More bombs??
 

In ,
Bob Wood typed:

In oups.com,
typed:

There has been emergency vehicles heading south along Albert
Embankment for about the last hour or so, so we realised that
something had happened. Usually all the emergency vehicles are
heading into London not out.


Eyewitness claiming small explosion in a rucksack - no
casualties. I don't know which site this refers to.

Also, train managed to continue to Warren Street where it was
evacuated. I don't know whether this is the same incident.


Radio 5 has just reported that these might be very small explosions - they
are suggesting "detonators only".






--
Bob

More bombs??
 

"Bob Wood" wrote in message
...
In ,
Bob Wood typed:

In oups.com,
typed:

There has been emergency vehicles heading south along Albert
Embankment for about the last hour or so, so we realised that
something had happened. Usually all the emergency vehicles are
heading into London not out.


Eyewitness claiming small explosion in a rucksack - no
casualties. I don't know which site this refers to.

Also, train managed to continue to Warren Street where it was
evacuated. I don't know whether this is the same incident.


Radio 5 has just reported that these might be very small explosions -
they
are suggesting "detonators only".

Small bang, lots of smoke, possible that one perpetrator ran away (Oval)....
could be a duff lot of explosive. Early speculation on my part though.

Nick

More bombs??
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:52:20 GMT, Bob Wood wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
In ,
Bob Wood typed:
[...]
Eyewitness claiming small explosion in a rucksack - no
casualties. I don't know which site this refers to.

Also, train managed to continue to Warren Street where it was
evacuated. I don't know whether this is the same incident.

Radio 5 has just reported that these might be very small explosions - they
are suggesting "detonators only".

BBC News 24 report that LU "sources" are saying that nailbombs
*without explosive* are involved, and the explosions are indeed
detonators only. All unconfirmed, of course.

1 person injured at Warren Street according to BT Police (via BBC News
24).

No injuries reported at the other two LU locations, nor on the bus.


Some very sick copycats?
--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

More bombs??
 

Ross wrote:
Some very sick copycats?


My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".

PhilD

--

More bombs??
 

The worry is how many of us could lay our hands on dets and the
knowledge to use them in less than 2 weeks in order to cash in on
someone else's work? No doubt the conspiracy theorists will be having
another field day soon.

More bombs??
 

In oups.com,
PhilD typed:

Ross wrote:
Some very sick copycats?


My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".


I doubt it. I don't think a copy-cat would go to the extent of 4 almost
simultaneous incidents.


--
Bob

More bombs??
 

Bob Wood wrote:
In oups.com,
PhilD typed:

Ross wrote:

Some very sick copycats?

My immediate thought too. Looks like an amateur copy, done because it
would be "funny".

I doubt it. I don't think a copy-cat would go to the extent of 4 almost
simultaneous incidents.

I think London got lucky this time.

One of the reports on BBC World service (30 minutes ago) had the bus
driver reporting a split open rucksack, with white powder spilling
out.

My suspicion is that these were real bombs, but the main charges
failed to detonate.

Modern high explosives are pretty insensitive, and it require a
detonator or blasting cap to get them going.

Perhaps they were constructed incompetantly, or home made explosives
were used which did not work.

We'll know in a few days, I guess.

pt

More bombs??
 

Peter Trei wrote:
[...]
One of the reports on BBC World service (30 minutes ago) had the bus
driver reporting a split open rucksack, with white powder spilling
out.

My suspicion is that these were real bombs, but the main charges
failed to detonate.

Modern high explosives are pretty insensitive, and it require a
detonator or blasting cap to get them going.

Another theory - these guys were set to go but police nabbed the
explosives they were planning to use, but they decided to go ahead
anyway (with fake explosives!).

Doesn't seem likely, but neither does being as organised as they seem
to have been but none of the devices working...

More bombs??
 

I can't believe that 4 hours after this morning's attacks in London, my
MSN/MSNBC home page has nothing about it!??!!? What the .... I go
elsewhere for news, but this is very inept. They have a lead to another
attempted Rove leak smear, but no news lead about London. It seems like
they work for the Democratic party in the USA and want to put terrorist
attacks in the Western world on the back burner. I'm sick of this
selective news approach for political purposes!

More bombs??
 

Simon Lane wrote:
Peter Trei wrote:
[...]
One of the reports on BBC World service (30 minutes ago) had the bus
driver reporting a split open rucksack, with white powder spilling
out.

My suspicion is that these were real bombs, but the main charges
failed to detonate.

Modern high explosives are pretty insensitive, and it require a
detonator or blasting cap to get them going.

Another theory - these guys were set to go but police nabbed the
explosives they were planning to use, but they decided to go ahead
anyway (with fake explosives!).

Doesn't seem likely, but neither does being as organised as they seem
to have been but none of the devices working...

There's a certain logic to the bombs being badly made. I can't imagine
it's easy to test bombs.