Tuesday, January 16, 2007

NIGEL SWEENEY AND FLOUR & PEROXIDE BOMBS: Incompetent Londonistan terrorists again

Readers of DD blog know that London must have a certain class of incompetent terrorist. Whether they wish to make ricin, other biopoisons or dirty bombs, this class always comes up with ridiculous formulations or impractical processes ending in failure. (Obviously, this is good.) That a number of different bombers succeeded in an attack on 7/7 seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

They are so nuts in this regard one becomes curious as to the provenance of their plans. Where do they get their wretched ideas? (This is a bit of a rhetorical question. Generally, they come from "Pyro home chemistry for young menninnies" forums, semi-popular on the net, as per exampleshere and here.

With GlobalSecurity.Org Senior Fellow T-shirt on, DD can be convinced of the malicious intent of the incompetent but not by any aptitude they have for causing mass death.

The latest news from Londonistan is the case of the flour and peroxide bombers.

Their bombs were a hash -- fizzled and now a half-dozen are in the dock.

Over at Snapping Turtle, Bruce Rolston dubs the flour bombers complete idiots -- it's not too strong a description -- and comments on the formulation of bombs made from over two hundred bottles of drugstore peroxide. Yesterday, "Scare Us, We Love It," DD maintained astonishment that there are still people determined to believe drugstore peroxide is deadly.

"Here's the math, in case you don't get why this is such a joke," writes Rolston. "One story says the plotters purchased exactly 284 bottles of hydrogen peroxide. Pharmacies normally sell peroxide in pint bottles (473mL) at 3% concentration. That means the plotters could well have had 134.3 litres of solution, or the equivalent of 4kg of actual pure peroxide if all the water were to be boiled off and there was no loss."

Further, Rolston explains, "Between the five containers, there then would have needed to be at least 10.5L of concentrated peroxide solution, post-distillation, to make the 'bombs.'

"Do the math and that indicates the peroxide was likely at no more than a 40% concentration when it was mixed with the flour (the remainder being water and other impurities). That level of peroxide isn't even strongly corrosive, let alone explosive."

There's a lot more to the discussion and with the utmost enthusiasm, DD recommends you read it here.

As an intellectual exercise, consider the differences between such bombers -- and the more effective kind on display daily in Iraq where no one uses cooked drugstore peroxide and flour, buddy-boy!

In reporting from the trial, USA Today published an article containing statements from Crown prosecutor Nigel Sweeney. These were repeated across the land's newspapers through the wings of Associated Press.

From USA Today: "Sweeney said [one defendant] had told police that the bombs were 'a deliberate hoax in order to make a political point' and were not intended to kill. But Sweeney said forensic scientists had tested the mixture, and 'in every experiment this mixture has exploded.'"

In the parlance, this is known as a strapped down chicken test, a rigging.

It's another way of saying that scientists are allowed to go forward and make mimic bombs from highly concentrated peroxide and flour, correcting all the intellectual deficiencies and formulations of the terrorists, using lab assets terrorists do not have, to make something work in order that the case be made more convincing in court.

[Sidebar: Can you make a bomb of 70 percent to pure hydrogen peroxide? Yes, the Luftwaffe was good at it. Called T-Stoff, it was mixed with a fuel mixture called C-Stoff, in rocket-assisted takeoff pods used with jet aircraft and short runways. And rather infamously in the Komet, a dangerous in a useless way rocket-powered one-man bomber interceptor. Trivia note: The Komet was even modelled in the WW II air combat flight simulator, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, which DD played regularly, refusing to ever fly the Komet, which was just as awful on PC as it was in real life.]

Readers with long memories may remember Nigel Sweeney from the botched case of the London ricin ring. In it, Sweeney presented the poison recipes of killer Kamel Bourgass.

"These were no playtime recipes ... These are recipes that experts give credence to and experiments show work. They are scientifically viable and potentially deadly," Sweeney claimed.

In matter of fact, Kamel Bourgass's plans were, indeed, "playtime recipes," downloaded from Yahoo servers in California. Copied to paper by hand, and later translated for the court, DD -- who consulted to the defense for this trial -- had the evidence and posted it on GlobalSecurity.Org here where the world was free to see that -- yes, Virginia -- they were the formulations of the utterly incompetent.

So when one hears or reads of prosecutor Nigel Sweeney attesting to matters in which something is claimed to be scientifically viable and deadly, or that other forensic scientists have reverse-engineered a thing that didn't work in the first place, one must always keep in mind that Nigel Sweeney has never been scientifically viable, so to speak.

One can admire and applaud his zeal for the locking up of the murderous but not his grasp of the science of mayhem.

Related: Dhiren Barot, the Londonistan dirty bomber who thought he could make a WMD from smoke-detectors.


Post a Comment

<< Home