At 10:45 AM 4/5/02 -0500, Faustine wrote: >Well, given how hot he was last month about the idea of someone who seemed to >be deliberately feeding him a line of disinformation, I just thought it was >important not to throw an accusation like that around which reflects badly on >the manual donor, especially when there's a fairly good explanation for the >screw-up at hand.
Again, its not the anonymous info leaker, but its mil author/proofreader, who is lame, intentionally or not. Of course, JY should be skeptical of all info streaming by, like the rest of us. >>What we did find worth remarking on is the lethal sloppiness in a doc >>written by the largest manufacturer-of-, deployer-of-, and trainer-about- >> explosives in the world. > >Absolutely, these are often erroneous and badly written. Yes, you have every >right to expect to see disinformation in them. But in this case, there's >nothing lethal about adding sodium cyanide to a urea nitrate bomb-- If you're properly removed all the trace acids from the nitrate... >fact would likely boost the lethality by at least an order of magnitude An order of magnitude? What are you smoking? Or do you expect survivors to lick crystalline residues off the debris? BTW, The Israelis have faced organophosphate-laced explosives, but the pesticides generally don't do much (heat, dispersal..). You're better off using the van-space to hold Al powder, or tanks of hydrogen or acetylene, if your explosive has an oxygen surplus.
