In article ,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:07 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,
(David Boothroyd) wrote:

If the reports today (that the explosive was mostly Acetone Peroxide)
are correct, then it would be unlikely given the damage to the train
that any serious damage was done to the tunnel.

Since the rest of us aren't the explosive experts that you are, David,
perhaps you can explain that remark?

I suspect he means what I've already thought, i.e. that the damage to
the heavier parts of the subsurface trains is fairly limited, menaing
that the blast furthur out would have been sufficient to significantly
damage the tunnel.

It's difficult to make a really large bomb with Acetone peroxide
because it is so unstable. Having a professional chemist may mean
that the reaction product has been stabilised by mixing with other
similar but less friction-sensitive chemicals, but it's still not
a compound to trust.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.