Re: Boston Explosion Predictions?
daft - silly ? but daft headed I'd say - stupid or maybe not I don't use this work
Silly, mad, crazy, delusional.
Statistically speaking you're also 'richer' than 80% population which doesn't seem so if you look at it from different prospective
*sigh*
What makes me 'smart' is that I remember things effortlessly. Where others seem to have difficulty establishing a memory of facts, figures, experiences, etc to recall when thinking of things - I do so without effort. It's nothing for me to factor over 30 things into a conclusion, simultaneously. Most people struggle with more than five. This is why I take a few small facts/figures and extrapolate much larger processes from them. It generally either leaves people feeling intimidated (as they can, literally, sit there and watch me learn their hard-earned degree in a couple discussions with them) or awed.
Of course, because of this, I'm a horrible student. I'll blow tests out of the water. But I simply despise homework and honestly am so bored in most classes that it's punishment to show up to the things. Unless it's a lab or the instructor is a very engaging character...
Which is somewhat sad, really - because I could easily have a Masters or even a PhD, by now (likely all paid for by academic scholarships). Heck - probably a PhD in one subject and a Masters in two or three (why not take a few extra courses in a related subject?).
Of course, it doesn't help that in my thirst for knowledge - I've gotten a very advanced informal education from taking part in debates and reading through physics and other forums to familiarize myself with topics well beyond my qualified level (which means I have to slosh through the lower courses of qualification/certification to get to where I actually am - which is -not- going to help the boredom issue).
Anyway - enough rambling about me.
maybe I made things complicated from the start because I didn't give any thought on you're speculation, I don't think that some bloke with knowledge of an high school student could accomplish it... explosion itself didn't fail but outcome looked as if it was made only to scare people but not to harm people, not how terrorist's act... another possibility could ofc be crazy ''scientist''
you might be right though, I'm just improvising on this topic anyway
I largely explained this, already.
I can make a 'bomb' using sugar and some commonly used fertilizers (Potassium Nitrate) - it's commonly used for hobby rockets. I'd have to tweak it a bit, but it could be done. One can also make, or simply buy black powder. The challenge with using black powder is that it has a relatively low detonation velocity compared to modern plastic and composite explosives. In order to generate pressure necessary for the bomb, one has to put it in a very strong casing with high material tensile strength that is also rigged to fail once the pressure inside reaches a certain level (preferably once almost all of the combustible material has been consumed).
This is an engineering challenge that is easy to figure out on paper - much more difficult to accomplish in real life. Even then - these two bombs are going to be relatively weak for their size. A whole backpack full would be enough to blow the walls out of your bedroom (assuming standard home construction) - but when you consider that a whole backpack full of C-4 could blow the walls out of your whole house - and you begin to see the issue, here.
To illustrate my point - take apart a firecracker and simply set the powder on fire. It will 'burst' - but it's just a 'whoosh.' ... It doesn't "bang" or generate a very much power (power is the amount of energy divided by time). While you can't really get your hands on C-4 to compare - C-4 will go 'bang' without any form of containment. The concussion generated by the blasting cap transmits through the C-4 at very high speeds and triggers a very, very rapid cascade of chemical reactions that take place within fractions of a second - which is why it is able to generate very large amounts of power (and go "bang") even without being contained in a paper/metal/etc tube.
To make more advanced and powerful bombs - you need more advanced machining and processing capability. While there's not necessarily a registered list of people with the potential to build such things - you drastically cut down on the number of viable suspects. If you use your fairly capable machine shop in your garage to turn out bombs - don't be surprised when police put it under surveilance and catch you. And you're not much of a freedom fighter - so it's not like you've got an insurgent militia to stand up and defend their weapon supplier.
Which is why these bombs are often fairly simple and limited from an engineering standpoint. People who can make more advanced stuff tend to not want to rat themselves out. Further - all explosives manufactured around the world have a particular 'signature' that is put into them by the company (they even make it so that they can identify what batch of explosive you were using - which gives the potential suppliers away).
Honestly - this person intends to continue doing such things - as they did not bother to reveal their identity in the attack. From a logical standpoint - if this is 'their goal' - to kill people at this event - then they would have been much better off to simply roll in with a couple rifles or handguns and have at it. The stand-off nature of this attack means that there will likely be more if the individual(s) responsible are not apprehended.
It's one thing to have a sort of pride for your origins/upbringing. It's another to embrace some of the blatantly negative things it entails.
that's what I'm sayin.. jsut sayin.. I wouldn't bet on it
It's hardly even in the equation... it's like... "Hey guys! That shadow over there could be an alien!"
... there's not even the beginnings of a reason to suspect that it might be.
but what's the point of talking, people talk and talk... but some one has to walk the walk.... by switching the congress you just create an new illusion of hope, I don't even go voting anymore. It's like changing avatar on you're profile you look different but still the same.[/quote]
That's just it... not enough people are voting for the people who will fix things. I'm not talking about party line candidates (who just talk). It's once in a blue moon that they actually do something useful. I'm talking about the third party and independent people who are willing to stand in the middle of a session of Congress and call the rest of the retards out and start calling for trials of treason for this nonsense.
It's no longer about ideology - it's about survival. The math is certain. We. Are. Going. To. Collapse. Unless something is done and the ridiculous policies of this nation power-washed out of existence by some sweeping miracle of voter competency.
every thing you said is true, but there's more to it
It's largely corporations doing what they do best - capitalizing on things - while Congress has misled the people into believing that the government can be trusted to regulate business and keep the nation's best interests in
mind. Then they take favors and hand-outs from lobbyists who work to ensure the regulations benefit established corporations and near-monopolies.
Then Congress goes after votes by increasing federal spending for programs. The "balance" in the system is that the Democrats won't allow the Republicans to pass additional defense spending without increasing entitlement spending and vice-versa.
It's pathetic and, personally, I think they should all be put on trial for treason. The problem is that many of our state governments suffer the same problem, as does our Supreme Court and presidential administration. ...
Which is why I am honestly of the opinion that the only way to 'fix' this is to draft a new Constitution that re-clarifies the boundaries of state and federal governments and adds new restrictions to the federal government and allows the state governments to introduce some checks against it.
But that probably won't happen without a civil war or two to establish a clear ideological majority (I suspect the people who believe in an armed citizenship will come out on top of that one... just a guess).
Fun times...
btw : question - Terrorist's have never hit or attended any attacks on the gov itself :bouncy: only civilians. why?
If I was terrorist ''well trained'' I'd hit official's and it's not an hard task to take one or two .
Civilians are easier targets.
Properly hitting a specific government official takes diligent surveilance and/or inside information - both of which are usually outside the skill and resource set of terrorists (domestic or otherwise). Political officials travel and their offices are usually near a police presence or high amounts of public activity. This complicates surveilance and the attack. You don't necessarily know when the public official will be present, and you never know who might be around and their relative profession.
Again - a lot of the people with the know-how and confidence to pull something like this off are simply not going to do it.
On the other hand - you almost always know where civilians are going to be. You don't necessarily know who will be there - but you do know that there are usually a considerable number of people at these things. Your goal is to kill people and make your cause known or feared. You don't care who dies. You go for the places where people are in number.
It's the same in countries where the attacks are politically motivated. Iraq sees multiple bombings taking place as Shiites and Sunis deck it out. How many of their religious leaders are targets? They usually aren't - it's the people in the market places who get hit.
In places like Ireland when the Catholics and Protestants were killing each other, it wasn't religious leaders who were specifically being targeted - it was usually that the churches were being bombed or set on fire.
