| Help Us To Spread The Word. Just click the "Digg It" and "Shout It" buttons! |
![]() |
|
| | home | sign up | news tips | permalink | |
Meanwhile, chemists wonder: How could they possibly have thought they could do this? by Winter Patriot | 23 August, 2006 Part V of a series | Part IV | Part III | Part II | Part I
An enormous investigation continues in Great Britain, where eight people were charged with conspiracy to murder on Monday and lesser charges were laid against three others. All eleven of the suspects who were charged Monday appeared in court on Tuesday. From Monday's account in the Mirror: 11 Charged Over Airline Bomb Plot, police described the alleged evidence as follows: Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said this afternoon: "First there is evidence from surveillance carried out before August 10.As for the charges... Susan Hemming, head of the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division, said: "Eight individuals [Ahmed Abdullah Ali, Tanvir Hussain, Umar Islam, Arafat Waheed Khan, Assad Ali Sarwar, Adam Khatib, Ibrahim Savant and Waheed Aman -- WP] have been charged with two offences relating to an alleged plot to manufacture and smuggle the component parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and assemble and detonate them on board.Tuesday's news reports concerned the arraignment. From the New York Times British Plot Suspects Are Arraigned in Court: A British court today began arraigning the people who have been arrested and charged in connection with a suspected plot to blow up United States-bound airliners.The NYT offers some additional details: The 11 suspects who were charged Monday seemed to be mostly British Muslims of Pakistani descent, but one was identified as Umar Islam, also known as Brian Young, a convert to Islam. Another was Ibrahim Savant, also a convert. Why hydrogen peroxide? It's a key ingredient (the "P") in TATP, which is short for "Tri-Acetone Tri-Peroxide", also known as "Acetone Peroxide". It's the explosive the accused would-be bombers were allegedly trying to mix and detonate aboard airlplanes. According to Global Security dot Org: A new terrorist explosive, triacetone triperoxide (TATP), has recently appeared as a weapon in the Middle East. TATP has been used by suicide bombers in Israel, and was chosen as a detonator in 2001 by the thwarted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. It can be as or more powerful than military analogs. TATP is one of the most sensitive explosives known, being extremely sensitive to impact, temperature change and friction.The graphic at the top of this post shows the chemical structure of TATP. It's probably a familiar diagram to some of our British friends, because last summer -- in July of 2005 -- TATP was allegedly used in the London subway bombings. Philippe Naughton, writing last summer for Times Online, told us TATP is suicide bombers' weapon of choice: In the occupied Palestinian territories, you can tell who the 'engineers' are: they are the ones covered in burn marks who might be missing fingers, or even a whole hand.Thomas Greene in The Register asks: Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.Edgar J. Steele has more on the feasibility angle: A friend with a doctorate in chemistry sent me the following:What can we conclude from this report, if it's true?"According to the official government story, TATP (triacetone triperoxide) was the explosive these conspirators were planning to manufacture aboard the airliners.The technically proficient reading this will recognize that a necessary step has been omitted and some others have been altered in critical ways. None of these purposeful camouflages alter the ingredients or the time, care and equipment required. Nor will I describe how TATP can be fabricated beforehand and then detonated aboard an airliner in flight. After all, though we want to demonstrate the impossibility of what has been claimed, we don't want anybody actually trying this at home... Steele has some ideas: [i]t's impossible to make TATP as claimed, yet still they confiscate liquids from us, including sodas and baby formula, not to mention toothpaste and, even, lipsticks? Even if possible to make TATP as claimed, the individual smells of peroxide, acetone and sulfuric acid are obvious enough to preclude people having to be shaken down and terrorized by the airport Gestapo in this fashion. You have to wonder: Just exactly what is going on?Steele apparently thinks it means there was no plot and Bush and Blair are lying. I'm not about to vouch for their truth-telling skills, but I beg to point out that there are several possibilities at this point. And they seem to fall into three main categories: [1] There was no plot: Bush and Blair are lying. [2] There was indeed a plot but we don't know much -- or anything -- about it because Bush and Blair and many other people are lying. [3] There was indeed a plot and it was exactly as described in the charges, but the alleged plotters were too clueless about TATP to realize that their plan couldn't possibly work...not for one plane, not for one in a dozen, certainly not for a dozen planes simultaneously. If I were investigating this, I would want to look much more closely before I said very much more. But of course there's no need for me to investigate this, because...because...because...did you hear about the mutiny?? Daily Mail [Sunday, August 20] Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed: Passengers refuse to allow holiday jet to take off until two Asian men are thrown off plane[BBC: Sunday, August 20] Passengers explain pair's removal: Passengers on a Manchester-bound flight have described how two men were removed from the plane because other travellers thought they were speaking Arabic.[Mirror: Monday, August 21] Wearing a Coat Doesn't Make You a Terrorist: MUSLIM leaders yesterday blasted British passengers who staged a mutiny on a holiday jet after accusing two innocent Asian men of being terrorists.[Telegraph: Monday, August 21] Jet scare over Asian men 'helps terrorists': An airline yesterday stood by its decision to remove two Asian men from a holiday jet bound for Britain despite criticism from a Muslim group.[National Ledger: Sunday, August 20] Passengers on a Plane: It's clear that this story is much more interesting than the detailed analysis concerning the conditions under which TATP can be mixed, and its prominence in the British press is entirely understandable -- especially since the "mutiny" was largely ignored when it happened on Wednesday, with most of the press coverage coming along several days later. But even the Mutiny of the Airline Passengers became old news very quickly, nudged aside not so much by the charges laid Monday but by something else that happened between England and Pakistan: something much more important. So important, even the New York Times couldn't fail to notice: Cricket Imbroglio Offers Diversion in Britain: For anyone who considers the laws of English cricket to be incomprehensible, or, indeed, for anyone who thought the mildly outraged term “it’s just not cricket” might imply a certain decorum, think again.I certainly have to admit that the NYT got that last bit right, even though I could quibble about some of the rest of their piece. But why bother? Let's get closer to the source: England v Pakistan 4th Test: FOURTH TEST, THE OVAL (DAY FOUR STUMPS)Fascinating, isn't it? I can't get enough of it, myself. I've been thanking my lucky stars that I was able to find a live-blogged report of the fourth day of the match, Day four: How the controversy unfolded, which says: 1414: WICKET Cook lbw bowled Gul 83Did you catch that? A bit of "reverse swing"? What's happening here? 1434: Inzi's not happy about this - the umpires have picked up the ball and are examining it closely."Inzy" is Pakistan's captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq. They call Trevor Jesty on with the box of spare balls, and we could have a diplomatic incident here. They're changing the ball, and that can mean only one thing - the umpires think the Pakistan team have tampered with the ball.Mike Procter is a former great player for Gloucestershire and South Africa, currently a test referee, and in charge of this match. Out on the pitch, Pietersen cracks the new 'old' ball off the back foot for four to move on to 73.and so on... So many questions remain unanswered:
And perhaps most importantly: What will this do to the tour?
A sad sign of the times: you can't tell the cricket coaches from the politicians...
Speaking of politicians... === To avoid commenting on this article, please don't click here.
|
|
|