Would the 'Pant Bomb' have suceeded?
Posted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:09Ouch!
No more sprouts for you Mr Abdulmutallab
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:09Posted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:58Posted: 04 Mar 2010, 20:28Different type of aircraft, different altitude, with that said, could he have blown a hole in the fuselage, sure, would it have taken the aircraft down, I don't really think so either.
Posted: 05 Mar 2010, 00:34That test would need to be run hundreds of times with different parameters to be able to offer a reasonable conclusion. There are so many factors not catered for.
However, the shell of that plane did survive well in their test.
However, the shell of that plane did survive well in their test.
Posted: 05 Mar 2010, 00:48I'm no expert, but surely having the device in his undercrackers would mean the explosive force was not contained and directed but would have expanded outwards in all directions, taking various parts of himself with it. A bit like setting off black powder in a pile as a opposed to on a musket barrel behind a lead ball.
Posted: 05 Mar 2010, 09:55Surely in a pressurised aircraft at altitude there would be a far different outcome to this?
Posted: 05 Mar 2010, 10:18quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
I'm no expert, but surely having the device in his undercrackers would mean the explosive force was not contained and directed but would have expanded outwards in all directions, taking various parts of himself with it. A bit like setting off black powder in a pile as a opposed to on a musket barrel behind a lead ball.
There was a case a few years ago of an Al Queda 'mastermind' who thought that concealing a bomb INSIDE (!) a man and detonating it next to a Saudi VIP would assassinate him. They discovered that the human body is quite good at containing explosions [:$].
quote:Originally posted by aspence7
Surely in a pressurised aircraft at altitude there would be a far different outcome to this?
I quite agree, it was also quite obvious that if at altitude this test would have led to de-pressurization as the windows clearly lost their seals. That and a weakened infrastructure could have resulted in far different outcomes.
I'm no expert, but surely having the device in his undercrackers would mean the explosive force was not contained and directed but would have expanded outwards in all directions, taking various parts of himself with it. A bit like setting off black powder in a pile as a opposed to on a musket barrel behind a lead ball.
There was a case a few years ago of an Al Queda 'mastermind' who thought that concealing a bomb INSIDE (!) a man and detonating it next to a Saudi VIP would assassinate him. They discovered that the human body is quite good at containing explosions [:$].
quote:Originally posted by aspence7
Surely in a pressurised aircraft at altitude there would be a far different outcome to this?
I quite agree, it was also quite obvious that if at altitude this test would have led to de-pressurization as the windows clearly lost their seals. That and a weakened infrastructure could have resulted in far different outcomes.
Posted: 05 Mar 2010, 13:23quote:Originally posted by aspence7
Surely in a pressurised aircraft at altitude there would be a far different outcome to this?
Yep but the programme that was on TV last night explained the test was done with no pressurisation as at the altitude the bomber was trying to detonate at, pressure would not have been an issue.
Surely in a pressurised aircraft at altitude there would be a far different outcome to this?
Yep but the programme that was on TV last night explained the test was done with no pressurisation as at the altitude the bomber was trying to detonate at, pressure would not have been an issue.