I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the effects of a blast like the one that was shown.

First off, gasoline burns very hot, and would likely flash the clothing of those not directly inside the blast area to flame creating painful burns.

Second, this is an improvised car bomb. The bombs in Iraq are made from explosive filler from artillery shells and plastic explosives. In a situation like the one shown, it would be impossible to generate a thermobaric explosion because the propane disperses to fast. (IIRC, the gas used in FAE of the Air Force is propylene oxide, the fuel they used to run top fuel dragsters on.)

In the final case this is a terror weapon. The number of people killed directly by the weapon would be small. I would expect a large number of wounded and killed to be th result of panic following the detonation of such a device near a crowded place.

This is especially interesting in light of the many vocal Leftwing comments I've read who assert the Glasgow bombers couldn't possibly be Al Quaeda because of their lack of successful detonations.
I think the comments indicate a confusion of Iraqi IED's provided by Iran, with AQ ops elsewhere (and some innate cogitory confusion besides).

The car, which looked like a jeep, didn't move at all and I suspect they left the back hatch unlatched and it certainly appears so from the way the man was putting down the back door just before they left for their mountain viewing area. Otherwise, it's more likely the explosion and flames would come out the side windows and maybe blow all the door off.

It also looks like the driver's side door was left ajar; it's delay wrt the flames out the back possibly due to the back seat redirecting the force of the explosion. I wonder if that was to make sure the hastily built wood building would be hit and at aleast catch fire.

I do think I saw the propane tank flying off and up to the right in the camera view from the front of the vehicle. You can see a small dark form leading the white cloud in the beginning but it is obscured shortly after by the rising flames.

I don't think it is too bad a story. But they should have emphasized that this reinactment only gives the viewer a minor idea of the London bombs effect if it was constructed properly. If I were CNN I wouldn't want to give people the idea there is a safe area at the front of the vehicle, but on the other hand, I'm glad they did use the lower one; it would give the terrorist more info. All in all, I think, maybe CNN did the right thing by showing their simple version.

While it's funny to hear the exaggerated alarm in the CNN reporter's voice, and funnier still to hear the denial of idiotary intent by the white-haired anchor, the people who really come out looking bad in this piece are those poor souls from New Mexico Tech.

If they'd bothered just going down the road apiece to my alma mater, New Mexico State, I'm sure they could have gotten something that not only worked, but worked to prove their point.

Go Lobos!

it would be impossible to generate a thermobaric explosion because the propane disperses to fast.

FYI - propane and gasoline vapor aren't explosive in high concentrations -- they NEED to be highly dispersed or the reactions snuffs themselves out.

Acetylene?...well that's a whole different story.

Well, that is what the Scot Yard folks on TV were saying the first day - the actual bombs they found were grab-ass pieces of trash. Likely to burn up the car and those in it, but not doing much more than that. There would have been no concussion, and the nature of the blast would not cause the nails to act like shrapnel. It was more like a quick incendiary, but unless you use napalm it is unlikely that spreads to much of anything in a city like London.

I also saw the CNN "test" and laughed at its ridiculousness. I pictured them saying: "This is what the car bomb would've done to 17th century London". That was a WOOD chack for Chrissakes!

And everyone in the UK seems convenced that this is NOT Al-Qaeda. The attack was clownish and amanteur-ish. More likley a bunch of foreign nationals who felt like they "sold out" and needed to strike a blow. However, the US media outlets are shouting "Al Qaeda" and running prepared footage and fearures that they had rotting away in the basement.

Never let the story get in the way of the show.

I think you guys are missing something basic, a fuel air explosive can never work in a car bomb because the accelerant needs to be dispersed into a large cloud before being detonated. The car chassis would prevent that dispersal because the initial explosion is not that strong, certainly not strong enough to bust open the car’s frame and let the cloud expand. It was never going to work, these people are morons.

But what it does show is the sheer, disgusting malevolence of these jihadi filth. They were fantasizing about how many would be killed and burned in their mighty "fuel-air explosion", and the second car was positioned to kill the crowds of people fleeing from the first, a classic AQ tactic.

These people are filth. Excrement. They deserve death. Watching the PC British government squirm around trying to disassociate the word Muslim with terrorist makes me sick. When are they going to stop worrying about these animal’s hurt feelings and start worrying about the safety of their citizens?

That CNN clip is a hillarious hodgepodge of mixed messages.

Did you get a look at the propane tank after the explosion? I suspect that the rupture was caused by detonation cord or similar explosive attached vertically to the tank. Look at the slight inward curl of the rupture's edges and the condition of the metal. This would also correspond with the apparent speed and progression of the fireball. As well as the arraingement of containors in the boot. Hard to tell on the clip, but it looks like there is an initial explosion rather than fire, then a bursting forth of burning fuel from the car. I too agree that they rigged the car to allow the fireball to exit the drivers side towards the structure and possibly the rear hatch by not securing the doors.

This differs a bit from setting fire to the petrol fuel or vented propane gas and then causing a tank to rupture. By the way propane won't ignite if in a concentration greater than 9% by volume or less than about 3%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZmbp_zO6rs

So far the British authorities have not suggested that the London/Glasgow plot's devices contained any high explosives to intiate a rapid rupture of the patio gas cylinders.

Either way though, the result in the CNN test or the recent plot is a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE).
http://www.aristatek.com/explosions.aspx

Something fire safety engineers deal with all the time.
http://me.queensu.ca/people/birk/research/thermalHazards/bleve/safeDistance.php

When looking at that table keep in mind that it is for larger tanks than the plot's devices. Which were made up of 2 or 3 propane patio gas tanks size 25.4 litres/13kg or 9.77 litres/5kg. Which with intregal overfill valves and summer temperatures would have contained 80% or less.

These devices are not in any way a Fuel Air Explosion weapon. Which is a very different and difficult animal to construct and deploy.

Confirming purple avenger, take it from someone who was kicked out of high school and prohibited from taking any welding further classes because he filled a leg of a steel welding table with Acetylene and touched it off, it separated the leg from the table, caused the table to flip over and come to a rest against a wall 15 feet away. I thought it was funny back when I was 16. What was not funny was what happened after my parents found out about it, but I guess the libs have laws about what parents can do to correct their kids now-a-days.

Had there been an additional violent oxidizer, such as a tank of nitrous oxide or can of nitromethane, mixed amongst the propane and gas mixture, and all ruptured simultaneously, the results might have gotten a little closer to the carnage the wouldbe jihadis expected.

Amos - they do deserve death, but unfortunately the "suicide car bomb" at Galsgow DID NOT EVEN KILL THE SUICIDE BOMBERS!

We've seen what home grown, amateur terrorists can do in Oklahoma City. Doesn't take much, but thank God it's somewhat difficult.

CNN looking to cash in on some fear mongering about terror...and failing miserably.

R30C, Did a lot of the same except with large
banana balloons and wax paper fuse...The Doctors
in England didn't get it quite right this time
next time they will...Propane ,gas and c-4 or
ammonium nitrate you don't need a fuel/air bomb.
Max kill is the game and they will get it right.

They probably won't be using nitromethane -- its ~$250 for a 5gal can. I know because I called around pricing some a few days ago while looking to mix up a batch of model engine fuel.

Yea, 8 doctors can't afford $250 for nitromethane.

These were not some homeless bums without brains. They would not have incinerated their strategic advantage (access, trust, mobility, lethal potential) unless they thought they would likely inflict a true act of terror with shocking death and destruction. Even though they botched it, they had a devastating plan.

Unfortunately they took the video down by the time I read your piece. But I do note that commenters and press don't seem to understand the enemy. They constantly are saying that they are or are not al Quaeda. I al Quaeda our only enemy? It seems to me that we should understand we are fighting Islam. The great majority of Muslims support the terrorist efforts of the extremist. So we need to use this English effort as an example of the make up of our enemy. Every Muslim is potentially a problem just as every German and Jap were in WWII.

To David Caskey, MD:

"The great majority of Muslims support the terrorist efforts of the extremist." ?

Please provide evidence of this. If you checked polling done in both the US and Britain, you'll find that a vast majority of Muslims do not favor any type of violence. Sure, there's a sizable percentage, mostly younger, who agree with violent means - mostly against Israel. But the great majority of Muslims reject violence and are as horrified by the senseless brutality of AQ as non-Muslims are.

The West needs to develop better intelligence of our foes by cultivating a relationship and understanding with Muslims and countries with large Muslim populations. A big change from what the US has been doing so far, to be sure - but a change of course is certainly in order.

Gunderson,
I don't know were you got your stats, but most polls are indicating that Muslims by a significant majority have some sympathy for the terroist movement. If you bother to read the Korann, you will find that the principal of the religion is war and death to all that are not Muslim. We are past the point were "understanding" of these criminals will help. I highly recommend Hitchens book "God in not Great". Here he documents the hate of this particular religion. Of course he does so for all religions, but the point is that we need a far more aggressive approach for our war on Islam.

The Media has it around 1-2% of Islam hold radical
views.I caught a interview of Bridget Gabrielle
who stated the number was more like 20%.Now if
you take half of the number btween say 2% and 20%
it will still give you around 140 Million radicals. Her other point was 80% of all Moslums do not like the western world.So there you have it
not a pretty picture how ever you choose to look
at it....One last point Steve Emerson claims there
are around 27 active cells here in the good old
USA...

Nobody seems to want to mention the real reason why the bombs fizzled.

When was the last time a doctor got anything done without using a nurse?

The surveys asked if they agreed with the violence, not if they would cause violence themselves. That's a big difference. None of the surveys have asked if the respondents would become terrorists themselves - the real question we're dealing with here.

Again, most of this hatred is towards Israel and the Palestinian disaster. And sure, there are lots of bad guys who want to inflict pain on America, but it's nothing close to the numbers you're talking about.

For the last six years, America hasn't helped itself regarding the Middle East, and the only way it can improve the situation is through shrewd diplomacy and smart, focused intelligence.

Again, finding common ground and winning hearts and minds amongst the vast majority of mainstream Muslims who denounce violence is a far superior approach to what Dr. Caskey is advocating. Basing one's understanding of a religion using a book by a highly prejudiced writer on such a broad subject as Islam is a mistake - unless that's the only view you want to believe.

Developing relationships with Muslim communities and countries rather than building walls will mean an increased ability to gain intelligence on the bad guys who use Islam as a cover for violence.

Again, most Muslims detest what is happening, just as the majority of Christians detest what, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does in God's name. Westboro may not be killing anyone, but there's a whole lot of ugly hate coming out of there because the Bible says so (or so their pastor, Fred Phelps tell his followers). In both cases, a minority of radical believers using twisted interpretations of their respective holy books leads to actions the majority cannot agree with.

Build bridges and open doors to those who want to help and then we'll be better able to learn who and where the bad guys are.

Is there a better way? Tell me if you think you know.

Gunderson,
I thought that I would bring to your attention the fact that your exact statements were used by the Jews prior to WWII. You can see what happened to them.

Dr. David Caskey,

So the Jews were responsible for bringing the Holocaust upon themselves??? At this point, I'll just say goodnight and good luck. I'd rather not be involved in giving you an opportunity to air more noxious ideas to the world.

ipxzejhmt corwyzsn ghvcmls lnpdyz prth wexcdz igwnz