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.

 

Man with bullet parts arrested at Miami airport

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleIndianJr.
So were they percussion caps for black powder, or were they cartridge primers?

Percussion caps pop fairly easily.

A few years back my cousins Great Dane got a percussion cap stuck on his tooth (God knows how) and when he bit down on it it popped the tooth it was on out and cracked the tooth next to it. (not to mention scared the s out of everybody in the room)
edit on 28-12-2010 by LittleIndianJr. because: spelling


Example of why not to underestimate the amount of force in pounds per square inch humans can exert with their sometimes sharply pointed teeth. Just like a firing pin, no?

Just looked it up here.

It says humans average 162 pounds per square inch. Guess that's enough to set off a primer if you are really stupid enough to put one in your mouth and bite down on it.

edit on 12/29/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I have a few thousand primers in my shop right now, large and small rifle and pistol primers, even some magnums.

I can sling those things against the concrete floor or steel beams until Gabriel blows his horn, and not one of them will explode, and sympathetic explosions would be impossible.

Impossible because the first one isn't going off.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
i think its obvious that this is another ' false flag story" . thank you very much!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


Tristar, if a baggage handler placing the bag on the ground caused the detonation of the primers, then assuming it made it to the cargo hold, it WOULD have gone off just as easily in turbulance or during landing. The only thing that can be left to question is what damage it would have done, and that would have been largely dependant on what was packed around the bag, how tightly it was packed, and so on.
Another poster makes a very good point, surely this baggage should never have been able to make it through the customs checks, scanners, xray machines and so on, that luggage is subject to at an airport? How can the government of the US justify putting people through pat downs and body scans, without ensuring that the simple checks on suitcases and baggage are foolproof?
There may be no connection to terrorism with this particular incident, but you can bet anyone who does fancy some airbourne carnage is thinking they can get the weapon of choice through in thier luggage now ! What a bloody disgrace !



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
As someone who grew up taking ammunition apart, making low grade explosives, and having too much time on his hands, I can say that I have a great deal of experience playing with primers. I have hit primers with a hammer without them going off, I have tried throwing them at brick walls.

Now, I do my own reloading and have technical experience with ammo manufacture. Without a direct rapid pressure over a small area of the primer, it can't go off. The story is bull$^$#, to what end the lie was made is another story.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Elieser
 


I reload.

This guy was an absolute idiot and deserved to be arrested. Primers are not USUALLY dangerous (if handled correctly) BUT I'd hate to see what would happen in a pressurized cabin. They dont ship these things via air even if you order them. Big Brown Truck delivers these jewels.

I do agree with the previous posts about primers being stable and the 0% chance of sympathetic ignition. I shoot black powder also from a 1860 army. I've never had its other chambers do this and its a possibility.

but yeah. this proves the point of the pilot thats getting hammered right now for posting that the tsa is alot of BS
edit on 29/12/10 by felonius because: add



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
There was a guy in middle PA who reloaded his bullets, or whatever its called.. and he had a small explosion. The police showed up, told his neighbors to evacuate, and then confiscated all of his gun powder and charged him as a terrorist. pretty beata.. I'd link a source but heard it from my friend who is friends with his neighbor.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by tristar
 


Tristar, if a baggage handler placing the bag on the ground caused the detonation of the primers, then assuming it made it to the cargo hold, it WOULD have gone off just as easily in turbulance or during landing. The only thing that can be left to question is what damage it would have done, and that would have been largely dependant on what was packed around the bag, how tightly it was packed, and so on.
Another poster makes a very good point, surely this baggage should never have been able to make it through the customs checks, scanners, xray machines and so on, that luggage is subject to at an airport? How can the government of the US justify putting people through pat downs and body scans, without ensuring that the simple checks on suitcases and baggage are foolproof?
There may be no connection to terrorism with this particular incident, but you can bet anyone who does fancy some airbourne carnage is thinking they can get the weapon of choice through in thier luggage now ! What a bloody disgrace !


I guess and although i am slightly off topic, the moment an individual decides to board an aircraft with items that will obviously raise alert level within the airport security then he alone should also be ready to deal with what ever the outcome. The fact is, in these days, all airports across the globe are extremely sensitive to such outcomes.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 



BUT I'd hate to see what would happen in a pressurized cabin. They dont ship these things via air even if you order them.


They do ship munitions via air and it is no big deal. Cabins are typically "pressurized" to about 18,000 feet, which means the air pressure in a cabin is still lower than on the ground, but as the plane gains altitude the air pressure stabilizes at about 18,000 feet and doesn't drop any more as the plane approaches 30 or 35k feet.

FBI Agents, Air Marshalls and other Federal Authorites carry loaded weapons on planes routinely.

Primers and Bullets are both shipped in unpressurized cargo holds without incident. I have packed my gun (declared appropriately) in my packed baggage without incident on more than one occasion.

Also, for those that are saying these primers were not safe, you are mistaken. Any common aerosal can is much more dangerous than a bullet primer. I have the skin grafts to prove it! I have never in my life seen a bullet explode accidentally, but I have seen several aerosal cans, lighters, and other household items do major damage for freakish accidental reasons.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Sounds to me more like evidence that the TSA and others are handling baggage too roughly if they are causing primers to ignite.


I had to laugh when I read what the FBI agent said of the incident. He talked about the bag being "put" on the ground by a baggage-handler.


Anyone knows, if they've ever been to an airport, that baggage-handlers don't just "put" luggage in place. The airlines don't care about personal property. They must recruit these peope from UPS. You should see these greenhorns handle packages. Unprofessional, abusive and destructful should be their motto.
edit on 29/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
. You should see these greenhorns handle packages. Unprofessional, abusive and destructful should be their motto.
edit on 29/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)


Obviously extremely off topic and apologize in advance, but i will and totally agree with you here.





posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by Intelearthling
. You should see these greenhorns handle packages. Unprofessional, abusive and destructful should be their motto.
edit on 29/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)


Obviously extremely off topic and apologize in advance, but i will and totally agree with you here.




I know I went off on a tangent with the comment about UPS, but the real scrutiny shpould be the handlers of the publics property.

They're scrutinizing the man for carrying primers across state borders without a license. If this man had done everything legal, it wouldn't have taken away from the fact that the primers would've discharged anyway by the poor handling of the baggage they'd been secured in.

The entire article diverts attention and responsibity away from the real culprit and lays blame on a man, although he broke the law, who knew primers aren't a major risk factor by themselves.

Like it's been mentioned here, it takes force to set a primer off. Just to "put" a bag down on the ground will not do this. It's obvious that his bag was thrown and the force of its landing started a chain-reaction from 1 primer being discharged.

This is just more fuel for the anti-gun crowd to feed on and carry on with their mission of dis-arming America.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


True about the diversion to the man's "crime," but it doesn't end there. It is virtually impossible that any amount of force caused the primer to explode, and virtually impossible again that it would have set off a chain reaction of the other primers. The whole story wreaks of some other intention. Why would this make news? Why would the story be imbellished? Why would the focus be on the man? Why would "interstate commerce" be involved if he wasn't selling the primers?

There is some larger agenda at play.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by Intelearthling
. You should see these greenhorns handle packages. Unprofessional, abusive and destructful should be their motto.
edit on 29/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)


Obviously extremely off topic and apologize in advance, but i will and totally agree with you here.




I know I went off on a tangent with the comment about UPS, but the real scrutiny shpould be the handlers of the publics property.

They're scrutinizing the man for carrying primers across state borders without a license. If this man had done everything legal, it wouldn't have taken away from the fact that the primers would've discharged anyway by the poor handling of the baggage they'd been secured in.

The entire article diverts attention and responsibity away from the real culprit and lays blame on a man, although he broke the law, who knew primers aren't a major risk factor by themselves.

Like it's been mentioned here, it takes force to set a primer off. Just to "put" a bag down on the ground will not do this. It's obvious that his bag was thrown and the force of its landing started a chain-reaction from 1 primer being discharged.


I understand and agree with you in part. Lets not deceive ourselves that primers can be used as multiple methods of detonation, either physical or remote, so the topic as for primers is a touch n go, although logic indicates otherwise.

But i feel i must stress the point, why the hell would one decide to what has been done. ?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


From the article:

hundreds of bullet primers -- a key component of bullet cartridges


Specifically "bullet primers." These are only detonated by a precise strike of a firing pin. These are not blasting caps, or remote primers. They are not dangerous, even if they all detonated at once (like the story says they did) it still couldn't do any damage (obvious from the baggage handler's story).

I see why authorities might want to check it out, but once they determined there was no connection to terrorism, and no plot for violence, and seemingly no danger, they did not have to charge the man, and in reality they should have probably charged the baggage handler! He is the one that set them off through his unsafe work practices!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I had no doubts as to the safety of "fixed" ammo. Thats about as tight as you can get (better be
).

I stand corrected as far as shipping. a lot of adds I've seen just say no air freight. I assumed.


I'm REEEALLY curious as to what the heck could have set these off! These things are usually in a plastic "pill box" that have individual pockets for each primer. I think you could literally hammer a pack and still might not set them off.

The old fulminated mercury types MIGHT have because they were more sensitive...at least the fulminate was by itself. Not as bad as nitro of course.

I've vaccumed up god knows how many live primers that got dropped on the carpet. Nary a peep.

but back to the fulminate primers...

were the heck would you find those? Being their corrosive, why would you?

The guy was still an idiot for not declaring them if he didnt. At least they could make whatever "FAA" requirements. Kind of an "ammo locker" or whatever.

I'm with you getready though. Something is fishy about this.
edit on 29/12/10 by felonius because: add



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2


If you were speaking farsi, praying to allah and looking like something crazy, then yeah, i'd be concerned.
i dont get this argument, i see people praying to god all the time on planes. this one time a woman that was sitting next to me was rocking and praying with her eyes closed like the entire trip. im sure if you were sitting next to her you wouldn't have thought anything of it either, but why does it change when they are praying in another language? arabic to be specific? now we got a potential terrorists on our hands, why is that?
edit on 29-12-2010 by abcddcba because: i have my raisins.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 


the argument is pretty simple, but you have to go back and read the chain of posts in order to get it.





posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 



but why does it change when they are praying in another language? arabic to be specific? now we got a potential terrorists on our hands, why is that?


Honestly? I mean, I get the political correctness of your statement, but where is the honesty? #1, if someone is praying in another language, you don't know what they are saying, so it is a little troubling. #2, how many Christians believe in suicide missions? (The answer is zero, suicide is a sin, not an honor.) #3, what other religion or language is known for bringing down airplanes?

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with profiling. It is good, decent, logical, law enforcement technique. If a tall, black, male snatches a purse, why would we search every child and grandmother? Why not look for tall, black, males? If dozens of Muslims bring down airplanes immediately after praying to Allah, why not look out for praying Muslims on Airplanes?

Sure, it is uncomfortable for the rest of the innocent Muslims, and that is unfortunate. If someone matching my description commits a heinous act, and the cops want to check me out, I will be more than willing to help. I want to catch the perpetrator as much as they do, and I don't mind a little discomfort in doing so.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
i never know what chinese people are whispering to each other either yet i dont go around worrying about getting shanghaied or karate kicked in the back of the head when im in china town. i never worry about people praying in other languages an least of all muslims. the only time anyone has ever hear of muslims praying to god before jacking an airplane was 9/11 which is dubious at best, and every other time it was some 9/11 related terrorist attack. conditioning at its finest if you ask me. you were never scared of any muslims praying before 9/11 and im sure you must have heard some muslims somewhere praying prior to that im quite certain since muslims are EVERYWHERE. but you never worry except when you are on a plane? lol.
#2 christians are well known for attrocities, lets not bury our heads in the sand with so much history readily at hand.
#3 i didnt know islam was synonymous with airliner hijackings, "The Nixon Administration in 1973 ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime."(wikipedia: skyjacking) hey look the cia was in on it too, and dozens of planes have been hijacked over the years all by various people from all around the world representing various interest. very few were muslims.
i thought this site was about spreading the truth and denying ignorance? why is there so much fear and hatred here these days. we wont ever progress if you people keep holding on to the BS the govt and media feed you and dont look with your own eyes and think for yourself.

theres no reason you should be afraid of anyone not directly threatening you, people talking a foreign language should not be a cause for **** your pants.

i love how you support racial profiling, yeah so what if a few innocent black people have to end up in jail, as long as we get that one who snatched the purse right? im sure similar words were echoed in germany back in the late 30's, so what a few innocent jews get gassed, as long as we get the evil ones in the process right?
edit on 30-12-2010 by abcddcba because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join