Beware of flashlight bombs...

[Sleestak]

SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) - A police bomb squad disarmed an explosive device found in a Starbucks coffee shop in central San Francisco, investigators said Monday.

The device was discovered about 1:15 p.m. (4:15 p.m. ET) in the bathroom of the coffee shop, the San Francisco Police Department told CNN. Police told CNN the bomb squad was called to investigate a metal flashlight and determined it was a "device that could explode."

Starbucks said in a statement, "The local authorities were immediately contacted and we are working in full cooperation with them to ensure the safety and security of our partners (employees), our customers and the store."

The company said all of its employees and customers were safe. Additionally, Starbucks said it could not provide any additional information because it was necessary to protect the integrity of the police investigation. The incident is still being investigated, and police said they were unaware of any threats against that particular shop, located at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Bush Street.

===

Perhaps the Luxeon Bomb is the latest terrorist weapon of choice?:laughing:

 

[greg_in_canada]

It always seems a little silly after the fact when they blow up suspected bombs and they are nothing. But if they didn't and the package was a bomb...

A metal flashlight could be used to make a pipe bomb, I suppose, so it is better to just destroy it if there is any doubt.

Greg

 

[beezaur]

One of the Uni-bomber's first bombs was fashioned from a board, if memory serves. If you see an ordinary object in a suspicious place, leave it alone and report it.

I wonder what it was about the flashlight that made people think twice.

Scott

 

[hquan]

One of the Uni-bomber's first bombs was fashioned from a board, if memory serves. If you see an ordinary object in a suspicious place, leave it alone and report it.

I wonder what it was about the flashlight that made people think twice.

Scott

maybe it was the ticking clock that was duct taped to it?

 

[UVvis]

This is partially common knowledge I hope, but most responder folk have, or should have been informed to not pick up stray flashlights at crime scenes. Mostly due to the possibility that a bad guy could have made a maglite or (insert brand here) bomb to target emergency responders.

Basically what Scott said, don't play with things that are out of place.

 

[Sleestak]

maybe it was the ticking clock that was duct taped to it?

:laughing:

 

[AJ_Dual]

These flashlight-IED's are incredibly dangerous. I'm surprised that criminals and kooks don't try it more often.

- Looks like a common innocuous object, and one that's not unusual to be found "lost" in almost any area.

- Already has a metal "pipe" body.

- Comes pre-made with a "detonator switch", wiring path, and room for both battery and explosives.

- Very easy to be made completely self-contained with no external indications of it's true nature.

It's a very natural impulse for a person to pick up the flashlight and flip the switch, guaranteeing the victim will have it in his or her hands and close to the body. The design of such a thing is so simple as to not need further explanation.

No clocks or funny wires to tip someone off are required.

 

[KevinL]

No wonder when I last flew my lights were looked at and turned on.

No hassles, the guy just said "that's bright" and let go of the switch. But now I kinda think I know why.....

 

[leukos]

Incidents like these make me believe it will only be a matter of time before there are legal restrictions on our flashlights. :sigh:

 

[Phaserburn]

The Mag-bomb! They were probably picking it up to see if it could be modded.

 

[matt_j]

no more flashlights on the planes if TSA gets a whiff of that

 

[AJ_Dual]

If it's low order explosives, (i.e. gunpowder, match heads etc.) you'd need something the size of at least a 4-D M@g or bigger to do some damage to an aircraft beyond the smoke and nusiance factor. (Negating burns/injuries to 1-2 immediate bystanders.) Flashlights of this size are already banned for carry-on as "bludgeons".

Criminals/Terrorists can hide exposives in most anything they want, so I don't think flashlights will be singled out. Of course, if someone makes a credible attempt with a flashlight IED, then all bets are off. No one is probably ever going to try a "shoe bomb" again, but the TSA is still checking…

The Pan-Am flight that was destroyed over Lockerby was done in by a "boom box" style radio with an altitude timer rigged to plastique that was in the luggage compartment.

The flight to Greece that had the side blow out, and lose a few seats/passengers, but the rest of the plane survived was believed to be an umbrella that had the center rod filled with plastique that was hidden between the seat and the fuselage on the pevious connecting flight. (I met the family from Milwaukee that were in the seats nearby that survived, they were friends of my mother…)

So I suppose an IED made from a 123 or AA sized flashlight could do some damage if filled with something like C4 that has a very high detonation velocity. I'm no explosives engineer, but I'd guess that it's still on the lower limit to take out a plane. Organized terrorists would probably want something bigger to hide a more "reliable" ammount of explosives in.

If you recall the Mythbusters episode where they debunked bullet holes causing explosived decompression, it took a shaped-charge the size of a medium sized bowl, or about half a cantaloupe, to make a hole that was about the width or one row of seats.

I think you'll see more chemical sniffers that can detect the nitrates in explosives, and the enhanced x-rays that can do the same, before you see medium-small flashlights banned, IMO.

 

[ABTOMAT]

There's been an IED warning for police about flashlight bombs for a while. Sounds very dangerous--until I read it I certainly wouldn't think twice about pushing the switch on a flashlight found in the street. Actually, the warning also talks about mercury switches, so it wouldn't be safe to even pick one up.

This also has a negative impact on my hobby. I asked about vintage police flashlights on a LEO board and a guy thought I was the next Unabomber.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

When flashlights become illegal then only criminals will have flashlights.

Back to reality, it amazes me that someone would pull a stunt like this.

 

[Sleestak]

These flashlight-IED's are incredibly dangerous. I'm surprised that criminals and kooks don't try it more often.

- Looks like a common innocuous object, and one that's not unusual to be found "lost" in almost any area.

Truthfully, not just that, but a 'nice' flashlight, even a new and purty maglight, would tempt almost any redblooded American male to pick it up and check it out.

Guys have a thing about tools and flashlights. 'Course, a flashlight is a tool.

 

[tvodrd]

If a BG had access to Military-class explosives like C4, and an electrical detonator ("blasting cap,") an IED the size of a lipstick (or E1e!) could be devised, capable of taking out a cabin window or cabin wall to the tune of 1' dia hole! (Stacked button cells to trigger the cap.) Bring a 757 down, unlikely, but I doubt cabin depressurizations at altitude are "convenient!"

TSA's/the intelligence comunity's focus seems to be on identifying the BGs and preventing them from flying. I think it's working as how many "controlled impacts with terrain" (Or something like that) have occurred since 9/11? I think TSA realizes that the $7/hr guys behind the X-ray screens can be bored to tears and miss a Mad 2D thats lacks obvious "batteries." I for one, will give them credit for trying! (Afterall, gotta fly to Divine Providence (RI) again next tuesday morning. )

Larry

 

[gadget_lover]

If you recall the Mythbusters episode where they debunked bullet holes causing explosived decompression, it took a shaped-charge the size of a medium sized bowl, or about half a cantaloupe, to make a hole that was about the width or one row of seats.

Like many of their shows, it was not quite valid. They neglected to include;

1) the possible damage to the control lines running the length of the cabin.

2) The 500MPH stream of air outside the hole. The venturi effect (air moving past a hole creates a vacuum in the hole) would have a major impact, though I could not tell you what that impact would be.

I love Mythbusters, but I take the show with a large grain of salt.

Daniel

 

[AJ_Dual]

Modern aircraft have redundant control systems, and generaly any explosion large enough to take them all out would also be structuraly catastrophic anyway. Also, the closest proximity a passenger/terrorist has to structuraly critical components is the fuesalage, and that access would be a window seat. Generaly, most aircraft don't route critical control systems through that part of the plane.

As to Mythbusters, they tested for the venturi effect in one of the shows where they re-visit the tests where people complain on the Internet. I certainly agree their tests are not precise from a pure peer-reviewed scientific or engineering standpoint, but their results are generaly "ball-park".

The added pressure differential from external high speed airflow and low/no speed internal air was negligable. They tried to see what kinds of pressures aircraft airspeed diferentials would create by attempting to suck smoke out of a container with a hole in it using a wind tunnel, and it barely worked at all.

It probably stems from the misunderstanding that Bernouli's principle is (very powerful, and) what generates lift and keeps aircraft up. If that were true, aircraft could not fly upside-down.

Bernouli's principle does exist, it works on a piece of paper, but in aircraft it's existance is still hotly debated! One school states lift is largely a product of Newtonian 1st law redirection of the air mass created by the angle of attack, and (if the wing even has it) the camber. (many high speed fighters and supersonic aircraft have little or no camber in their wings, the cross-sections are almost symmetrical)

another school favors a mathematical proof for eddy-like circulation that's completely beyond me.

I've been reading on this, and am still confused somewhat, but I gather that Bernouli's principle, and the pressure differentials from airspeeds aren't enough to keep planes in the sky, or widen small holes from gunfire or small bombs.

 

[jdhunter]

Bernouli is Venturi's brother and they are alive and well. In the case of a free moving body the pressure changes due to relative velocity differences are the immediate forces that cause a generalized circulation of air from under the body (compressed and relatively lower velocity, being squished forward) upwards around the side extremities towards a locus above the body, continuing "around" the side points to join in a downwash. The total mass of downwashed air in excess of all the air displaced in other directions is the "action" that bears the weight of the body aloft ("reaction"). The inertia of the air is the key; air is compressed ahead of the wing (and decompressed behind it); the angle of attack biases that center of pressure below the line of travel; it speeds up (relative to surrounding air) moving aftward to escape the pressure, moreso above the wing than below because the compression is greatest below. It also curls around the wingtips--powerfully!--creating vortexes that on a humid day can suck a visible cloud along in the low pressure centers.

 

[Ken_McE]

Modern aircraft have redundant control systems, and generaly any explosion large enough to take them all out would also be structuraly catastrophic anyway. Also, the closest proximity a passenger/terrorist has to structuraly critical components is the fuesalage, and that access would be a window seat. Generaly, most aircraft don't route critical control systems through that part of the plane.

How about a spot right over the center gas tank? Or how about just under the rudder?