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.

 

TA-THREATS: Stolen Rheocrete & Stolen Tanker Truck & Stolen Ammonium Nitrate & Missing Fuel Rods

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Someone is checking for me. But this was aparently dry substance in 100 gallon drums.




posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
100 gallon drums or 100 lbs containers?

I've never run accross 100 gallon drums before.


"Rheocrete CNI is available in 55 gal (208 L) drums, 275
gal (1040 L) totes, and by bulk delivery."



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
www.wnbc.com...

watch the movie of the news on it decide for yourself. I think it is not a solid. Hence gallon.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark I've never run accross 100 gallon drums before.
That's what he said. Someone associated with the source. I'll get more information soon. (It seemed odd to me too)



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Rheocrete is Calcium Nitrate, not Ammonium Nitrate...
ammonium is NH4....


No, Rheocrete is Calcium niTRITE. If it was nitrate we would be a lot further down the road in establishing danger or not - nitrate yes, nitrite - who the hell knows! none of us apparently! *
*



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Just to pointing out that there's a difference between a nitrite (non explosive) and a nitrate (possible explosive). One less atom of nitrogen (nitrite) makes a big difference. Some conversion could be done with it, but at that point, it's easier to turn bacon grease into nitro glycerin... but I guess they are vegetarians.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Could it be possible to build an enhanced ammoniun nitrate bomb by using dry calcium/methanol mix at center, would the resultant explosion be greater in intensity, poisonous or produce the oily cloud refered to in earlier postings?



I'll ask him, but I'll probably also have to ask one of the chemists. Like I stated in a RATS thread - the explosives expert is a highly-respected doctor in shape charge design and explosive jet flow dynamics...he's not exactly the right person to ask on potential mixes.

I'll try to find something out.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The video on the site referenced in the first post has been updated since this morning. They obviously went a bit deeper into the story, and aren't using the hazmat expert's interview. This is the label they showed in the video: And this is where it was stolen from: So the thieves needed a tanker truck to remove the liquid rheocrete. Since the stuff is only $4 a gallon, the motive to pilfer it is rather low. The only motive would be to obtain the material without leaving a paper trail. Interesting.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Maybe the nidgets THOUGHT it was calcium nitrate...

piffle.

Okay, there seems to be two major suppliers of calcium nitrite. Masterbuilders and then the middle-east one.

For some reason that bothers me...like maybe these guys know more about it than we do...uggh.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You know...the original story has COMPLETELY changed. Now it is a "large amount" - no pounds, no gallons. And now they are being explicit that it could be a CHEMICAL weapon.

SO, if you were to go off of the latest version of this story, we would not be looking at the substance for explosive properties (which we've pretty much proven), but as a chemical weapon.

BUT, the MSDS does not prove this out. I'm starting to think wnbc needs to get a clue!



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The first-post and thread title have been appropriately modified to reflect the excellent contributions of all our members. I'd like to add that the jury is "still out" on a motive for theft of this material. It's not expensive, and with effort, might still be used as an ingredient in an explosive device... it's just that the effort seems too over-the-top for the potential result.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The tanker was taken from the parking lot of
TK Transport Inc. in Pennsauken, NJ either April 8th or 9th.

The vehicle is described to be a four-compartment tank trailer with TK Transport Inc. embroidered in green on its left and right. It is a recently refurbished model 1996 model T-118 Fruehauf tanker with a New Jersey license plate number T852SC.

OK Heres the pics on the tanker truck from NEIN.


These images are up on Steve Quayle, but forwarded from NEIN.


I note that this 44' tanker has a 9,000 gallon capacity. This is roughly equal to 90% of the capacity of a topped-off Boeing 757-300 commercial airliner (11,489 gallons of aviation fuel). When the aircraft hit the WTC towers on 9/11 they were probably holding the same amount of fuel as this tanker.

The common equation is that 1 gallon of gasoline is equivilent to 14 sticks of dynamite. By extension this single tank has the potential of 126,000 sticks of dynamite. I have also seen a report stating that 1 cup of vaporized gasoline has the explosive force of 5 sticks of dynamite. By extension if a terrorist were to have only 100 gallons of gasoline in this 9,000 gallon tank then that tanker would be equivilent to 8,000 sticks of dynamite.

Sean Osborne, Network Analyst
Northeast Intelligence Network
www.HomelandSecurityUS.com


I have talked to some loacal Law Enforcement in my area, Limerick Nuclear Plant is 5 minutes away, they had no clue as to what I was talking about. If a Nationwide Alert was sent out, why were they not informed? Seeming as a Nuke Plant is minutes away, I think they would have been told. ( I have been giving them free coffee and food at the restaurant I work at, I said even if your are not allowed to elaborate, do you even know? , they replied, this is the first we are hearing about it.

Does anyone know exactly where the chemicals were taken from?


Not to alarm, insinuate, or the like, just could be coincidential.

Picture is taken from Homelandsecurityus.com AKA. NEIN

The title of the story by Analyst Laura Mansfield is "27 April 2004 - Do the militants in Fallujah plan to use chemical weapons on themselves and blame the US?"


It included links to an encyclopedia with step-by-step directions on how to produce and deliver various toxins and poison, including Ricin, various formulations of cyanide, and even Botulinum toxin. The document discusses the minimum effective dosages and also discusses means of delivery, including how to deliver them via transdermal means - through the skin - so that an act as innocuous as touching a doorknob could deliver a lethal dose.


Even though this is said to be used in Iraq, information about this Handbook should be made.




[Edited on 27-4-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Who knows what there next plan is. The scary thing is if they got those dangerous weapons they must have more of them. I am relieved that this tragedy did not happen. I think it another eyeopener to the american public tha we are not safe



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK commercial airliner
I have also seen a report stating that 1 cup of vaporized gasoline has the explosive force of 5 sticks of dynamite. By extension if a terrorist were to have only 100 gallons of gasoline in this 9,000 gallon tank then that tanker would be equivilent to 8,000 sticks of dynamite.



The key word here is vaporized

you would have to have 100 gallons of vaporized gasoline with the perfect air to fuel ratio. Not really an easy trick in an enclosed tank.

I would be more woried if they stole a LPG tanker.


NB

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   



Introduction

IDL Division manufactures Slurry or Watergel Explosives which are special type of explosives carefully formulated to yield optimum energy for breakage. These explosives have ingredients which are non-explosive by themselves but when mixed under certain conditions become explosives. Essentially slurries are a mixture of oxidizer, a fuel and a sensitiser in aqueous medium, thickened with gum and gelled with cross-linking agent. In case of Permitted Slurries, a coolent is added to reduce the incendivity. Slurries have the following distinct advantages over conventional NG explosives.





This exerpt from :
www.gulfoilcorp.com...
gives you any ideas ???




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Well, made a series of phone calls this morning to Master Builders Technologies (Australia) this morning. Noone there seems to think it is of any concern. At least definitely not as a chemical weapon (or explosive additive).

When you review the MSDS it is extremely tame. MSDS's tend to overdo the danger aspect a fair bit. For example read the MSDS on Sodium Bicarbonate (which you will find in most every kitchen). It is quite similar to that for Rheocrete, very tame indeed.

Rather odd that WNBC would go on about this?

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Kano]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 05:29 AM
link   
NB,

Yes, it was quickly decided that this COULD become dangerous if added with acid.

I think I may have finely found a dastardly use for this stuff - and the MSDS bears this one out. The following article is about plans revealed in confessions made by Azmi al-Jayousi, leader of a terrorist cell that Jordan has been using their 'special' interrogation methods on...with wonderful success.

Read this:

"Diabolical al Qaeda terrorists confessed yesterday to plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan with sophisticated chemical bombs that could have wiped out 80,000 people...

The authorities said a group of 10 suspects planned to pack the truck bombs with deadly cocktails of 71 lethal chemicals - including blistering agents, nerve gas and choking agents - and then simultaneously crash them into their targets.

A Jordanian government scientist said the well-trained terrorists - who had acquired 20 tons of chemicals - had planned to combine just the right amount of explosives to spread the lethal clouds without destroying the poisonous chemicals."

The MSDS does state that the fumes of this, if inhaled, can cause respiratory difficulties. And I would assume that if dispersed in an explosion it would be atomized sufficiently to be easily inhaled.

SO...that might be the "chemical weapon" referred to.

And by the way, S.O., note that this plan involved your dirty/sticky cloud


www.nypost.com...

EDIT: So, now we have to take into account the 13,000 lb of ammonium nitrate (a big chunk of which is already soaked with fuel) that has been stolen in the past couple of years, more than one tanker truck over the past couple of years, nuclear rods missing, and a "choking agent"...

so, what else has been lifted? anything else in the "cocktail"?

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hey...

absolute LOL on the ever-changing nature of the title of this thread!

DYNAMIC! MUST...BE...DYNAMIC!



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Just wanted to once again say what a superior news source ATSNN has become, only this morning a week after this story was reported here did I see a broadcast story on Fox news about the missing TK transport tanker trailer, there is as of yet no story on their website that I can find.

ATSNN is consistantly ahead of most news organizations in presenting not only the story but also backround you won't find anywhere else due to the members participation. Kudos



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Fox news about the missing TK transport tanker trailer


I think this was recovered today.

I was flipping, seen it on one of the news programs.
I will find a link. It was in a NJ parking lot.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join