This is, supposedly, the bomb used to take down that Russian airliner. ISIS claimed in their magazine.
How could a bomb this small take down an entire aircraft? I used to pop soda cans with m80s back when I was a kid.
ISIS's recent magazine by the way:
https://ia801502.us.archive.org/14/items/Dabiq12/Dabiq%2012.pdf
note: I'm not ISIS this is just for academic purposes only!
>>27918914
dunno, it seems like if they sat near the wing it would maximize the damage though
>>27918914
Depends on whats in that can. If you puncture the right part of the aircraft you can get big results.
Not always fatal though.
>>27918946
wouldn't it to more damage in the tail, say if detonated in the rear toilets? Even if they could just disable control over it the plane is more or less rendered uncontrollable
>>27918914
Explosives in pressurized environments can do a shit tonne of damage. They said it was equivalent to 1kg of TNT
>>27919082
This. Any fluid under pressure will rip out anything if it finds a way to escape.
There's also the 500mph wind screaming past any opening and doing its best to continue ripping things apart. Even if the air's thin at altitude, it's still moving pretty fast.
>>27918914
Take it as you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyoW6O5ngTI
link is broken
anyone know where i can get my hands on said magazine
>>27920042
google file name
Was it a suicide bomber or a timed detonation? A timed detonation seems risky to me because the plane could always be delayed. Unless they put in some type of altitude device, but that is getting pretty advanced.
>>27920073
now i feel like the police are gonna fly through my window anytime soon
>>27920097
if ops pic is what was used it looks like a suicide bomber.
It's possible if it was put on a control surface like the elevator or rudder, but I dont really see how you could put a soda can on there... Even then, a competent pilot could recover from a destroyed control surface and make an emergency landing.
Calling bullshit
>>27918914
>A coke-can of explosives causing catastrophic damage
>In the rear of the fuselage
>Near the empannage
>Severing it completely
"no"
>>27919120
You act like the outside of the aircraft is a void. The pressure will equalize violently, yes, but it wouldn't be an explosive decompression. People wouldn't get sucked out and the aircraft wouldn't vaproize just because the cabin was breached. Those silly little masks would drop and the pilot would try to make a descent below FL100. I'd be more keen to believe it was a coke can full of boom that brought the plane down if it was somehow closer to a wing.
Also, let's not forget, ISIS claimed to shoot it down, first. For whatever reason, they lied about that.
>>27920335
>blanket statement
No dude, recovery is not always possible. Flight with Denzel Washington was only loosely based on reality. Sometimes as little as a weight shift can put an airplane in an unrecoverable condition and doom everyone on board.
Everyone calling bullshit knows nothing about explosives. A can filled with C4 or similar plastic explosives would EASILY take down an A320. An A320 is not a big plane.
>>27918914
I don't buy it at face value. The black box has 24 minutes of normal operations, and then it goes blammo.
The pilots had no time to react. There was no radio transmission saying there was a major problem. All instruments were operating within normal limits as far as we know until the explosion. If it was something minor that then spiraled out of control, we would have evidence from the cockpit recordings. We don't have that.
It would need something better than pineapple to do this. Not even ginger ale.
>>27920358
That's if there were a smallish hole. A bomb going off in a nearly sealed pressurized tube would blow out at every seam.
>>27920381
Of course its not always possible, but losing a single control surface isnt usually a death sentence. In most cases it would be recoverable. I don't see how a glorified firecracker could do much damage to an aircraft unless placed in a very critical location. There have been jumbo jets that have had the entire top of their fuselage ripped off, and aside from flight attendants getting sucked out, managed to make a safe landing
>>27920358
Holy shit, what are you doing on 4chan posting with common sense? Can't you see this is for old wives tails and regurgitated "you'll get sucked out the tiny holy like in Alien!" information!
How do they have a picture of the bomb if it blew up?
>>27920097
>altitude device in a pressurized cabin
>>27920526
>being retarded
>>27920526
>what is GPS that also gives altitude, like every consumer GPS and many smartphones manufactured after about 1998?
C'mon really?
>>27920526
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization
In practice, cabin altitude is almost never kept at zero due to design limits of the fuselage and practical considerations for landing at airports located above sea level.[citation needed] In a typical pressurization approach for a commercial passenger plane, the cabin altitude of an aircraft planning to cruise at 40,000 ft (12,000 m) is programmed to rise gradually from the altitude of the airport of origin to around a maximum of 8,000 ft (2,400 m) (approximately 10.9 psi, or 0.75 atm), and to then reduce gently during descent until the interior cabin pressure matches the ambient air pressure of the destination.[citation needed]
>>27918914
>A literal pineapple grenade.
Those cheeky fucks.
>>27920358
We use flight levels for over 18000 feet. So it would be 10,000 feet not FL100
>>27920554
>not knowing most civilian GPS devices turn off at certain altitudes and speeds to prevent them being used as guidance systems for missiles
>>27920802
>being retarded
>again
>>27918925
Item not available. Can someone upload to pomf.cat or something?
>>27918914
Assuming the soda can is packed with high explosives it could easily tear a sizable hole in the side of a passenger jet. Your typical civilian airliner is very flimsy.
However as I understand it the plane was pretty much ripped in half before it hit the ground, right? I don't really see that happening unless a fuel tank got breached and exploded.
>>27920802
Pretty sure that's an urban legend.
>>27920358
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981
The cargo door opened and sucked the last two row of passengers out.
It only took a pound of c4 to take down the Lockerbie jet.
>>27920493
Either a different bomb or its a before pic
>>27921062
And remember Lockerbie wasnt wreckage like in Egypt. That jet was literally shredded mid air into pieces the size of a desk/car. The wreckage in Egypt was much more intact (relatively speaking)
I saw this and called bullshit because you know what I don't see in OPs picture?
EXPLOSIVES.
Did you know you can still bring boxcutters on American planes? I remember being on a plane before 9/11 and watching a passenger whittle wood with a pocketknife...
If Russia was like America, they would ban glass bottles but still allow people to bring canned drinks..
Think of a ballon, OP it's from explosive decompression. Same reason typical bullets on a plane are a bad idea.
ITT: Homeland Security working overtime.
>>27921186
>you know what I don't see in OPs picture? EXPLOSIVES.
What do you think is packed inside of the soda can, genius?
>hurp there are no explosives in this picture
>>27918914
>How could a bomb this small take down an entire aircraft?
aircraft aluminium
>How could a bomb this small take down an entire aircraft?
Easy answer, ISIS is full of shit and is trying to look badass.
Even if they DIDN'T take the plane down and it was only a crash, they'd take credit for it.
>>27921943
>Easy answer, for slavs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR1kftahzak
>>27921888
There's this thing incriminating photos usually have... called incriminating evidence....
And the photo in OPs pic has NONE.
>>27921943
Why don't they claim responsibility for Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? They could probably contrive bullshit proof that they were the puppeteers behind it all.
https://www.change.org/p/governor-jerry-brown-stop-accepting-new-syrian-refugees-into-california
Daily reminder to califags
>>27921980
>no explosives here boss
>>27920829
>>27920917
Its true. At a certain altitude and speed it doesnt work. Do a quick search.
>>27918925
ISIS has a fucking magazine? Wtf that's disturbing and hilarious
>>27922037
AQ has a magazine too. They've been publishing it for years.
>>27922007
Moonbeam has a shitty legacy and may be in the wrong party, but he's been absolutely bro-tier this term. He vetos the Senate's bullshit left and right.
>>27922012
>filename
I don't think that's an IED. It doesn't look improvised at all. Looks factory made by professionals with degrees. The wiring and set up is a different story.
>>27922045
Are they full of ads too?
>>27920493
>>27922090
The vast majority of "IEDs" are made from salvaged explosives.
>>27920388
You are a fucking idiot. That's pretty much nothing, for fucks sake have you ever touched explosives?
Source: I'm a fucking sapper. There's no way this could take down a modern aircraft unless it killed the pilot, copilot, all auxiliary pilots, and destroyed the controls.
You'd be lucky to pop a 2'x2' hole in the fuselage.
This whole story is bullshit.
>>27922037
Yes and I would not go searching around for them either and most importantly DO NOT do it with any social media account(facebook, twitter ect) as that is almost guaranteed to land you on a watch list.
>>27921911
small bombs can't melt aluminium sheeting
>>27920411
So we're looking at a minimum cream soda, possibly up to a cherry cola bomb?
The absolute fucking madmen.
>>27922105
Are you serious? Have you ever seen what an Airbus or similar aircraft is made of? It's thin aluminum over a flimsy skeleton.
We already know that the Lockerbie bombing was executed with a small amount of C4 crammed into a radio. That managed to rip a 20 inch hole in the fuselage.
>>27922117
poorfag russia use extra thin alumnium
>A MANPADS-sized explosive going off from WITHIN the fucking aircraft
>Insufficient to bring it down
You people can't be serious.
>>27921988
Netanyahu did try to make the Holocaust into the Muslims fault
>>27920730
>it's too obvious
>it has to be here
>search complete
Beat me to it, well done.
As someone who understands in depth cabin pressurization systems and aircraft structures, this is a very amusing thread to read.
Personally I'm pretty sure that the pic is BS for propaganda purposes so ISIS can claim to be capable of making advanced hidden IEDs. It seems more likely that they just bribed someone at the airport to hide a brick of c4 with a timer on the plane. Just a guess.
>>27920473
>glorified firecracker
Tha fuck?
Look at a TOW missile detonation. It takes out tanks and looks pretty impressive right? That warhead is all of about 8 pounds.
A beer can packed solidly with military grade explosives is a very sizeable charge to have go off inside an airliner cabin.
Its not a "12 ounce charge" because cans are measured in FLUID OUNCES. Explosives are much more dense, a beer can packed with C4, semetex, TNT, Or comp B is gonna weigh about 3 pounds.
Thats enough to obliterate a car, blow all 4 walls out of a room, or rip a 6 foot hole in a hollow aluminum tube traveling 400MPH, destroying a hydraulic control line or vital avionic component, now you got a jet in a nose dive.
>>27922100
>sexy single goats available 24/7 at Muhammad's goat Emporium
>Lost AK! last seen 011/011/2004 in Fallujah, has "Allahu ackbar" carved in to stock. if found call x
>do you have ISAF poking around your house? ISOF following you? We can help! using state of the art VBIED technology we can send them running for the hills. Call Taahir & Saamir today for a free quote!
>>27922177
>that filename and image
That reminded me of a time where me and several friends convinced another friend that anne frank and hellen keller were the opposite person and he believed it for at least a month
>>27922180
I have no idea what that is, but as somebody who has spent time working with high explosives I am also entertained.
What I always love is how people only ever do 2 things talking about explosives.
1: vastly overestimate them (grenade obliterates a house, 1 pound c4 can vaporize an apartment complex etc etc)
2: vastly underestimate them (cod kiddies who legitimately think claymores are safe to stand next to, or like in this thread "oh 12 fl ounces of explosive isnt enough")
I dont know shit about aircraft pressures n shit, but I know even 1 pound of c4 in the cargo hold stands a good chance of ripping the belly out of a plane. Its a civilian airliner, not a hardened military cargo lifter with hardened/redundant systems. You take out a few hydralic lines and and electrical condouits and the plane can no longer be piloted.
>>27922104
.....point taken. I stand corrected.
>>27920493
0_______0 2spooky4me
>>27922113
>implying being on this board doesn't already put you on a list.
>tfw the plane got
>CANNED
>>27922127
We need to stop ISIS before they get Nuka Cola!
>>27922007
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-murrieta-immigrant-protests-mayor-defends-his-towns-actions-20140706-story.html
Wait for round 2.
>>27922651
Damnit Carlos.
>>27920914
Yeah, explosive decompression would have torn that plane into pieces. Especially since it was heavy as well. Lots of fuel, lots of passengers and cargo. a hope in the side of the plane the size of a fist could have ended up ripping that tail right off.
>>27918955
Just a reminder this was caused by a tear that was the size of a quarter and it was below 25k feet.
>>27922651
funniest thing this thread..... I wonder if this is what caused the F35 engine catching fire as well...
>>27921186
That little silver thing is literally an explosive. Not enough to do anything by itself but if you're gonna be a faggot and say "hurr I don't see no boom boom" I thought I'd be a faggot and point that out
>>27921980
look at the hole in the bottom of the can, that white stuff, that's explosive
>>27918925
I do not think I will view that, friend
>>27920358
the masks are a joke. you'll pass out and die of hypoxia before you can put it on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0906/Why-did-ghost-plane-fly-for-hours
in the unlikely event of a loss of cabin pressure, you should put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
A standard drink can is 355ml. Let's say the blasting cap takes up about 10ml, this leaves 345ml of explosive. Density of explosive compounds obviously varies, but on average the commonly used/available ones are in the range of 1.5-1.8g/ml. This equates to around 0.5-0.6kg of explosive.
I can only go off of videos I looked up online showing 0.5kg of various explosives being detonated. The explosions definitely aren't violent enough to obliterate a big passenger jet. Might be able to still cause enough damage to bring down the plane if detonated in the right area, but think it's unlikely after seeing the effects in said videos.
>>27922916
What the fuck are you talking about?
When the cabin loses pressure, the masks drop, and you put them on. You dont suffocate immediatly.
People dont die the second there's a lack of oxygen in the environment.
>>27920493
>>27920493
DUDE
>>27922828
Thats just a blasting cap to set of explosive
>>27923282
>blasting
So it explodes? Wow, so it's an explosive just like I said.
>>27922313
You'd be lucky to fit a stick and a half into a 12oz can.
I'd be impressed if you could get a full stick in there, so at most between 1.25 and 2 lbs, unless you're talking NEW (net explosive weight)
Besides, C4 is a cutting explosive. It shears, versus the heaving effect that lower REF explosives have.
Someone explain how it's possible at all for this to mechanically happen. Every breach I've ever done tells me this is feasibly impossible.
>>27918914
ISIL is fucking lying like a nigger at the welfare office. They claim to shoot it down then claim to bomb it.
>>27922313
Your ideas of effect on target are ridiculously dramatic.
>>27922404
What experience do you have with explosives, because by your estimations it sounds like none.
>>27923340
if they can get the plane's jet fuel to go up in the blast, I would assume even a small explosive would be more than sufficient.
>>27923206
Don't bother. He's had too many vaccinations.
>>27923340
A pound of semtex brought down Pan Am 103.
Your argument is invalid.
>>27922313
Actually it will be a little over 1lb. 355ml can with C4 and TNT density at 1.6g/ml
>>27923340
Are you stupid? Explosives behave differently in bulk than they do in thin bands. A pound would be plenty to knock out major structural and control components at the tail or wing. Whether this happened is a different argument, but it's plausible.
>>27923371
>Investigators from theAir Accidents Investigation Branch(AAIB) of the BritishDepartment for Transportconcluded that the nose of the aircraft was effectively blown off, and was separated from the main section within three seconds of the explosion. The nose cone was briefly held on by a band of metal but facing aft, like the lid of a can. It then sheared off, up and backwards to starboard, striking off the No. 3 engine and landing some distance from Lockerbie, near Tundergarthchurch.
>>27923371
>>27923432
Finishing this post. Fucking spam filter.
Standby for link to the unequivocal proof that a lb of semtex couldn't take down the plane. As soon as it'll let me post a fucking link
A] campaign initiated by the Lockerbie Justice Group ... challenges the Lord Advocate to openly demonstrate that Pan Am 103 could have been brought down by a semtex bomb, under controlled laboratory conditions.
The group state that fabric and circuit board fragments cannot survive a semtex explosion, and accordingly the entire Crown case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi falls. In 2007 Ulrich Lumpert of timer company MEBO released an affidavit stating he had manufactured the circuit board “evidence” relied upon by the Crown at the Zeist trial. Earlier this year areportby Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer concluded that the Crown’s case was “scientifically implausible”.
“The Crown theory utterly depended upon Judges believing that this white-hot sphere with a temperature of 6,800F, travelling in all available directions at 20,000mph did not scorch, never mind totally annihilate, a printed circuit board and a fabric label, which it was able to wholly detach from the shirt. Our group finds this utterly incredible,” the group said.
“We, as members of the concerned Scottish public, invite the Crown to openly demonstrate their theory under controlled laboratory conditions. Either the circuit board survives with its legible ID and soft solder, or it is annihilated in a white-hot gas. In the event of PCB annihilation, we demand a proper and independent committee of inquiry into ‘What brought this plane down?’ Will you please publicly demonstrate your theory, ... Lord Advocate?”
The challenge has been backed by Dr Hans Koechler, who observed the trial [as a UN-appointed observer] and called for a full public inquiry afterwards.
“It is highly important to address this question to the Scottish prosecutor’s office and I shall add my name to such an initiative,” he said.
>>27923523
So your evidence is a conspiracy theory?
Have you considered therapy for your crippling autism?
It is highly important to address this question to the Scottish prosecutor’s office and I shall add my name to such an initiative,” he said.
“It is equally important that an explosives expert with impeccable academic credentials, ideally a University professor from a European country, endorses this initiative or confirms the basic physical facts in writing. Under this condition I can join the initiative.”
De Braeckeleer and researchers at the Centre of Explosives Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico estimated that up to thirty pounds of explosive was needed to destroy a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occurred in the hold as the Crown claimed
“As the explosion of one pound of Semtex H inside the luggage container does not generate a blast wave sufficiently powerful to fracture the skin of the fuselage, we have little choice but to conclude that the verdict appears scientifically very implausible,” they said.
The group’s initiative is bolstered by the new testimony of former Ferranti electrical engineer Aitken Brotherston, experienced in testing circuitry for use in military applications.
“Although no doubt there have been some advances in the construction of circuit boards the predominance of boards in current use are the same as those I tested. In most cases the boards would happily catch light with a flame source similar to that of a Swan Vesta (...)
“While we did not test them to the 3000 plus degrees C temperatures of a Semtex explosion bright spot, even as an apprentice electronics engineer with Ferranti, my experience at much lower temperatures would persuade me that nothing of the circuit boards would survive that environment.
>all via the Lockerbie investigation and post analysis
>>27923523
>jet fuel can't melt steel beams tier evidence
I mean i don't think 1lb of Semtex coulda floored that jet but you need to do better than that
>>27920125
A poster on /int/ was literally arrested for having one of them in print.
>>27923563
>European "freedom"
On tip of that, semtex is PETN and RDX. It has a very high REF and is used primarily for cutting.
Explosives are not magic. It's simple math.
>>27923555
Probably, but I'm limited to finding sources via smart phone. You get what you get. Regardless, if nobody here has experience with explosives OR can prove mathematically that it's possible, does your opinion really matter?
Probably not, but you're going to share it anyways.
>>27923612
>f nobody here has experience with explosives OR can prove mathematically that it's possible, does your opinion really matter?
Well, when a court of law ruled that a pound of Semtex took down a 747, I'm inclined to think that a 12 ounce can could take down a Russian airbus.
>>27923634
A court of law also said OJ didn't kill that white woman.
Hang on, I'm pretty sure I've got a book laying around here about explosive theory in pressurized environments. If I can find it I'll scan the important stuff.
>>27923634
>court of law ruled
Whether it's true or not, that's a terrible argument to make. Courts make incorrect rulings all the time. That's why the concept of appellate courts came into existence.
>>27923360
I just like the idea that in his mind, people die the moment their mouth an nose are submerged in water.
>>27923523
>tripfag autism
>>27923782
>doesn't know what tripping is
Hello millenial
>>27923696
Yeah but a group of intelligent people making a reasoned decision after analyzing all available evidence shortly after the event took place is definitely more persuasive than some autist on 4chans conspiracy theory.
>>27923634
Especially because Airbuses don't need much encouragement to fall out of the sky. It's what they're really good at.
>>27923801
Funny, the same argument was made about granular Quik-Clot, UCP, and every murder trial where decades down the road they were like "jk dude, you're free"
>>27923523
Wait, wait, wait. Are you the supposed explosives expert? And you're arguing from a point that HE creates a hot fireball that would scorch cloth? Stop huffing so much glue, idiot. Semtex doesn't generate much heat. You could mix tons of it with paper, and none of the paper would have a single fucking scorch mark, because it happens too fast and too cool to burn things. It just turns big things in to lots and lots of little things.
>>27922113
see >>27922599
Even if "the hacker group Anonymous" is CIA at this point it's still enough of an association to 'watch list' any 4chan poster.
It's not like they have to prove any-fucking-thing regarding surveillance other than 'guilty by association'.
>>27923901
I'm sorry, what have you blown up exactly? When was your last shot plan written up? Please, fill me with your wisdom and enlighten me as to how a chemical reaction that occurs quicker than the reaction of TNT and produces more heat and friction than TNT, which inherently leads to more thermal transfer than TNT, reacted less violently than TNT.
Don't worry, i'll wait.
You do realize that aircraft are pressurized at high altitude.
All you need to cause catastrophic damage is to puncture the pressure cylinder.
It might not be guaranteed to crash but it could.
>>27923801
This is every court case ever. And yet, many rulings end up being reversed.
Now, if we're dealing with persuasiveness, then certainly, I'd put my money on the court. But that doesn't mean courts don't make retarded decisions, or that conspiracies don't exist.
>>27923961
Dipshit, I'm not talking about the power of the reaction, I'm talking about heat and time. Things don't burn in milliseconds. Stop being an autistic child. I've been blowing things up since I was a kid, and I make fireworks and exploding targets as a hobby. Low explosives have a tendency to burn things, damn near none of the high explosives do. Fire damage in bomb explosions is typically the result of secondary reactions and low explosives such as fuel.
>don't worry, I'll wait
The last refuge of an idiot.
>>27923901
>Semtex doesn't generate much heat.
Maximum thread stupidity level achieved.
>>27924038
Wow. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. For a second there, I thought I was going to learn something.
You're trolling me, right? You can't be real.
>>27924040
Learn the difference in detonation and deflagration, and then we'll talk.
>>27923998
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/04/that_didnt_suck.html
A hole the size of a fat child couldn't bring down a plane
>>27924073
I'm sorry, but did Mitt Romney already lose? Oh, that's right. The voting isn't even over yet. In fact, it's only halfway reported. Does not having the lead at this point count as a loss? Is that what you're saying? Because if you're saying that I can assure you that you're wrong. Why would you make this topic when the game is still on? The votes are still coming in right now and they have elected Republicans for President for how many years now? He's facing one of the worst candidates in history who just happens to have a lead because he's feeding off the energy of winning New Hampshire. But you know what? He still fucking sucks. Mitt Romney is one of the best fucking governors in Massachusetts history, he balanced the budget last year and would of won the primaries in 08 if the Tea Party didn't choke. Maybe you should shut the fuck up before you make retarded topics like this. You know why? Because you're going to be embarrassed when Romney wins and someone bumps this topic. Oh look at that, the votes just came in from Wisconsin and they're leaning Republican, just like in 2000. Are you a fucking drunk? Are you retarded? Are you autistic? You are a fucking idiot and you should never make a topic on this board again and I'm fucking serious. I almost have a feeling you're the only guy making all these anti-Romney topics because you're a faggot hater who doesn't like the team because they're good. Fuck you, be good at something in YOUR life and then maybe try to troll these fucking conservatives on the board, like I give a fuck. It's so easy to spot out your threads now, you're a retard. Always doing stupid shit like this. Why don't you try to be a good poster? Just for once? For once in your fucking life try not to make a topic like this. That's just you, you're always right at getting it wrong. Fuck you. You are nothing.
>>27918914
Well of course it didn't bring down the plane, it clearly didn't explode ya dingus.
>>27924089
Well, depending on where you put it, and whether it's an airbus or not, it could.
>>27923302
It's an initiator for the main charge.
>>27923473
Different poster than who you responded too.
That doesn't mention anything about the explosive yield, so why is this relevant? Can you somehow figure out the amount detonated to blow up the nose like that?
>>27924246
Whatever, fag. The goalposts were fine where they were, but your autism knows no bounds.
>>27918914
>>27918925
>ISIS magazine
>Haraam monthly
>>27924246
I know that's genius, but it still is a fucking explosive. Because. It. Fucking. Explodes. That anon said he "saw no explosives" because he couldn't imagine what was in the can. I just pointed out that even if the can was filled with modeling clay, that cap is still a goddamn explosive, there in plain sight.
>>27924319
With enough data, roughly. But for pressurized vessels you need pressure differences between inside/outside the vessel, enclosure material data, paths of probable least resistance, reflective surfaces near detonation, explosive information (to include device details, mainly total tolerable pressure of the casing until rupture)
It's a lot of information that I don't feel like tracking down.
Ballparking, however... if the vessel is pressurized to standard passenger pressures flying at 30k, it would probably take 10 lbs of TNT or comparable high REF explosives inside of a hardened casing, or maybe 12-15 of a low REF explosive like ANAL, however that's incredibly speculative. It would take days of grinding to get hard numbers, but in this field we usually use P for Plenty as our answer to elaborate questions.
>>27924387
>take this 25 questionnaire to find out your ideal goat type
>top 10 ways to know if you're best friend is Halal or haram
>Here's a shawarma recipe that will definitely make you the "person of interest" at your next party!
>>27924081
Read it yourself you drooling mongoloid. Detonation releases a huge amount of thermal energy. The reason things don't "burn" when a grenade detonates is because the energy disperses very quickly in all directions, so a given amount of thermal energy has a relatively shorter amount of time to act on an object, as compared to deflagration.
Pass your hand very quickly through an oxy-fuel torch and you'll have minimal burn injuries. Keep your hand in a much cooler flame, like a candle, for 5 seconds, and the burn will be more severe.
But no, you're right, explosives release energy, but magically not thermal energy. Nuclear weapons don't produce heat either.
>>27918914
If the snackbar managed to get in the cargo hold and blow that thing over the wings, that would be pretty damn damaging depending on what explosive was used.
Also, could the bottom of the can act like an EFP?
>>27924636
No. There is a hole in the center, which one can only imagine is the point of priming.
>>27918914
decompression and other secondary effects
>>27924636
>efp
Not sure if there's a minimum amount of explosive that is required to achieve the effect, but an EFP would be completely unnecessary in the context of blowing up a plane, as there is no armor to penetrate. A fragmentation-type device would be far more effective.
>>27922142
>2 foot by 2 foot hole
>20 inch hole
do you understand?
>>27924693
The only way I can see an EFP being useful in this context is if the snackbar managed to arm the can, go to a window seat, point the bottom of the can at an engine, and detonate.
>>27924537
>>27918914
>I used to pop soda cans with m8
Notice the can is packed with acetone hydroxide (common hadji IED explosive), the middle item in your picture is just the igniter.
>>27925480
sorry peroxide.
>>27924825
The problem is the penetrator will begin to diffuse very rapidly. There's no way it will stay together over such a long distance.
>>27924854
>get called out for being a retard
>better call him an autist!
>>27920914
>Typical air liner is flimsy
>>27921062
>One pound of C4
>>27921186
>Don't see explosives
>>27921911
>Lol aluminum
>>27921980
>Where's muh proofs?
So much nope ITT. And you guys are getting away with it.
>>27922117
Pineapple soda can't melt aluminum wings.
>>27922313
Lol no
>>27922349
Underrated post
>>27922599
Double dubs.
Also,
>Simply being on this board
Good news! Whatever watch list you were on, you just fell off after associating with these baseless speculating COD kiddies.
>>27922689
Oh holy God! You're right.
>>27925951
>baseless speculating COD kiddies
Amen, hombre.
Bunch of retards. Maybe it's all a DHS test to see who knows how to call BS on wrong information.
>>27922761
How many years of aeronautical engineering did it take for you to be able to solve aviation disasters from the comfort of your mom's basement, anon?
>>27922855
Nah, it's coke.
>>27922828
If you don't tell them, the guesses get better.
>>27922872
Shit, I was hoping for a translation.
>>27923083
Jesus Christ anon, you aren't supposed to use your brain like that around here. The next thing you know, we will be having rational discussions about the finer points of the isocolese vs. weaver stances, and not one faggot will bring up the center axis relock.
Well... Not on my /k/, Goddamnit!
>>27923340
Are you thinking that they would need something with more brisiance to burst the aircraft in flight? Perhaps TNT with aluminum powder mixed in as it's cast. When you do that, the pressure curve builds much more rapidly, so although you lose some of the total power of the charge, the shock wave is much more violent.
>>27923359
Jet fuel burns rather slowly.(5000 ft/sec vs 22,000 ft/sec for RDX) Even vaporized in a closed container, which should never happen in aviation fuel cells, it doesn't add to the explosive event at all.
>>27923587
Yup
>>27923612
That too.
>>27923801
How many of those people were professional engineers, physicists, or accident investigstors? Courts, judges, and politicians are wholly inadequate to the challenge of understanding these events.
>>27923820
Yeah, gotta love "Top Men" with their law, journalism, or poly-sci degrees expounding on technology.
>>27923998
No. Aircraft, even pressurized ones, land with holes in them all the time.
>>27924038
>>27924040
>>27924073
>>27924081
This is going downhill faster than Chris Farley skiing toward a buffet with a kilo of coke.
>>27924091
???
>>27924387
Oh gawd.
>>27924431
Roughly the same charge load as the SAM the anon brought up earlier ITT. Assuming it didn't pull that charge weight out of it's ass.
>>27924441
(Borat voice) Very niice!!!
>>27924636
>Beer can shaped charge?
No, sorry. Good guess though.
>>27925480
Acetone peroxide. Now we are getting somewhere!
>>27925668
Exactly this.
>>27926332
One soda can is not likely to be the weapon which brought this airliner down. Every Westphalia nation state has a reason to cover for Russia's lie concerning this. They cannot keep harassing their citizens without the lies, and the lies make the citizens afraid so they ASK for the tyranny.
ISIS has every reason to lie here too. Much like Saddam Hussein playing tough to U.N. inspectors twelve years ago, ISIS needs to look tough, even bellicose and slightly crazy, in order to hold on to power.
No group, anywhere, is actually as formidable as they try to make themselves appear. Tyrants, especially, must never show weakness. A losing war against an overwhelming foe is prefer table to.being dragged into the streets and ripped limb from limb by your ersatz subjects.
So ISIS lies. Maybe they shot down the plane. Maybe it was a bomb the size of a suit case. Maybe it was a false flag by (pick you're favorite cast member,) and Isis must take credit in order to keep the recruits flowing. Who knows?
Russia and the west lie. Everybody wants their citizenry stupid and scared. So they say a pineapple soda crashed a plane.
Everybody wants the war. So ISIS takes the blame. Politicians get power and contractors get money. No one, publicly, tells the truth.
Alliances shift and backs are stabbed, but, even though everybody knows what DIDN'T happen, no one drops the spaghetti in front of the little people. If they did, then the gig is up for everybody. Enemies, allies, neutrals, and themselves, everyone loses. And then they might be dragged into the streets, too.
You don't have to take my word for it. I'm just an anonymous shitpoaster on a Mongolian sand art fan fiction forum. But this is what I think happened.
>>27926481
a coke can full of acetone peroxide would definitely cause severe damage to the airframe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hGhqE9rwNw
>>27925881
>Typical air liner is flimsy
>nope
What? They're fucking tin cans packed full of wires and hydraulic lines. I can 100% guarantee you that you could punch a hole straight through the fuselage with a cheap claw hammer.
>>27926886
Yes, but according to preliminary data, which could be wrong, the data recorders read normal function until they abruptly stopped, indicating a sudden explosion in air which was instantly and catastrophically fatal to the aircraft and everyone on board. You NEED more juice than one kilogram of acetone peroxide can give you.
Lets assume that it was acetone peroxide since that is the explosive that haji allegedly favors these days. We will need to know it's relative strength and brisiance compared to TNT so we can make an educated guess as to the size of an explosive charge which can have that effect.
I am not ready to give my full opinion on this subject, (because I haven't formulated it yet, except that I believe everyone on the news is lying or ignorant,) but I can say that you might be able to find the necessary data online.
We already have a combat engineer NCO in this thread who believes that a ten pound (4.5 kilogram approx) bursting charge of TNT would do the trick, so let's find out how much acetone peroxide we would require to get the same K.
>>27926948
A hole doesn't immediatly kill an airliner. Even some fairly large ones have been survivable. Aircraft land with holes in them all the time. Most of the time, the passengers never know.
>>27926999
>Even some fairly large ones have been survivable
And there's other examples of planes careening 30,000ft to the ground.
>>27922777
It is generally believed the tear was fairly small until the stewardess that was sucked out of the plane got wedged in it, causing pressure to build up and the whole roof to explode off. That's one of the theories as aircraft have partitions that are designed to tear off easily to stop an entire section of the aircraft exploding.
>it's impossible! A coke can full of hi-ex wouldn't do a thing!
Meanwhile in dubfuckistan
https://a.uguu.se/uyzxhi_pipebombvsfridge.webm
>>27922027
yes, you fucking moron. They don't fucking turn off at 600 knots. That's nowhere near the speed of a FUCKING CRUISE MISSILE. THEY ALSO DON'T TURN OFF AT 30,000 FEET BECAUSE NO FUCKING CRUISE MISSILE FLIES THAT LOW REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>27926980
RE of 0.8 for pure AP. However a nitrocellulose (smokeless powder) based ignition charge increases the RE, however my reference material doesn't have exact data/ratios for AP/NC charging.
>>27918914
Easy. A can that size stuffed with the equivalent of semtex or C-4 would easily blow a massive hole in the fuselage of a plane, most likely igniting it's fuel supply. Plane just took off, so loaded with fuel.
I'm an Army vet and I used to work with C-4 all the time. Very powerful stuff, even in small quantities. A can half this size might have done the job.
>>27927047
I didn't realise they store the fuel of an aircraft in the tail.
>>27918955
Is that the Hawaiian flight? I saw that live when I was a kid
>>27927060
All you'd need to do is cut the control lines that run through the tail.
>>27927046
Ok. So we are looking at 12.5lbs which means a whole six pack. Not one can.
But there is a fly in the ointment. I posted on /n/ some of my theory that I am rolling around in my mind here >>899239 and in that thread, someone brought up that this particular airframe suffered a tail strike several years ago.
If ISIS got a hold of this data, (a stretch but not imposdible) they could've planted a smaller device on board. In order to do that, though, they would really have to have no confidence in Russian aviation mechanics. Perhaps it would make more since to use a full sized device but placed in the tail, either by luck or using informants.
I am no aerospace engineer, so I asked /n/ if the publically available evidence supported any hypothesis concerning placement. I welcome anyone here who wants to venture an opinion as well.
Any of you have any critiques?
>~1 kg bomb
>Can't take down a plane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K32_Strela-2
>~1 kg warhead
>Can and does take down planes
C'mon, people. Stop being stupid.
>>27927046
What reference material? I want a copy of this for educational reasons...
>>27927231
It's not enough that the plane come down. This aircraft literally blew up. It was sudden and complete. There were no warnings, no distress calls, and nothing on the black box if early roumors are to be believed. The warhead on the missile your wiki link is about, doesn't destroy a plane that way. It is designed to fug up an engine or blow off a critical aeronautic structure. Or, even, cause the blown out hydraulic line everyone ITT is fascinated with.
BLOWN HUDRAULICS DONT KILL RADIOS!
If a cola can sized bomb blew the hydraulics out the ass of the plane, there would've been several terrible minutes of radio contact before everyone died. At the very least, the pilots would have been on the air, even if everyone else had lost oxygen. This didn't happen, therefore, we need to look at a bigger device.
>>27927222
I think the engineer's estimate of 10lbs of TNT is way overkill. A stinger has less than 3lbs of a RDX/PETN explosive in it (RE 1.5 so < 4.5lbs of TNT).
The tail strike could be interesting depending on the extent of the repairs needed. Dragging on a bent landing gear is considered a tail strike, at least in the US.
>>27920493
WHAT AREN'T THEY TELLING US?
>>27927231
Strela-2 = 370g TNT
>>27918914
You do realize the actual explosive is in the can, right?
You do realize the can can hold about five times the amount of explosive usually found in a hand grenade?
>>27927279
Chemistry and Technology of Explosives, its 30 years old, four volumes, and out of print I believe. I inherited my set from my father when they downsized for retirement, so wouldn't know where to find it.
>>27927339
Yes, except the grenade body acts as both a pressure vessel, greatly magnifying the brisiance of the device, and as a source of shrapnel, compounding the damage that the device can do.
Untamped explosives detonated in air lose energy logarithmically as distance from the device increases. A simple cola can does not provide enough tamping force or shrapnel to compare to what a hand grenade can do.
>>27927304
Fair enough, that still gives us a four or five pound charge, so, three cans? The device would be more powerful if it were in a pressure vessel of some kind, but that would almost certainly require snuggling it into the cargo hold instead of the passenger compartment, unless one of the crew was the bomber. A more substantial pressure vessel would allow the device to function with less explosive.
What if the can was just how the bomber smuggled the explosive on board with plans to assemble it enroute?
>>27927383
>Snuggling a bomb
Haha. Obviously I meant smuggling.
>>27927383
>Untamped explosives detonated in air lose energy logarithmically as distance from the device increases.
Still enough to blow a nice, gaping hole in an aluminum sheet, especially if you're sitting right next to it.
>>27927383
A crew member or ground crew would probably know a bit about the aircraft's history, too. That angle looks more and more likely every time i think about it.
ISIS used female suicide bombers in frogland this week. They allegedly also used acetone peroxide.
Any way. We are getting to the dangerous point where we are working off of too many assumptions, and our prejudices or fears can influence us that way. I'm going to sleep. Keep up the good work /k/.
>>27927410
Aircraft land with holes all the time. This bomb would've needed to shred the aircraft so fast the pilots never got the chance to slap on an emergency beacon. That needs to be one hell of a hole.
>>27927020
that's fucking brutal
>>27918914
Why use an old beat up can? Makes it look suspicious as fuck
>>27925480
Acetone peroxide doesn't need a detonator, it's a primary explosive, it IS the detonator.
>>27927383
That bit about the grenade casing is wrong tho, offensive grenades use s very thin sheet metal or tar paper casing and they still work very effectively, the casing of the explosive makes very little difference in the power of it, if any at all.
All the casing does is create shrapnel, it doesn't have any effect on power output.
Why has no one mentioned the fuel line theory that the British think happened?
This bomb next to a load of high octane aviation fuel could easily make a big enough bang.
>>27927383
>both a pressure vessel, greatly magnifying the brisiance of the device
Wrongo. You're thinking of things like gunpowder that require resistance to explode. High explosives like TNT have shockwaves that propagate faster than the material can move.
>Untamped explosives detonated in air lose energy logarithmically
High explosives don't need to be tamped, unless you're thinking of nuclear tampers, which this most surely was not. And all explosions lose energy with distance from the explosion. But it's with the approximate square of distance, not logarithmically.
>>27927669
Jets don't run av gas. They burn kerosene. And if you've ever burned any, you know it's pretty resistant to just exploding. Needs to be mixed with air and heated first. Not saying it's impossible, but the British might be way off the mark on this one.
>>27920358
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
Aft pressure bulkhead blew out near cruising altitude, blowing off the vertical stabiliser and severing the hydraulic lines. With 520 dead it's the deadliest single aircraft accident in history, and second deadliest ever (beaten out by two 747 colliding at Teneriffe).
>You act like the outside of the aircraft is a void.
While pure vacuum would make de-pressurisation a bigger issue, it's not going to be a night and day difference because all the work is done by the air inside trying to get out, with whatever pressure outside, if any, holding back, with the pressure difference deciding how noticeable a breach will be.
At cruise altitude you might have a quarter atm outside, and three quarters inside. So half an atmosphere of pressure difference. Drop to void outside, and we get three quarters of an atmosphere in pressure difference instead. +50% will certainly make the engineers take notice, but it won't turn a gentle and safe loss of pressure to a detonation, or if we go the other way, make a detonation-like one turn into a safe thing.
The only people to die outside of the Earth's atmosphere where the three Soviet cosmonauts on board Soyuz 11. It de-pressurised without suffering any structural damage, they died, the capsule landed safely.
So just as having a bit of air outside doesn't mean decompression can't trash your vehicle, having it happen out in nothign doesn't mean any damage will necessarily be done.
>>27927383
Bro, what about detcord?
>no "pressure vessel" needed
>you could fit a couple of feet of detcord into a can that size
>implying aluminium shrapnel doesn't hurt like a motherfucker and does no damage
My friend, you need to learn about explosives. The fuse in a hand grenade is usually set off by a needle poking into a primer. This sets off high explosive, this sets off grenade explosive and boom. You have explosion. The exact same effect will be achieved if you take the 'nade out of the steel/metal/whatever casing.
The fuse shown in OP's pic is electrical, used to set off some types of explosive that don't react to heat and/or pressure (e.g. C4). C4 doesn't use any "pressure vessel", it is usually packed in mylar. As a source (questionable), Wikipedia:
"The M112 (a block of C-4) is wrapped in a sometimes olive color Mylar-film container with a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape on one surface."
Do you need a pressure vessel? Nope. Plus, the explosion increases the volume of the air inside the aircraft, basically like diving several hundred meters into water, so popping everyone's ears and the fuselage is not designed to hold such a pressure inside.
>>27927423
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
A small explosion right next to the center tank would do the trick.
I find it implausible that ISIS reverse-engineered the entire airline's operations and the jet's full maintenance history and the security detail at sharm to find the one jet with the tailstrike and plant a six pack of pineapple soda right next to the place where it was repaired.
I find it more plausible that they got a bomb on board and this one happened to bring down the jet instantly. I'm sure they would have been just as happy if it made the jet crash after flying around in circles with its hydraulic fluid gone, or whatever alternative scenario could have happened if they hadn't gotten lucky and blown it out of the sky instantly.
>>27922037
Do you live under a rock or something?
I bet you'd be shocked to know that they have twitter accounts too.
>>27928331
No. Fucking. Way.
>>27919175
1st video: doesn't destroy 2x4 table.
2nd video: vaporizes plane
sound isn't working for me so maybe there's an explanation but seems like horeshit to me
>>27920802
>Not knowing that those limitations are 60,000 feet, and 1,000 knots
>>27918914
If you lose cabin pressure at a high enough altitude the plane breaks up.
>>27920358
Losing cabin pressure is still a big fucking deal, even when the decompression isn't violent enough to fuck up the control surfaces or break up the plane. It means that you MUST descend to a safe altitude. No exceptions. Doesn't matter if you're over mountains, you MUST descend, even if it means crashing into them.
>>27918914
>This is, supposedly, the bomb used to take down that Russian airliner. ISIS claimed in their magazine.
Maybe if you pack it full of plastique. There's no way any homemade or lower-order explosive that can fit in a pop can will do the job against a modern airliner, and they had no way of controlling where it was positioned, if it was hidden in some stowed luggage.
>>27918914
Asked an EOD buddy his take on such things. His short answer:
It isn't just the explosive, its the sudden depressurization combined with the damage to the ships structure. Plane integrity relies on a variety of factors, and a huge one is that wind passes around the surface of the plane. With a nice sudden decompression and hole in it, it literally starts to break apart from the sheer force in addition to any number of components that could have been damaged by the explosion.
TL;DR, the plane didnt just explode like a grenade, it ripped itself apart due to structural integrity failure after the explosion.
>>27929879
>Losing cabin pressure is still a big fucking deal, even when the decompression isn't violent enough to fuck up the control surfaces or break up the plane. It means that you MUST descend to a safe altitude. No exceptions. Doesn't matter if you're over mountains, you MUST descend, even if it means crashing into them.
Not necessarily. The pilots have their own O2 system complete with strap-on masks. If they really have to they can fly clear of the mountain range and descend. Low oxygen levels will knock you out but won't kill you. The real danger is the passengers dying from going too long without enough O2 and/or suffering medical effects from going rapidly from low pressure to high pressure (cannot recall the medical term for that problem, like the bends in reverse.)
>>27928084
HE does need to be tamped, especially C4 with its tendency to splatter
>>27929900
There's plenty of hi-ex that can be made by a semi-competent sand negro, it's just that a lot of them are very dangerous to handle. It's also very possible that they had military explosives. It's not like there's any shortage of soviet munitions floating around in Egypt/Africa in general.
>>27929917
>TL;DR, the plane didnt just explode like a grenade, it ripped itself apart due to structural integrity failure after the explosion.
As a plane faggot, I can attest to the truth of this - with big planes like airliners it's possible (if the controls weren't programmed to prevent it) to snap the plane apart by pulling too many Gs on the stick. The investigation report said the bomb blew the nose off the plane - that'd be the worst possible thing to happen, since it'd destroy the plane's streamlined aerodynamics and turn the high-speed slipstream into a big hammer smacking into the suddenly flat and draggy nose of the plane. Once the aircraft loses control or yaws too violently the wing would be torn right off.
>>27929941
>There's plenty of hi-ex that can be made by a semi-competent sand negro, it's just that a lot of them are very dangerous to handle. It's also very possible that they had military explosives. It's not like there's any shortage of soviet munitions floating around in Egypt/Africa in general.
That's a good point. As well as >>27929945. It's certainly possible, if you know right where to put it. What's more disturbing is that this means whoever planted the bomb had direct access to the aircraft; in excess of what a passenger would have. This was an inside job or an infiltrator.
>>27928279
C4 does require heat and pressure. Electric blasting systems only use electricity to heat a filament inside the cap to begin the explosive chain.
Electricity itself does not detonate C4, but I mean I've never put a block on two phased power lines
>>27929953
It was most likely an airport worker, in my opinion. There's a lot of low paid and low skilled guys loading baggage, cleaning the planes, and other shit like that. It's also possible that a sympathizer helped someone infiltrate the airport. I don't know what Egyptian airport security is like, but after this I have to think it's not all that great.
>>27924537
>Nuclear weapons don't produce heat either.
http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm
Faggot.
>>27930012
Are you illiterate? I was satirizing the retard who said high explosives don't produce heat.
>>27924537
>Detonation releases a huge amount of thermal energy. The reason things don't "burn" when a grenade detonates is because the energy disperses very quickly in all directions, so a given amount of thermal energy has a relatively shorter amount of time to act on an object, as compared to deflagration.
Precisely this. IIRC detonation is a supersonic combustion and deflagration is subsonic combustion.
>>27930012
anon pls
>>27930245
You're pretty much correct. Google "Deflagration to detonation"
Detonation still produces heat. I've got a burnt ass Fuze igniter back home that can attest to this as well.
>>27930384
>Detonation still produces heat.
Yep, ask anyone who's done the hot brass dance.
... or not, considering that modern smokeless powder deflagates. Black powder detonates. Deflagation is actually better for controlled gas expansion.
>>27930417
Ever seen a blasting cap made from spent brass? That's some badass shit. During some improvised training we made functioning Fuze igniter out of MRE matchbooks and electric tape. Shit was badass, worked really well.
>>27930217
>>27930245
Sorry. I can be mentally retarded whn I am drunk.
>>27918914
It doesn't take a big explosion to punch a decent hole in the body of an airliner.
Once the hole is blown and depressurization occurs, shit truly hits the fan.
>>27923563
Wad it that kid from jersey who called himself the shiek?
>>27920428
Fun fact- commercial airplanes have blowout panels for exactly this situation. 1kg TNT isn't enough to do it. That's less than the explosive power used in the emergency escape slides.
>>27922113
In my Middle East studies class the professor actually showed us this and twitter accounts associated with them (he can read and speak Arabic). He's been doing this for a while and hasn't gotten any shit from it. Hell looking up material published by ISIS was part of the class (one of the few non-bullshit Middle East classes I've taken). Also
>posting on /k/
>not already on a list of some kind
>>27922142
> Thin sheets
> Flimsy structure
Fun fact- commercial aircraft are rated for much more violent impacts than automobiles. They are no where near as flimsy as people think.
>>27930832
>That's less than the explosive power used in the emergency escape slides.
Are you fucking serious dude?
There are not high explosives used in the slides, they are low explosive pressure generators, like an airgag in a car.
There's about a pound of pressure generator material in a cars airbags, replace that with TNT and go get in an accident, see how you fare.
>>27922404
Looks like you fell into category 1.
>>27930882
Net explosive weight is really what matters. Well... that and detonation velocity
>>27930417
>black powder detonates
No, it does not.
Black powder is a low explosive and does not detonate.
>>27930937
>detonation velocity
>gas generators
Do you see the issue here ?
>>27930955
Gas generator is a loose term to use, seeing how HE and LE can be used in the same application, but with different implementation.
If you want longer consistent pressure or quicker expulsion with more force, that's a better question you can tailor to the situation
>>27930982
All gas generators deflagrate, you would not be able to contain a detonation, the vessel would turn to shrapnel.
>>27930994
Which sometimes is a favorable trait. I don't know shit about airline emergency doors, but it would make sense that getting them off an aircraft fast and far away would be desirable. Again, the term gas generator is loose since an explosion is essentially matter changing at an extreme rate.
>>27931041
Has generators deflagrate, not detonate, that's why they are called gas generators and not bombs.
>>27931053
Depending on how you see it. I guess we just come from two different schools of thought, which isn't a bad thing it's just a difference in opinions and semantics
>>27931041
>since an explosion is essentially matter changing at an extreme rate.
Yes, and when this happens faster than the speed of sound in that material, it's called a high explosive, and it's called detonation.
When it happens slower, it's a low explosive, and it's called deflagration.
These are basics that you apparently do not know, so why are you even trying to debate?
>>27931078
>which isn't a bad thing it's just a difference in opinions and semantics
It's not a different in semantics at all, you're just using terms incorrectly.
>>27921980
Technically that blasting cap is an explosive
>>27931083
If it generates gas, is it a gas generator?
It's the same argument as the Native American theory.
If you were born in the US, are you a native american? Some people would say no because their understood definition conflicts with the two root words in question.
It's best not to have these arguments because they usually turn into shit flinging. Let it be.
>>27931163
>If it generates gas, is it a gas generator?
When it's designed to generate gas, and not explode, yes.
That's why it's called a gas generator and not a bomb.
It's intended to generate gas, not explode.
>>27931163
here ya go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_generator
>>27930994
About that...
>The combustion chambers are connected by a valveless manifold fed with fuel and oxidizer. When combustible gasses are detonated by an igniter in one of the combustion chambers (via the EIC process), the back pressure from the detonation shuts off the fuel and oxidizer flow to that chamber and redirects the fuel and oxidizer to the opposite chamber, where detonation occurs. The process repeats cyclically. Power is taken off the rotor shaft mechanically or electrically.
See: Detonation Cycle Gas Turbine
Also
> In the broadest sense, an explosion is a rapid event during which gases created from the reacting materials cause an increase in the local pressure or volume. Due to the rapid nature of the event, the overpressure generated from an explosion can cause significant damage to surrounding life, structures, and property. If the explosion is sufficiently powerful, the shock wave or blast overpressure also creates fragments that cause secondary damage due to impact and penetration.
See: Exponent engineering
Also, see D.A. Schwer and K. Kailasanath on the Rotating Detonation Engine
>>27931337
The total energy contained in a low density fuel/air mixture is so low that a detonation it's really an issue to the structure of the engine, like how cars ping and they don't explode.
Those are low density explosive mixtures, as density increases in explosives, so does total power and RE factor.
Hence why cast/pressed/plasticized explosives are so much more effective than loose powder.
For reference here is 4.5 lbs of C4 vs a Bus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nc98hzR-tk
I don't think 1 lb of c4 could take take down an airliner unless its placed in an extremely critical location (which I doubt is even accessible ?)
>>27931403
>so low that a detonation it's really an issue
Isn't an issue*
>>27931408
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yG2h1aDB6k
4 minutes in on this video, that tiny charge completely rekts that entire plane.
The guy in the video called it a 100 grain shaped charge, which is about 7 grams, 454grams in a pound.
It looks to me like the charge is some pieces of wood in the shape of a cone, with the strips of plastic explosive running along the inside, you can see it in the video.
Imagine this taking place at 500mph at 30000 feet, I don't think it would survive.
>>27931454
>Imagine this taking place at 500mph at 30000 feet, I don't think it would survive.
They had an FAA accident investigator on CNN over a week ago and he said a very small explosive (even smaller than the one ISIS claimed they used) would only need to weaken the tail section and the plane would naturally rip itself apart considering the forces it is under while in flight.
>>27931454
if only we could ask the mythbusters if this was possible
>>27931649
>if only we could ask the mythbusters if this was possible
Why ask?
We just saw them do it before our eyes.
>>27931666
right but as you and the explosives dude said this was a shaped charge, a little different than a pineapple bomb. not saying it couldnt happen but isis are assholes about the whole telling the truth thing
>>27931697
A shaped charge with MUCH less explosive used than the soda can bomb thing they used.
A shaped charge can AT MOST direct the other half of the energy that would have been wasted as simple pressure, and guess what, the munroe effect isn't that efficient, it's not going to direct the other 50% of the energy perfectly.
Also, the munroe effect is generally used as a means of pin-pointing the force of an explosive, like when dealing with very thick targets made of armor, when it comes to thin aluminum you don't even want pin-point forces being applied, you'd want wide-spread damage to make as big a hole as possible, not a tiny deep hole.
There is no armor to penetrate, it's a thin-skinned plane under pressure at altitude, maximum hole size is the name of the game, not penetration depth.
>>27918925
I know it's you ISIS. Reported
>>27931408
Are you kidding? They let some people sit right by the wing.
If you set off a quarter of that force against the wall of the plane, in the seat right next to where the wing connects to the plane, the plane qould be shrekt.
>>27926332
>>27926181
Holy fuck, what are you doing?
>>27931852
>If you set off a quarter of that force against the wall of the plane, in the seat right next to where the wing connects to the plane, the plane qould be shrekt.
we know this, refer to >>27931454
Ok I'm not an aeronautical engineer
Neither am I an NTSB investigator
Although I did worked as a airline mechanic for 6 years.
Could it bring down an aircraft under the right set of circumstances?
Yes!
Did it?
We might never know.
>>27931454
>the myth that you can be suck out a tiny hole is just not true
Glory Holes: Myth Busted
>>27927627
Those thin body grenades have a pretty small kill radius.
>>27928084
Tamping high explosives is both a thing, and always used when possible because of the ability to use less to perform the same job.
Yes, all detonations propagate the same way because the medium that the wave propagstes through is still air. Losing pressure as function of the square of the distance from the explosive device is still a logarithmic decay of the pressure wave. The base of the logarithm is two.
>>27928105
This
>>27928279
It is you who needs to learn about explosives. C4 is almost always tamped because it is so stable, that if it is not contained, 100% detonation is nearly impossible. C4 will literally blow itself apart with only 80% or so of the explosive charge taking part in the detonation.
>>27928313
Actually, I agree with your assessment of ISIS and what they most likely did. I only was entertaining the idea of them accessing maintenance logs in an attempt to game out whether or not ONE cola can of acetone peroxide could've downed the aircraft.
I think a larger charge, somewhere in the five pound range is most likely, and I was using the three can and six pack references as humorous devices rhetorically because the official story is that the charge was contained in a can of pineapple soda.
>>27929879
Except this plane didn't do that. There wasn't any attempt at emergency communications at all even though radio contact wasn't compromised until the plane fell off of the tower's scopes. It MUST have blown up instantly, at cruising altitude, without warning.
