materials, however static is more of a concern than cell phones.

Why were cell phones shut off? Makes it look like a bigger deal then it is.

Has anyone concidered that they may not have been placed to rig stable exposives to later, but infact were the main explosives? With a proper directional set up couldnt they, even with the small blast, make a kind of water charge?

[edit on 13-1-2006 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Uhm, no. I used to work at the airport, and we had several incidents where screeners found what might have been an explosive device, and the first thing we were told was no cell phones and no radios, because the EM from the antenna could set it off. It had nothing to do with if it was rigged to a cell phone and you call the number. Cell phones and radios give off and EM field, and if they're strong enough, they can cause the IED, or even blasting caps to go off.

And yes, we were told this by the guys that used to work the bomb squad, and were working with the dogs at the airport, so I think they sort of knew what they were talking about.

[edit on 1/13/2006 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 1/13/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
only if that IED is rigged to a cell phone, and then only if you accidentaly dial the cell phone number.

Cell phones dont set off blasting caps. Blasting caps use less than stable materials, however static is more of a concern than cell phones.



No, if you lived anywhere with mountains of bedrock, anytime you pass through a road constuction project (where they have to blast to widen the road) there are always signs posted to turn off your cell phones. This is a common given. There is a danger of signals emitted from any cell phones anywhere explosives are being used. Zap is right.

[edit on 1/13/2006 by Relentless]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
A similiar series of events happened in Australia a few months back.

In the span of the weeknight dinner time news we had:

Melbourne: An empty eski (cooler) shut down a major city road while the bomb squad sent a robot in to find it was empty and probably left there when the drunk guy stumbled home.

Canberra: A major road heading into Parliment district was shut down as a 'white van' was parked on the side of the road. Again, everyone was called in and a big fuss was made. Turns out it was a white van parked on the side of the road, nothing more.

Adelaide: The Adelaide airport was shut down when some white powder was found on a bag. Everyone was cleared out and the bio squad was called in. Turns out it was washing soap which had been popped by the rough bagage handlers.


All seemingly average scenarios which were all presented as 'possible terrorist inncidents' and let all the News Reporters try on their 'worried but still informatively-serious' voices.

I think we got some new terror laws for the effort.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
1. Blasting caps alone would do little more then make a pop against metal (unless your talking hundreds)

2. Caps are always placed last because they are the most unstable, and because they can become useless quickly in the wrong conditions. (Many caps wont fire for crap in humid areas)

3. Cell phones still arent proven to trigger explosives at all, its a old myth that took root.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

The blasting circuit can behave like an antenna, much like the antenna for a radio, and can convert electromagnetic waves into electrical current. If sufficient energy is created, the detonator(s) can function. A number of factors need to be considered: the length and arrangement of the detonator and extension wires and their relative angle to the waves (efficiency as an antenna); the power of the transmitting device; the distance between the transmitting device and the blasting circuit; and the frequency that is used by the transmitting device.



The AM and FM radios in cars are receivers and do not constitute a hazard. Cellular phones pose a unique problem in that when they are turned on but not in use, they are interrogated several times per hour by a cell transmitter to determine whether they are within the range of the cell and if they are on. A cell phone that is turned on replies and this may pose a hazard.
Accidents have been attributed to transmitters being too close to the blasting circuit.

www.cilasse.com...

That's from the American Society of Safety Engineers. They sent the question about cell phones and explosives to Ron Vandebeck, who was the labratory manager of the Canadian Explosives Research Labratory. I think I'll take his word that cell phones are a hazard in blasting. If he says they are, and the bomb squad says they are, then the chances are that they are.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Like Xerrog said, an old myth. Error on the side of caution kind of thing, nothing wrong with it, but that doesnt make it true. Kinda like how people shut off cell phones at gas stations; it has been debunked, however people still get mad if they see you talking on a cell phone while pumping gas.

Talk on cell phones all you want near blasting caps, I have (and have observed others doing it as well) just dont apply heat, spark or chew on them (dont ask me why, but people have, people who no longer have a jaw.)

That said, one common way of rigging IEDs is with a cell phone or two way radio as a detonater. They dail the number or mash the button at the right time and half the time it works.

If cell phones set off explosives, we could have just driven around in tanks talking on cell phones and clearing routes of IEDs.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
And I'm not saying it will everytime. I'm saying that it CAN. And I'm sorry, but I'm gonna take the word of someone that is fairly highly placed in an explosives lab any day. I think it's safe to say he'd have an idea on whether this was a myth or not.

Oh, and for the record, a cell phone has to be within about 10 feet, due to the low power of the transmitter, according to the memo I linked to.

[edit on 1/13/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Ok I'll concede that in theory its possible a active cell phone will trigger blasting caps.

In practice however its another thing where you have a much better chance of dieing from taking a shower then even injuring yourself from this.

Anyway.. it has little to do with the fact that someone placing blasting caps somewhere is a huge leap from actually doing any real damage.

Blasting caps placed outside before the explosives (even overnight) would have a very very high chance of being duds by the time you place the explosives. Anyone even slightly trained in explosives would know that.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
Blasting caps placed outside before the explosives (even overnight) would have a very very high chance of being duds by the time you place the explosives. Anyone even slightly trained in explosives would know that.


Which begs the question, are we focusing on the wrong take? Meaning does the finding of these in the harbor indicate a particular plan to endanger others via the harbor, or an attempt to dispose of incriminating evidence. In which case, why did the person who left them there dispose of them? What was their original intent in the use of them, and this may be the real story.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join