---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:51:33 -0800 From: Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> To: alanh@widomaker.com Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd)

Return-Path: <cas@alaska.net> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:46:10 -0800 X-Sender: cas@alaska.net To: kl7y@alaska.net From: Cas Gadomski <cas@alaska.net> Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd)

...

Return-Path: <jcs1@MAILNET.ho.ATT.com> From: jcs1@MAILNET.ho.att.com Original-From: jcs1@MAILNET.ho.ATT.com Original-From: "Schaefer, John" <jcs1@MAILNET.ho.ATT.com> To: "'Cas Gadomski'" <cas@alaska.net> Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:32:38 -0400

Cas:

As far as I know, PETN while often used as a detonator, is also a component of many initiators (a "booster" rather than a detonator--that is the detonator fires the larger booster charge, which fires the main charge) but it is also found as a main charge many weapons.

Am not familiar with what we/"they" use as a bursting charge in SAMs but I would expect that they would use something with major blast capabilities like PETN. I've always like Octol for a big blast but there are all kinds of things out there now. As to fragments the message is right on target. One report from the crash sited frag damage of plane parts and some bodies but the subject never appeared in the press again.

For air to ground against surface targets or tunnels NOTHING beats a fuel-air bomb. Next best thing to a nuke. (One story out of the Sandbox War relates a couple of British SAS folks observing from a distance a concentration of enemy when the USAF unloaded an FAE bomb on the target. The Brits called their HQ to report that the US had gone nuclear!

Am still wondering about the "missile" theory. An errant SM-1 is highly unlikely, and Stingers and Strellas have a very small warhead (2-3 pounds) and the plane would have been at the far limit of their range even if fire from directly underneath. We may never know what happened. (One really way-out theory was that it as done in by a major SAM fired from a submarine by China/Iran/Iraq/Martians, etc. (take your pick). Next will be it was shot down by a particle beam weapon fired from a UFO.

If I was a terrorist who wanted to do an airliner externally the best way would be to sit in a very small fiberglass boat about a half-mile off shore of JFK very late at night or very early in the morning (to avoid spectators) and get them with a Stinger/Strella on climb out. Toss the launcher overboard and paddle away.

As to terrorist bombs in crowded places I still can't believe that some nut hasn't used dynamite and a couple of propane tanks--MAJOR bang there. A standard "home" size tank as used for cooking with a big initiator would probably clear a major mall. Very scary.

As of late Sue and I avoid, if at all possible, crowded public places like malls, shopping centers, and theaters. They're disasters waiting to happen.

As to sending obnox mail to the "postmaster"--yup, that works.

If you want to really worry read Tom Clancy's new book "Executive Decision."

Stout heart and good cheer,

John

...

---------- From: Cas Gadomski[SMTP:cas@alaska.net] Sent: Friday, August 30, 1996 4:52 AM To: Schaefer, John Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd)

John . . .

What do you think??? I'll forward any clarifications and/or updates and confirmations as I get them.

Cas.

...

Return-Path: <kl7y@alaska.net> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:20:13 -0800 X-Sender: kl7y@alaska.net To: cas@alaska.net From: Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd)

One problem with this. My friend at work who used to be in EOD said PETN is found only in detonators and occasionally in boosters, not in the explosives themselves. He said he knew of no US weapon or bomb that used PETN in the main charge See 6) below. If PETN is only in the detonator, then there would not be very much of it in any explosion.

...

Return-Path: <alanh@widomaker.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@widomaker.com> X-Sender: alanh@wilma To: jennett@citicom.com, kl7y@alaska.net Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:51:54 +1300 From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@TERABYTZ.CO.NZ> Reply-To: Cebu Discussion List <CEBU-L@CEBU.USC.EDU.PH> To: Multiple recipients of list CEBU-L <CEBU-L@CEBU.USC.EDU.PH> Subject: Our old thread on airport security

Dear fellow airtravellers,

I think the following is relevant to a point I made at that last discussion, and I like to share it with you, even if some of you may have seen it already:

...

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: POSSIBILITY OF AN RBS 70 SAM ON TWA 800 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:48:51 GMT Organization: The Scannerist Lines: 144 Message-ID: <4vrs85$3cp@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us> References: <011303Z25081996@anon.penet.fi> Reply-To: cheshire@ridgecrest.ca.us NNTP-Posting-Host: annex033.ridgecrest.ca.us X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: news.express.co.nz alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:60503 alt.conspiracy:198774

an623250@anon.penet.fi wrote:

Very concise report. It is also interesting to note that you mention, "Tungsten, perhaps? " Tungsten pellets are not the only thing used by ground to air weapons. Sidewinder [Chaparral] is known to use an "expandable rod" war head. Also, a casing of FRANGABLE tungsten is being used in some weapons. This means that the case itself explodes into thousands of razor sharp pieces. So sharp that you could shave wih them. Bad news for anyone or anything within reach. :-{

>From: RONALD LEWIS <INTELLIGYST@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> >Subject: POSSIBILITY OF AN RBS 70 SAM ON TWA 800 >To: Multiple recipients of list FLIGHT-800 > <FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>

>According to the 8-23-96 edition of the New York Times, residue of PETN >explosive has been confirmed on wreckage of TWA Flight 800. We now have >either a bomb or a missile as the cause.

>PETN is said to be a component of missile warheads as well. >Interesting how >that was mentioned in all of the news reports tonight on various networks >and even local TV. Now that the investigators have concluded that it >definitely was a bomb or a missile, they are supposedly going through and >trying to collect evidence to indicate which it was.

>Two things highly significant: 1) Weeks ago, a reliable source >advised me >that the investigators were not worried about explosive residue fading in >salt water because they had other evidence. Components of a missile, >perhaps? Couldn't say.

>2) Same source told me the other day that the investigators were now >conducting "metalurgical studies", i.e., they were looking for and >analzying certain types of metal. Tungsten, perhaps? Bombs don't >contain >tungsten but SAM warheads are often surrounded by tungsten balls or >pellets. >They help cut the metal skin of their target aircraft.

>OTHER NOTES:

>1) Rocket motor of a missile would be capable of touching off a fire in >nearby fuel tanks. An Exocet missile sank the destroyer SHEFFIELD >in the >Falklands War without the warhead even detonating. The missile cut >through >the hull, severed fuel lines and the rocket motor touched off the spilled >fuel, causing a fatal fire.

>2) Something ejected the air conditiioning plant in the first >debris field. >What would blow out the missing bottom of the aircraft center without >collapsing the internal structures, then manage to blow the forward >fuselage >off, rip away the right side of the fuselage and cause burn marks >there and >in the adjacent wing? A titanic explosion which quickly ripped the >fuselage >apart faster than Pan Am 103 went.

>3) The sound on the cockpit voice recorder is different from any >other they >have heard before on two other 747s downed by bombs (Pan Am and Air >India). >Perhaps the sound was not caused by a bomb? It seems we have only a >bomb or >a missile left at this point. If it's not a bomb, then....?

>4) Nose gear damaged in its hold. Nose gear door gone. Right side >forward >cargo hatch blown off in first field. The doors and AC unit located >together. How does a bomb inside the center fuselage do such damage >to the >nose gear area? It doesn't seem possible. However, an external >blast and >shock wave would be consistent with this, especially if it initiated >at the >left rear and traveled forward, rippling along the bottom of the >aircraft. >It would be very interesting to note if the nose gear door found in >Area #3 >(the "first" debris field, that closest to JFK) happens to have been from >the right side.

>5) Latest pieces of wreckage with fuselage stringers and stiffeners >AGAIN >show at least subtle evidence of an external explosion rippling the outer >fuselage inward. Look at the video of all outer hull sections recovered. >The outer skin is pushed inward around the stringers. If it had been an >internal bomb, the metal would be almost universally bowed OUTWARD >away from >the stringers and ribs. But they aren't. In virually every case I have >seen so far, the sheet metal is not pulled AWAY from the stringers. They >may be popped loose but even in those rare cases, the indentations on the >outer skin make it appear as though the stringers have been pushed inward >away from the outer sheet metal, not as though the steet metal had been >pused outward away from the stringers.

>6) If a bomb, why so little PETN? Why isn't it virtually >everywhere? Pan >AM 103 HAD lots of it even though the bomb went off contained in a cargo >bin. What would account for so little PETN in this case?

>A proximity fuze detonation of a missile would touch off the blast >outside >the aircraft. Kinetic energy would still send a large portion of it into >the aircraft, penetrating it and passing through, but most of the >explosive >residue would burn away or dissipate outside of the aircraft. If >they can >find fragments of the 747 underbelly and subject them to tests, I >strongly >believe they will find higher concentrations of both PETN residue and >tungsten fragments embedded in the metal.

>If this was a bomb, it had to be enormously powerful, skillfully >planted or >just unfortunately "lucky." The entire bottom of the plane around the >center wing box is said to be missing but, bewteen the passenger >cabin and >the outer surface of the bottom of the plane is some of the most robust >construction known to exist on the 747. How is it, then, that that the >"device" was able to blow off the front of the fuselage, blow away >at least >the right side of the fuselage, then make it past the heavy-duty >wings and >AC unit to shread the bottom of the plane into fragments so small >they may >have to dredge to recover them?

>It seems that only a missile could rip away the bottom exterior upon >contact >to blast away the AC unit lying right above that area. As the hot >remains >of the missile body continue into the aircraft, they could tear open the >center fuel tanks and, with the compression of air and kinetic >energy, blow >out the right side and cause separation of the forward fuselage. The >thousands of tungsten fragments and the armor-piercing capability of >the RBS >70 would surely be capable of such incredible damage. It has destroyed >light armored vehicles when fired in the air-to-ground mode, so it >shouldn't >be hard to imagine it doing severe damage to the thin skin of a >pressurized >airliner hull at 13000+ feet.

>And there are precedents for using SAMs against airliners and civilian planes.

>In the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, airliners were being used >to ferry >out refugees and to bring in weapons and supplies during the civil >war with >Abkhazian separatists. SAM gunners, in boats out on the Black Sea, are >known to have shot down at LEAST two airliners as they approached >and took >off from Sukhumi, Georgia.

>In April, 1995, a Falcon executive jet carrying the president of >Rwanda was >on final approach to Kigali airfield in the capital city of Rwanda >when it >was shot down by a shoulder-fired SAM (RBS 70 is NOT shoulder-fired >but is a >MANPAD, or man-portable system mounted on a pedestal mount).

>It has happened before, it may have happened with TWA 800. Now, what >measures do we take to make sure it doesn't happen again?

>Ron Lewis >CHIEF MILITARY & AVIATION ANALYST >THE INTELLIGYST GROUP

>--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENT >ON*** >Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. >Please, report inappropriate use to abuse@anon.penet.fi >For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help@anon.penet.fi >If you have any problems, address them to admin@anon.penet.fi

Dr Pepper 10 - 2 - 4

Uh, oh! Joop Teernstra http://serve.com/terastra If you want to make up your mind about an argument, see who attacks the person, rather than the matter at hand.

* CEBU-L DISCUSSION LIST * Comments/Complaints, write: ADMIN@CEBU.USC.EDU.PH To unsubscribe, write: LISTSERV@CEBU.USC.EDU.PH w/ body text: SIGNOFF CEBU-L