Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

rdharma

(6,057 posts)

13. No. It wasn't smokeless reloading powder.

Reply to cthulu2016 (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 04:32 PM

Apr 2013

And it wasn't ANFO.

And it wasn't "foreign terrorism".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

delete [View all] cthulu2016 Apr 2013 OP

IIRC, we have the ability to put taggants in material used for explosives blm Apr 2013 #1

I believe you are thinking of a legislative push to put taggants in ammonium nitrate fertilizer slackmaster Apr 2013 #10

The NRA believes the word arms in the 2nd Amendment to also mean bombs. Lint Head Apr 2013 #2

Don't know if they're easy to get, but they seem easy to make. JaneyVee Apr 2013 #3

Or because you can... Bay Boy Apr 2013 #5

Probably less advanced, but more effective cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #7

I doubt commercial or military "explosives" were used in the Boston attack ..... nt rdharma Apr 2013 #4

I would guess commercial explosives were and military explosives were not cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #6

Black powder can make a powerful bomb hack89 Apr 2013 #11

No. It wasn't smokeless reloading powder. rdharma Apr 2013 #13

So what do you think it was? Black powder? ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #20

Cordite? rdharma Apr 2013 #26

That was what the ER doc was quoted as saying ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #30

You can buy big cans of gunpowder at your friendly neighborhood gun shop backscatter712 Apr 2013 #14

Black powder and Pryodex are sold in much smaller quantities than smokeless powders ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #19

How much do you need? I googled, and saw it in 1 lb cans. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #22

Black powder or smokeless? ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #23

Googling again - the federal laws kick in at 50 pounds. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #24

No, commercial explosives are pretty strictly regulated. slackmaster Apr 2013 #8

If the explosive used in Boston was "black powder," as some think, be aware of... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #9

This does not appear to be commercial explosives at this time ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #12

Smokeless powder? rdharma Apr 2013 #15

Given that it is in a compression vessel, smokeless would work as well as ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #18

Smokeless is expensive and actually doesn't work as well as black powder for that type of device slackmaster Apr 2013 #16

My WAG is based on the amount of smoke and low level of blast ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #17

Smokeless is much easier to get on large quantities ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #21

That is because of bizarre shipping regulations. BP is regarded as a more hazardous explosive. slackmaster Apr 2013 #25

Oh, back off! rdharma Apr 2013 #27

My mission is to inform slackmaster Apr 2013 #28

Riiiiiight! rdharma Apr 2013 #29

I informed you that my mission is to inform slackmaster Apr 2013 #33

As I said, its my WAG based on what is in the media ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #31

OK, professor...... rdharma Apr 2013 #32