Slashdot Mirror


DIY Explosives Experimenter Blows Self Up, Contaminates Building (fdlreporter.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader hey! writes: Benjamin D. Morrison of Beaver Dam Wisconsin was killed on March 5 while synthesizing explosives in his apartment... The accident has left the apartment building so contaminated that it will be demolished in a controlled burn, and residents are not being allowed in to retrieve any of their belongings.
It was just five years ago that Morrison graduated from Pensacola Christian College in Florida with a degree in pre-pharmacy and minors in chemistry and math. Though a local reverend believes 28-year-old Morrison was "not a bomb maker," USA Today's site FDL Reporter notes that "Officials assume he was making bombs that accidentally exploded and killed him... They have not publicly disclosed what chemicals were in apartment 11 where Morrow lived, only describing them as 'extremely volatile and unstable explosives.'"

366 comments

  1. Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    strikes again.

    1. Re:Florida man by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      He was from Wisconsin. He only went to college in Florida. Florida's humid climate is not a good place to make explosives, since you get more bang for the buck when you can fully desiccate.

    2. Re: Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      At least he went out with a bang. ;)

      I'll be here all day folks, please tip your techs, they live off tips. Thanks.

    3. Re:Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      strikes again.

      The Florida idiots are getting so bad they're blowing up stuff in Wisconsin.

    4. Re:Florida man by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The fact that he was from Wisconsin just demonstrates what kind of people Florida attracts.

      It's actually a good thing, because it keeps them down there where it doesn't matter what happens.

    5. Re:Florida man by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Whoops, on reflection, it sounds like he was contaminated in Florida and allowed to leave the state.

    6. Re: Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury compounds can be highly explosive. They've been used as primers before, but they are highly unstable and dangerous to handle or even store. That would then also explain the contamination depending on the quantities of Mercury in that lab.

    7. Re: Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White x-ian fundamentalist strikes again. Home schooled IFB kjv type, education and job history suggest thwarted ambition. Add in probable romantic isolation and you easily get bombs for vengeance against perceived enemies. But white and x-ian, so notaterraist.

      Like half of \. I have the nerd urge to go on about how to do it âoerightâ.

    8. Re:Florida man by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      Not letting the residents take out their belongings is just stupid. The only case I can think of that might justify this is if he was making many pounds of mercury fulminate and the place was contaminated with mercury. But in that case, burning the structure would be totally irresponsible.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
    9. Re:Florida man by stooo · · Score: 1

      nah, it's probably a big quantity of nitrogen triiodide.
      Don't go near that.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    10. Re:Florida man by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      nah, it's probably a big quantity of nitrogen triiodide.

      That survived a lethal explosion? That's not nitrogen triiodide - in my ear-ringing, fingertip bruising purple mushroom cloud experience.

      Something somewhere is mind bogglingly wrong. And I can't be bothered trying to figure out if it's foreign reporting, police standards, overcautious officials, or just plain vanilla stupidity.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    11. Re: Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's no self evident reason to BURN DOWN a whole building including its contents, then it's just plain stupidity.

      What are you containing? Airborne zombie virus??

    12. Re: Florida man by RFjunkie · · Score: 1

      Yup, he blew up real good.

      --
      Olphart at play. Ruck FepubliKKKans. Welcome to the Worldwide Idiocracy, y'all.
    13. Re: Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you love muslim cock. You know they'd throw you off a roof, right?

    14. Re:Florida man by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> That survived a lethal explosion?
      Yep, why not
      When part of it dries, it explodes, spreading chunks of undried one around, which is still not sensitized.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    15. Re:Florida man by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The drying is what sensitizes it.

      I take it you've never made any NH3.NI3 yourself (the approximate stoichiometry of the compound ; analyses are difficult).

      The last time I made more than a gram, and it detonated after a couple of days of room-temperature air drying, as I was reaching to pick up the watch glass, my finger tips ended up covered in mm-across bruises where individual grains had been launched from the exploding mass and detonated on impact with my fingers. The small amounts that survived launch without detonating still need to land - and given the sensitivity of the explosive, almost any landing speed is enough to detonate it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Well, nothing is said about building arms. If I was from murica should I be offended. I am confused now.

    1. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homemade guns and gunpowder are totally legal in the US. Manufacturing explosives in an apartment building is not.

    2. Re:Offended or not? by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually black powder and gunpowder are very sticky legal subjects in the US. Know your state and federal laws well before even looking into playing with them.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    3. Re:Offended or not? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He went to a Christian college. I bet God was telling him to knock it off and he didn't listen so God turned up the volume.

    4. Re:Offended or not? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Actually black powder and gunpowder are very sticky legal subjects in the US. Know your state and federal laws well before even looking into playing with them.

      I would argue that the problem stems from using the words "black powder", "gunpowder" and "playing with them" in close proximity.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he should have traded in that Galaxy Note 7 if he was going to fool around with explosives!

    6. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It helped me understand how anyone could call someone who was quite apparently making bombs "not a bomb maker". I thought not even a priest can be that delusional. Turns out the young man wasn't making bombs, he was just playing. Maybe he needed some distraction because he was feeling bored and stressed.

    7. Re:Offended or not? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Homemade guns and gunpowder are totally legal in the US. Manufacturing explosives in an apartment building is not.

      Well, technically gunpowder is an explosive. That's kind of how it works.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    8. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaving all the neighbors without a home and their belongings. God really needs to work on His marksmanship. He has improved a bit since Sodom and Gomorrha but still.

    9. Re:Offended or not? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The Bible says worldly goods aren't important.

    10. Re:Offended or not? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb. The best candidate I know of is a highly-unstable compound that used to be often used in basic chemistry classes. Immediately after production, it is a wet paste, and can easily be spread in a very thin layer, preferably no more than a few grams covering a 2cm radius circle. Once it dries, that circle will make a lovely pop if disturbed, making it great fun to put on desk surfaces.

      Of course, people are dumb. This particular compound grows in destruction exponentially as its quantity increases. A few grams is fun. A few dozen grams is dangerous. A few hundred is lethal. A kilogram in one location is probably a good reason to evacuate the building.

      I am part of a group that, among many other things, handles explosives for educational purposes, partly to help chemists who are not "bomb makers" get an intuitive understanding for just how much of an explosive substance is actually safe, and how to treat them with respect. Sure, we do also build bombs, but they're also detonated safely and in a controlled environment, in full compliance with applicable laws.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:Offended or not? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Even better, know your chemistry well before playing with them.

    12. Re:Offended or not? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Nah, he blew himself up for Jesus.

    13. Re:Offended or not? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Manufacturing explosives in an apartment building is not.

      Because there is a risk of losing arms, and that would violate people's right to keep their arms, right?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Offended or not? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb.

      A lot of people make fireworks, not always professionally, and fireworks both require explosives and a reasonable level of competence in chemistry. They are also typically not considered bombs, and the same goes for any chemically-powered model rockets even though the chemicals involved are most definitely explosives.

      Oh, and then there's dust. That explodes too...

      The part that should be questioned is how anybody with a college degree in chemistry did not get taught better than to experiment with explosive chemicals in their own living space. This falls pretty firmly under the heading of things you do in a purpose-built building.

    15. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Blackpowder detonates while smokeless powder just burns. There's a big difference which is why basically you can't legally buy blackpowder now. Hodgdon's Pyrodex that is not nearly as good is pretty much all you can buy now.

    16. Re:Offended or not? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      I guess you are talking about Nitrogen Triiodide.

    17. Re:Offended or not? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Because there is a risk of losing arms, and that would violate people's right to keep their arms, right?

      No, the US Constitution grants us the right to "bear arms". It's easy enough to remove your original arms in various and sundry painful ways, although I'm not exactly sure how you're supposed to connect a bear's arms to your body afterward... even if the bear were cooperative.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    18. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think god just didn't care and wouldn't care even if he existed, logical evidence points toward that conclusion anyway.

      If god truly cared for his supposed creations he would do more than "telling him". He could easily change him or his thoughts, he's the supreme god after all, all others before him were amateurs i guess.

    19. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      nitrogen tri-iodide trivial to make in large batches--inexpensive and widely available precursors VERY UNSTABLE even when wet as bits dry and even a breath or a fly landing on it can trigger it. Try not to blind yourself or blow off your hand.

    20. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed . . .

    21. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On explosives: The part that gets by most people is that there's quite a difference between "explosives" (burns quickly) and "high explosives" (burns supersonically, ie the stuff military use). Blackpowder is already "explosive", indeed a nice dust-air mix can explode, and oh hey, what to think of a BLEVE?

      The fireballs you see in movies as "explosions" are usually burning gas, not high explosives.

      Source: Highschool chemistry. That was 25 years ago, they might not teach it now. On that note, the electrolysis of water demonstration we got included filling soap bubbles with either hydrogen or oxygen, then burn, but also both: Ideal mix, ignite, supersonic boom. Small one, but still.

      Tangent: The Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen, but not an ideal mix. Had it been the latter half the town would've needed new glass. Instead the ablaze carcass just floated to the ground and most of the people got off alive. That's a better survival rate than most airplane crashes. Most of the dead, in fact, died from jumping, not burning. Go figure.

      The part that should be questioned is how anybody with a college degree in chemistry did not get taught better than to experiment with explosive chemicals in their own living space. This falls pretty firmly under the heading of things you do in a purpose-built building.

      Modern edumacasion is so scared that it errs on the side of teaching too little. Just enough to show you where to get the rest of the rope but not enough to do it safely.

      OTOH, some people are less than entirely bright on such points. We had some people that required regular slapping on the head to stop them doing anything too stupid. So it just might be that this guy was being eggregiously stupid and nobody stopped him before he turned his appartment into a bomb.

      But I don't put it past law enforcement that they're being excessively and destructively cautious. I know I'd be sneaking back in to get my stuff whatever the risk, because fuck them. Yeah, I really would need a specific description of why they'd want to do that "controlled burn" of an entire appartment block including everyone else's stuff also, because that's just fucking excessive. Have they even tried securing the dangerous chemicals by, oh I don't know, stuffing the affected appartment with PUR foam or something?

    22. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NI3

    23. Re:Offended or not? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Not the American version. It says that God rewards the true believers with material possessions as well as hot babes or anonymous blow jobs in the mens washroom.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh what a good sheep you are, self-censoring this mysterious 'compound'. Keep it up citizen!

    25. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big of a gun do you think we could put on the back of a bear?

    26. Re:Offended or not? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It helped me understand how anyone could call someone who was quite apparently making bombs "not a bomb maker".

      When I was in the military, one of the guys in base housing decided he could make a lot of money cooking up drugs in his kitchen. Like Breaking Bad, but a decade earlier.

      Well, when the military police busted him, and saw what chemicals he had already bought to make the drugs, the prosecutors decided it was easier to prosecute him for explosives than for drugs. So he got sentenced to a decade in prison for bomb making, when all he wanted to do was sell drugs.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    27. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it protects the right to bear arms, and other rights that the founders though important enough to be doubly sure were protected.

      It is not the source of those rights, which are inalienable. If it is the source of anything, it is the source of the governments authority to impose upon you, or rather the compact under which the goverened consent to be governed.

      If someone in government tries to convince you that the Constitution is the source of your rights, be wary, for he desires to be your master.

    28. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And good luck making a kilogram of that, as the GP post suggests. Its own weight will set it off.

    29. Re:Offended or not? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      On principle, I will not name a compound to anyone in context where it might be an inspiration to do things unsafely. If you want names of such things, even easily-found things, find a local chemistry or pyrotechnics group, and start setting up safe environments under appropriate supervision, who have the awareness and experience to intervene before you start creating excessive paperwork.

      That said, there are processes for making large quantities of unstable compounds like what I've described, in such an arrangement as to control the physical stress on the final composition. When it was describe to me, I shook my head, covered my ears, turned around, and walked away at a brisk pace.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    30. Re:Offended or not? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      All versions of the Bible are big hodgepodges of random stuff thrown together without thought to consistency. They're all going to include many messages against material wealth, such as "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Stop generating lies that make you look like the jerk you obviously are.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re: Offended or not? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Is that measured in terms of lasers per shark?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:Offended or not? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Actually black powder and gunpowder are very sticky legal subjects in the US.

      If you think black powder is bad, you should see how the police react when they see you playing with white powder.

    33. Re:Offended or not? by dryeo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Is it a lie that Mike Pence, a Dominist Christian is Vice-President of the USA? Is it a lie that American politicians have been caught soliciting sex in mens bathrooms? Then there's the Christian guy who divorced 2 wives on their deathbeds to marry young things. Then there are the Christians who support Trump, a man without morals based on his actions and words.
      Unluckily most of these Christians never read the whole Bible (seeming to stop before the new testament besides the thing about being forgiven no matter what they did as long as they say they belief) nor their countries excellent founding documents. Be really nice if Americans were aware of their founders actual beliefs.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    34. Re:Offended or not? by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      Had a nephew's friend make 1.75L of that shit! Field that call at at 2am! Nephew had a "four wall" conversation with him after (as my instructions included how not to be arrested by the cops).

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    35. Re:Offended or not? by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Funny, this thread, as they all involve the same chemical. And yes, I knew the friend fucked it up by the physical description. Still had them destroy it, just to be safe. Enough to wake me up in the middle of the night. Try doing all those variables on being woken up from a dead sleep with 20 year old chemistry knowledge without getting anyone killed.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    36. Re: Offended or not? by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen triiodide?

      That stuff is hilarious.

    37. Re: Offended or not? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      It's all fun and games until a residence hall is condemned.

      "Hilarious", indeed.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    38. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US Constitution grants us the right to

      This is dangerous collectivist, statist, totalitarian constitutional heresy.

      The United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It cannot confer any rights to a citizen, because those rights are already in-born and exist as long as the citizen exists as a living human. I cannot be given some feature, property, and attribute that is already in me. To say that the Constitution "gives" people rights implies that those rights have been taken away from them in the first place.

      It is merely that the Framers understood the power of governments are a threat to civil rights, and they had to put up those big billboards warning the government YOU CANNOT DO THIS. Governments are obsessed with power onto death, so you have to warn them all the time, and it would be better to put up those warnings in some permanent record that takes a specific procedure involving the majority of citizens and states to modify. From a purely legal point of view, The Bill of Rights are redundant, but redundancy is necessary in the face of an all-encroaching government.

      The Constitution is not a prescriptive document giving rights to citizens. It merely describes a common truth, namely, that some rights are already part of you, the being. It even acknowledges that it is not an exhaustive description, and it is unconstitutional to use the Constitution as such (Amendment IX).

    39. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a piece of shit. Fucking apk clones

    40. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the only "unalienable" rights are those that are "god given", I.e. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Arguably food, water, shelter, and healthcare should be among these, but America doesn't seem to think so.

      Guns sure a shit don't make the list. "God" didn't give you guns

      But you not understanding that doesn't even matter. The only rights you have are those that society has granted you because, and I hope this isn't too big a shock, but God isn't real and can't grant you anything. To claim that you have a right to anything because "magic" makes you no better than a madman

    41. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thou shalt not steal.

      Does that sound like words from a book that claims that worldly goods aren't important?

    42. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like half the story.

    43. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has nothing to do with Pense, he's pretty moral overall.

    44. Re:Offended or not? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 2

      "Energetic Materials" and "Energetic Materials in Application" are still still offered at a handful of schools in my state, but almost entirely for graduate students. Those used to be elective chemistry and engineering classes for undergrads during early 90's at the university I attended, but a slightly faster paced version was offered to graduate students or with department approval. I can't think of too may schools even then that offered those to undergrads back then, much less now.

      School's have really taken the "fun" out of chemistry. I'm not sitting here advocating that we everyone needs to spend a couple semesters doing nothing but say fluorine chemistry (yet another thing they don't really welcome in the lab anymore, and maybe on this one I'll say okay, but someone has still to be trained to do it. Ticking time bombs in the sand bucket in the fume hood. Fun fun fun!), but until I had energetic materials chemistry ceased to be fun.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    45. Re:Offended or not? by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      I purchased a pound of Black Powder last week, not Pyrodex. Why did I buy it?For my Black Powder rifle.

    46. Re:Offended or not? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Not really, they're perfectly legal in most states, but when you amass over a certain amount you are legally obligated to follow safe handling and storage procedures.

    47. Re:Offended or not? by McFortner · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if he went to a Muslim college you'd make the same remarks?

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    48. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it would you stupid ignorant POS.

    49. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a total moron to think food water and healthcare should be rights. Ill tell you what, get that shit passed and I'll quit my job, start growing pot, and eat shit all day because you gave me everything. You go work yourself to death.

    50. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The best candidate I know of is a highly-unstable compound that used to be often used in basic chemistry classes. Immediately after production, it is a wet paste, and can easily be spread in a very thin layer, preferably no more than a few grams covering a 2cm radius circle. Once it dries, that circle will make a lovely pop if disturbed, making it great fun to put on desk surfaces."

      You probably speak of Nitrogen Tri-Iodide

      Great stuff for pranks as long as you keep the amount small.

    51. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are also others that fall into the category of crazy though the chemicals are somewhat difficult to obtain.

      Which, in perspective, is probably a good thing as the simple mixture of two chemicals dry can detonate on contact.

    52. Re:Offended or not? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      That quote is actually true, and supported by multiple comments on this site. It's much easier for something like camel/needle to happen then someone who is rich and "happy" in their status to give up anything to help others/give oneself to a cause--Christianity or anything. If you read the quote in context that meaning will become obvious to anyone with an ability in reading comprehension. Same for other quotes in other religions.

    53. Re:Offended or not? by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

      Tangent: The Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen, but not an ideal mix. Had it been the latter half the town would've needed new glass. Instead the ablaze carcass just floated to the ground and most of the people got off alive. That's a better survival rate than most airplane crashes. Most of the dead, in fact, died from jumping, not burning. Go figure.

      I figure likely death from a long fall is better than certain death from burning.

      Should I ever find myself on a burning airship, I'll wait as long as I can and then jump.

    54. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you can't have flour at home either because you could cause an explosion with that.

    55. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why exponentially?

    56. Re:Offended or not? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      No. Blackpowder detonates while smokeless powder just burns. There's a big difference which is why basically you can't legally buy blackpowder now. Hodgdon's Pyrodex that is not nearly as good is pretty much all you can buy now.

      Nope, black powder deflagrates, just as smokeless powder. I suspect (depending on where you live) that the reason why you can't buy it may simply be lack of demand. It's a relatively weak explosive that leaves a nasty residue and plenty of acrid smoke. Why would anyone want to use it when there are dozens of other fuel/oxidizer combinations (not to mention smokeless powders) that are pretty much better at everything?

    57. Re:Offended or not? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Black powder is worse because it's black? The worst kind of color?

      Too easy.

    58. Re: Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, only the person doing the chemistry was killed, but others lost their homes and most of their possessions.

      Often times, explosives have a tendency to kill others as well. The use of explosives on people is always terrorism, regardless of what the military industrial complex might say. It's damn near impossible to ensure that the explosives just kill the intended target and not everybody else in the room.

    59. Re: Offended or not? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you asked! I actually am really glad you asked... I would much rather talk about the principles of explosives and how they behave (hopefully inspiring further injury-free education), than name particular compounds and say how much fun they can be (usually inspiring stupid mistakes).

      Essentially, what makes explosives dangerous is primarily that they release so much gas during their reaction that it can't expand into the atmosphere fast enough, creating a shock wave. That expansion is primarily limited by the speed of sound, so having more explosive material mostly just raises the pressure behind the shock wave. Raising the pressure, in turn, increases the rate of the explosion, both due to physical effects and adding compression heat.

      With just a small amount of (low) explosive at normal conditions, setting it on fire will usually just make it burn. Sometimes it will burn quickly, but it still isn't particularly dangerous. Once compression happens, either by confining the explosion into a bomb or by having enough material to cause compression behind the shock wave, each additional gram of explosive adds not just to the total power, but also amplifies the rest of the reaction.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    60. Re:Offended or not? by K10W · · Score: 1

      It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb. The best candidate I know of is a highly-unstable compound that used to be often used in basic chemistry classes. Immediately after production, it is a wet paste, and can easily be spread in a very thin layer, preferably no more than a few grams covering a 2cm radius circle. Once it dries, that circle will make a lovely pop if disturbed, making it great fun to put on desk surfaces.

      Of course, people are dumb. This particular compound grows in destruction exponentially as its quantity increases. A few grams is fun. A few dozen grams is dangerous. A few hundred is lethal. A kilogram in one location is probably a good reason to evacuate the building.

      what you say is generally true but there are other mitigating factors, even small amounts are destructive in the right containment (or wrong in this case) . Most compounds conflagrate rather than true explode with the associated shockwave when in open air and not contained. The high brisance stuff used in industry and military applications are similar in that they wont always detonate in that fashion, depending on various factors and oft require containment, shape, particular det caps and so on to do that or they'll just burn very fast instead. Think oil well perforator charges, those are tiny shaped charges but inside that housing in that shape etc there is some SERIOUS power. Remove the contents and spread it out like you say and it'd be rather pedestrian. Plus most the high relative effectiveness explosives are either hard to synth at home small scale or require specialist detonation. My guess is he was packing an organic peroxide like TATP, despite lab access and making fireworks in past for the kids I've never even considered using it due to how unstable it can be. I've handled it in other situations where it is relatively inert but high enough purity and dried out you're somewhat of a fool no matter what your background to start packing that into or whatever housing, especially since it has a tendency to go off spontaneously when tamping gently even and it is goodbye fingers.

    61. Re:Offended or not? by K10W · · Score: 1

      It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb.

      A lot of people make fireworks, not always professionally, and fireworks both require explosives and a reasonable level of competence in chemistry. They are also typically not considered bombs, and the same goes for any chemically-powered model rockets even though the chemicals involved are most definitely explosives.

      Oh, and then there's dust. That explodes too...

      The part that should be questioned is how anybody with a college degree in chemistry did not get taught better than to experiment with explosive chemicals in their own living space. This falls pretty firmly under the heading of things you do in a purpose-built building.

      don't confuse wisdom with knowledge, I've met some highly competent from knowledge pov folks in my time but wouldn't trust them not to do borderline retarded things like this. FWIW everyone I know with strong enough chemistry background (much higher than avergae in my circlke of friends and family) simply wouldn't even consider it with compounds with risk factor present; it is predictable or go home kind of thing for those with sense. That is coming from someone who has made stuff with their kids, knows friends who've done similar, and has a father who did the same when I was a young child. There are only two reasons I can see where someone without malice would make this mistake, either ignorance in the field so they didn't know enough to understand risks, or high competence but suffer from severe stupidity being the second.

    62. Re:Offended or not? by suutar · · Score: 1

      Have you not heard of prosperity gospel? e.g. Creflo Dollar?

    63. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

      Considering what riches can bring you, most rich men could care less about entering the kingdom of God. We already know heaven is pretty much just Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

    64. Re:Offended or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still pretending to be a woman, Chris?

    65. Re:Offended or not? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      don't confuse wisdom with knowledge, I've met some highly competent from knowledge pov folks in my time but wouldn't trust them not to do borderline retarded things like this. FWIW everyone I know with strong enough chemistry background (much higher than avergae in my circlke of friends and family) simply wouldn't even consider it with compounds with risk factor present; it is predictable or go home kind of thing for those with sense. That is coming from someone who has made stuff with their kids, knows friends who've done similar, and has a father who did the same when I was a young child. There are only two reasons I can see where someone without malice would make this mistake, either ignorance in the field so they didn't know enough to understand risks, or high competence but suffer from severe stupidity being the second.

      Yeah, and the thing is that if he's got a pre-pharma degree with a minor in chemistry, it better be the second option there--except it's still rather baffling. I have one of the variants of pre-pharma--I got basically the major you get instead for that and premed if your school doesn't do the pre-professional major--so I've got a decent idea what sort of training he ought to have had. If he was doing it in a backyard shed, it'd actually be a lot less confusing; you learn a rather lot about why you don't want to risk your food prep or consumption areas getting contaminated, though it doesn't look like he went on to pharmacy school (which is admittedly harder to get into than med school) so maybe he was a Cs Get Degrees type of student. (Basically, the rule of thumb is that you don't necessarily know what got where and if it's safe to consume, and you probably want to know at least what it is if you're going to try finding out if it's safe for human consumption the direct way--if nothing else, so you can get credit on the paper saying that nope, pretty fatal.)

      Even with that, however, he's apparently worked several chem lab jobs so he's put in a significant number of hours in labs and should have good safety training. I have questions about his school and his employers, and there's not nice ones.

    66. Re: Offended or not? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed . . .

      The right to keep bare arms shall not be infringed . . .

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm helping by keeping them in my thoughts and prayers.

    Everyone should help in this matter by doing this.

    This is the most helpful thing that can be done.

    1. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amen.

    2. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm helping by keeping them in my thoughts and prayers.

      Everyone should help in this matter by doing this.

      This is the most helpful thing that can be done.

      Considering that everything the victims own will be burned, and that the victims will loose their home, I'm pretty sure that there is a LOT more you could do for them. Like maybe send some money, or clothing, food. Some victims had pets, so they need support too. I'm sure there is other things you could do as well, and that would be much more beneficial to the victims, than just hold your hands together for ~5 seconds and whisper sweet nothings, just so you can feel like you did something.

    3. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      This is the most helpful thing that can be done.

      No...Donating money, food, clothing, furniture, or other necessities would be the most helpful.

    4. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that you're basically suggesting that God won't help anyone unless you personally ask him to do it?

      Like, does he not know these people have problems? Does he only help the popular problems? Does 1 like actually = 1 prayer, because it acts as a holy voting system?

      What is your proposed method for prayer doing ANYTHING even if we assume 100% of your belief system is true?

      "The most helpful thing we can do is beg this all powerful creature to intervene in something he arguably caused to begin with." Madness. Absolute madness.

    5. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Rest in Pieces.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Iâ(TM)m gonna pray.

    7. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      This is the most helpful thing that can be done.

      No...Donating money, food, clothing, furniture, or other necessities would be the most helpful.

      Where are my mod points when I need them? Please mod parent up.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    8. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Caused to begin with"... huh? You're more delusional than your claim of the other side.

    9. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm helping by keeping them in my thoughts and prayers.

      Everyone should help in this matter by doing this.

      This is the most helpful thing that can be done."

      Hey smartass, just a thought but since the manufacturing of explosives is already illegal without a license, I'm curious what your thoughts are on what should be done ?

    10. Re: Thoughts and Prayers by Aeyan · · Score: 1

      Poe's Law is in action in this thread, hehe.

      --
      I believe in the cake.
    11. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm helping by keeping them in my thoughts and prayers.

      That's good. God is well known for doing requests. Right?

    12. Re:Thoughts and Prayers by suutar · · Score: 1

      We need an "amusing snark" moderation :)

  4. Let me guess by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Another "anti-abortionist" willing to kill. How original.

    1. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhh, who here hasn't made explosives before? Are you going to accuse half of Slashdot of being terrorists by making random, ugly guesses to confirm your own biases?

      We made NI3 in chemistry class. The stupid part of this is that he made the explosives in his home. I mean, really, WTF man. I wonder if he was reading the Anarchist's Cookbook? That doc is an utter piece of trash that is a great way to get yourself killed. At least work off the Army field manual on improvised explosives, it was at least written by people who know what they're doing instead of some idiot anarchist who didn't give a crap about safety and just wanted to burn stuff down.

    2. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell quantity would have to be involved to contaminate an entire apartment building though? Mixing a little explosive to make a nice pop is one thing, but mixing enough to kill yourself and condemn an apartment building, indoors, in a shared residential building, is ridiculous. Come on, don't be stupid.

    3. Re:Let me guess by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did you also graduate from a evangelical Christian college in Pensacola? Those are basically schools for extremists. If they were Muslim they would be shut down by now. Did you not catch the quote by the "reverend"?

    4. Re: Let me guess by jzservices · · Score: 1

      One of the reports showed he wasn't intending on making explosives but part of the chemical make-up of what he was making was volitile. My guess would be that the next steps to final product would have stabilized what he was making. Such as many products we own in our very own homes can be very volitile during the manufacturing process.

    5. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have just been one of those sorts who likes making explosive things and shooting them in the woods to watch the big boom, or something like that. Maybe he wanted to make his own fireworks, who knows? There are non-nefarious reasons to make explosives. You'd have to be an irresponsible, inconsiderate, self-centered shithead to put others in danger by making them in an apartment building with other people around, of course (it really sucks for those people who couldn't go back into their homes to get their possessions thanks to this guy), but I don't see anything here that necessarily indicates he was making bombs with the intent of harming anyone. Maybe he was, but there just isn't anything, as of yet, to suggest one way or the other what he was doing.

    6. Re: Let me guess by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If he were in the South, I'd assume he was cooking meth. Not sure about Wisconsin. Either way, that seems to be the usual cause of random buildings exploding these days.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Let me guess by hey! · · Score: 2

      Depends on what kinds of explosives he was playing with. If he was making mercury fulminate, yeah, you could well turn your whole building into a superfund site.

      However if that were case, they wouldn't be able to just burn the building down. So I'm guessing he was messing some kind of unstable organic compound. The kinds of monitoring equipment they put out (there was a press release so people wouldn't be alarmed by the strange bits of equipment lying around) indicates they were looking for vocs.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is modded as flamebait, but the fact is Pensacola Christian College is not just another ordinary religiously-affiliated institution. It’s not a Baylor or Loyola. It’s a lot more like bob jones university or liberty university. Use google to learn about the rules they impose on students and employees. It is a school full of extremists.

    9. Re:Let me guess by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that, TM-31-210 has a couple idiotic triggering mechanisms that can get you killed in a hurry, and whose only practical application would be terrorism.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  5. beliefs by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The man just blew himself up with explosives he made yet...

    local reverend believes 28-year-old Morrison was "not a bomb maker,"

    I wonder if the reverend believes anything else that flies in the face of reality

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:beliefs by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I understand what you've teed up here, and I choose not to swing at that particular pitch, I do have to wonder why a 'reverend' is commenting on this. Anyway, my dad was a chemistry major in college among other things, and so had a lot of textbooks lying around when I was a kid. I remember looking through them to see if I could find a recipe for something that would go boom.

      I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the guy is a terrorist. He may just have been playing around.

    2. Re:beliefs by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The reverend's statement would have been 100% correct had he not left out a single word. "28-year-old Morrison was not a GOOD bomb maker".

    3. Re:beliefs by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I remember some of the stuff that I had in a chemistry set back in the 60's that I got for Christmas when I was 10. It would get me on a watch list today if I ordered that stuff. I did blow some stuff up back then but it was out in the back 40, not in my house. My mom didn't let me cook up stuff in her kitchen.

    4. Re:beliefs by TheReaperD · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fireworks is a very common thing that looks like your making explosives (because, well, YOU ARE!) but, has no nefarious purpose other than legal fireworks suck.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    5. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the reverend said "I dont believe he was a terrorist" I would agree with him and you. But he didnt say that.

    6. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of things that are NOT bombs that explode if you do make / handle them incorrectly....

    7. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good thing you didn't swing then. You'd have missed! Terrorism wasn't what Bugs was implying. He was saying a reverend also believes in magical sky fairies despite the lack of supporting evidence. It was a shot at xstians.

    8. Re:beliefs by Calydor · · Score: 1

      How many of those things contaminate an entire apartment building so much the best option is to burn it to the ground without allowing residents to collect their belongings? Hell, without sending firefighters in hazmat suits in to collect a few items from each apartment that are irreplaceable?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re:beliefs by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This. He died making explosives. We don't (yet) know whether he was making a bomb.

      I expect there will be an investigation that will seek his motives and mind-set -- interviewing friends and family, examining his posts on social media, and so on. For now, we have the supposition (until proven otherwise) of officials that he was making bombs, and the opinion of a reverend (who supposedly knew him) that he was not.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:beliefs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      And if all his neighbors weren't unable to retrieve any of they possessions and now homeless, people would care less that he blew himself up.

      Not everyone was born in a 1960's farmhouse.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:beliefs by tquasar · · Score: 2

      A friend had a chemistry set with KmN04 and glycerine. He put the potassium in an ant hole then the glycerine. Poof! Ant volcano.

    12. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends what he was making. A lot of non-explosive end products require explosive reagents or produce explosive byproducts or have explosive components in the middle.

      I've never made any explosives in chemistry class, but IIRC, sometimes we need things to be done under ventilators so as to avoid the risk of explosion.

    13. Re:beliefs by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Things he could have been doing that resulted in a bomb without being a bomb maker:

      1) Cooking with a pressure cooker. See Instant Pot
      2) Making home made fireworks
      3) Anything involving certain metals (sodium) and water.
      4)sugar and a whole bunch of other chemicals.

      Frankly, there are a LOT of explosive chemical reactions.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    14. Re:beliefs by mikael · · Score: 1

      Or even robots like the ones Boston Dynamics are always promoting. This would be a perfect opportunity for them. What would be the best robot to collect household items from an unstable building? Quadruped with donkey baskets or biped with backpack?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:beliefs by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He died dealing with volatile compounds, wether he was intentionally making explosives or not is unknown. The volatile state may have been an intermediate state of production, or may have been the result of an error during his process. It's not proven yet if explosive compounds were his intended end product.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    16. Re:beliefs by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Good point. Thanks for the improvement. And let's wait to see what the investigation turns up.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    17. Re:beliefs by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Except that gunpowder isn't a volatile explosive material.

      Explosive, yes, volatile, no.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    18. Re:beliefs by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assume there is actually a need to burn the building to the ground and destroy the possessions of everyone who lives there. There is another theory: Massive government overreaction in the name of safety. The CYA school of law: Better to render a few dozen people destitute and homeless than call in a team of real experts for a risk assessment.

    19. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, he died producing something, we don't know that he created the explosive. Often times solvents are explosive when combined with the right air mixture and spark. And they don't necessarily dissipate the way that other explosive gases do. I remember working with diethyl ether when I was in college and that stuff can be rather unstable when handled improperly, so we only worked with it under ventilation hoods where it wasn't able to build up to high enough concentrations to represent a threat.

      For better or for worse, explosive solvents are legally purchased in the US and if you don't know what you're doing, you can do a surprising amount of damage accidentally. Using them for chemistry just makes it that much more dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

      It could also be that it was, as you suggest, an intermediary product in a reaction or just a mistake. I just would't assume that it was a product when it could easily be a reactant. Especially because if it's a product, there may still have been an opened container that would allow for more explosion than if it had been merely a product or byproduct.

    20. Re:beliefs by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dug up a fire ant colony once when I was a kid. It's amazing, the Queen was almost 30 feet away from the mound. That pile of dirt is just that, where they put the dirt. I had a spray bottle of Chlordane that I had mixed up (instant death and now illegal) that I used to keep them from eating me up as I dug down the tunnels until I found the main nest. Interesting and informative. I discovered that when you pour poison on the mound they just dump the dirt somewhere else. The Queen never has to move. I use a bait now, it's pretty effective. I was the type of kid that was always wondering about things, nearly killed myself on multiple occasions.

    21. Re: beliefs by PPH · · Score: 0

      That's why in many communities the comment from a local pastor is relevant;

      Sadly, this is true. And assigning veracity to such people beyond their area of expertise (the invisible sky being) is what ruins so many people's lives. I'll leave chemistry to the chemists, legal issues surrounding the manufacture of destructive devices to law enforcement and the courts, medicine to the doctors, etc.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    22. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt you actually know what a bomb is.

    23. Re:beliefs by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Whenever something of this nature happens, there's a rush in the media to be the first to dig up some exclusive detail. This usually means chasing after all of the friends and family in the hope of a juicy quote. Church leaders are a good place to look, as some of them - the ones who actually care about their community, rather than just building up the numbers and the tithes to line their own pockets - try to maintain some level of personal relationship with all the church regulars.

    24. Re:beliefs by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He was also a trained chemist, so his hobbies may have included chemistry too. It might be he was just carrying out some dangerous reaction for the fun of it, and screwed it up rather badly.

    25. Re:beliefs by hey! · · Score: 0

      You don't really understand the chem geek's mindset.

      When I was in engineering school I knew a guy who got suspended when his roommate turned him in for making explosives. He also made drugs -- not to use or to sell, but just for the thrill of making things he was forbidden to have.

      Part of the young hacker's mindset is "It's OK if I do this thing that is against the rules because I'm smarter than the people for whom the rule was made." Come to think of it, that's a pretty commonplace attitude among young people for a lot of dangerous things.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:beliefs by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That's fair. I've heard that meth labs can create powerful explosions if things go wrong and I've heard that many of the chemicals are not safe to be around and can cause serious damage to humans who are exposed to them. No idea if that's the case here (if it were exactly that you'd think they'd have said it was a meth lab, but I suppose it could be some other kind of drug) but there may be other explanations beyond bomb-making.

    27. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalist Christianity is hard to escape from, when you are raised in it. You can study the Bible's history, and its content in Hebrew and Greek, to see the deliberately slanted translations (and straight-up false translations). Such a study destroys the doctrine of Biblical innerance on two fronts: none of the fundamentalist teachings actually come from the Bible (they come from amazing mental gymnastics around specific verses that don't actually say what they are taken to mean) Also it is full of straight-up contradictions. But that is not enough.

      You can also study your philosophy or science and learn all about what is and is not evidence, and how faith in the Bible is actually just faith in scores of fallible and politically-motivated people who produced it and then told you what it means. That's not enough either.

      The problem is that you are dealing with parts of your brain that are deeper than the cerebral cortex.

      God, according to Fundamentalists, subjects uncountable numbers of people to agonizing torture without end. This teaching exploits the feelings of vulnerability that we experience when contemplating our own mortality. Impressionable children are taught that God is the kind of monster that would actually do this! When they become adults, the unconscious mind asserts itself when they are under stress, filling them with irrational fears of suffering such a fate as punishment for ceasing to believe. These emotions are strong and terrifying, and make rationality extremely difficult.

      Furthermore, just as deeply ingrained into their mind is the emotional experience of profundity and meaning from participation in church services. They start to feel starved and depressed when they stop going to church for too long. No substitute will satisfy either, because again we are dealing with emotion and not intellect.

      There is hope. Poll data shows that belief in this horror continues to decline at a steady pace. But even so, this level of trauma is simply too much for some people.

    28. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That was the decision of the cops to not allow people to get their property or allow the building to not be destroyed, so that has nothing to do with realty. The police decided to destroy property to be assholes. In the 1960s this would have only been one apartment destroyed because the cops wouldn't have been allowed to illegally take property without compensation.

    29. Re:beliefs by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You assume there is actually a need to burn the building to the ground and destroy the possessions of everyone who lives there. There is another theory: Massive government overreaction in the name of safety. The CYA school of law: Better to render a few dozen people destitute and homeless than call in a team of real experts for a risk assessment.

      Honestly, since they are opting for a controlled burn, this seems the most likely situation--most of the things I know of that would render it unsafe due to contamination to even retrieve some personal possessions while not having taken the entire building out already would also render it distinctly unsafe to burn the place down. Either it's going to explode some more, or spread these mysterious toxins even more...

      I wonder what would happen if somebody near the building took them to court, insisting on a proper environmental impact statement before the controlled burn is done?

    30. Re:beliefs by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish they would ban sales of fireworks to the public. Some official ones are more than enough.

      Twice a year at least we get random explosions all week. Freaks out pets and other animals, and sometimes kids use them as RPGs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I wonder if the reverend believes anything else that flies in the face of reality

      You mean like the higher probability that a guy with a pre-pharmacist education is more likely making club drugs than bombs?

    32. Re:beliefs by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the reverend believes anything else that flies in the face of reality.

      In discussions with deists, I have sometimes heard them deny that there is an objective reality.

    33. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always in stories of this nature reporters try to get a quote from someone who knew the person in question. I suppose the reverend was a good candidate, but they would also take a quote from a family member, friend or even a neighbour.

      The fact that they chose to use the reverend's quote may be due to culture, i.e. many might consider a reverend to be a respected member of the community, or maybe it was the only quote they had.

    34. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the official spokesman was using the colloquial term for volatile - easily set-off rather than the technical one - easily evaporates.

    35. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall being told about many things not to ever mix as a kid growing up.

      Sadly I do not remember all of them, but I do remember one thing for sure: if you mix chemicals, things can explode.

      Moral of the story?

      Just because he was mixing chemicals does not mean he was making explosives?

      This is exactly why [ABC] Department should always just release all of the information ASAP.

      And for the whiners 'but what if there is nothing we can do about a hold up?' the answer is 'heads should roll' AKA fire people and get people in there that can get the job done.

      Why is this so difficult?

    36. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He died making explosives.

      That's the claim, anyway. That the authorities won't let anyone back in the building to get their belongings under the pretense of "contamination" implies there's something else going on here that they're covering up.

    37. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I understand what you've teed up here, and I choose not to swing at that particular pitch, I do have to wonder why a 'reverend' is commenting on this. Anyway, my dad was a chemistry major in college among other things, and so had a lot of textbooks lying around when I was a kid. I remember looking through them to see if I could find a recipe for something that would go boom.

      I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the guy is a terrorist. He may just have been playing around.

      Depends. Was he a Muslim or not?

    38. Re:beliefs by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was trying to weaponise popcorn.

      OMG, he was a biohacker!

    39. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A popular youtube video channel, Periodic Videos, with Professor Sir Martyn Poliakoff, had a video last week on making Nitrogen Triiodide (touch powder) and Poliakoff talks about explosive making when he was younger. And what nerd hasn't made their own gunpowder at some point or another (it's legal).

    40. Re:beliefs by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Ha that's great !

      I figured I had it coming when I asserted duck logic where, intentional or not, if it blew up with such force it is effectively a bomb. But I never thought anyone would challenge the existence of reality. I'll have to get back to you on that when I've finished reading Roger Penrose' book. Though at my current rate of reading, that may be ten years out.

      I suspect that a definition for a workable reality could be created though, whether a workable test for objectivity can be created... hmm I dunno. Maybe all I can hope for is integrity..

      --
      Nullius in verba
    41. Re: beliefs by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Being a Community Leader involves charisma, and often people with religious faith seek to become leaders in their communities. It has nothing to do with 'expertise' and it's sort of scary to think that some entity would assign the 'credentials' that allow a person to become a community leader.

      Well, in some countries in the past, there have been groups like the Communist Party that granted that sort of credentials. Didn't always work out that well, tho.

    42. Re:beliefs by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The dumped waste from meth labs can be very very toxic. Sometimes when a meth lab operation takes place in an old farmhouse in the country, the house, when discovered, is so contaminated that the authorities burn it down.

      And there are warnings to people who are out trekking around in the countryside in areas where meth production is a problem: if you find a dump area with a lot of 5 gallon pails, etc. it might be a good idea to stay away from it.

    43. Re:beliefs by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Lots of younger people know they are really, really smart. Some survive the condition and become older.

    44. Re:beliefs by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalist Christianity is hard to escape from, when you are raised in it.

      Definitely. My wife was raised Pentacostal, and she has almost entirely broken from that faith/affliction. She has an irrational hate of the music of The Beatles though. My theory is that some heavy-duty Beatles-hating went on in her youth.

    45. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in surveying for a while in the South. Fire ants can be a real bitch if they are occupying a point that you have to set a theodolite up on.
      Initially I would put chainsaw gas on my boots to keep them from climbing on me, but that would ruin the boots so I eventually would just dig up and burn the ants for far enough around the point to give me a couple hours before they came back.

      Some of the work involved blasters coming in and breaking up large areas of limestone, and they put on quite a show with the timing and series of blasts.
      One time the blaster was trying to show off and he shot a spout of limestone a couple hundred feet in the air. (had radial lines and set the timing so they would meet in the center). We each hugged a tree when it happened and the survey chief got pretty steamed that his T-1 could have gotten damaged.

      TLDR: I can handle fire ants, explosives are best left to professionals and even they can screw up

    46. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun powder really isn't even a High Explosive, and if this guy was making any of the common home-made explosive like acetone peroxide (TATP or Mother of Satan), then it IS really unstable.

      I think that it has a relatively short effective life, so why can't they just wait it out?

    47. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to be one of the slow ones here -- or one of the Russian trolls

    48. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In discussions with deists, I have sometimes heard them deny that there is an objective reality."

      Most of the left thinks this is true.

    49. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I wonder if the reverend believes anything else that flies in the face of reality

      I believe that's the definition of a priest.

    50. Re:beliefs by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't vote for him.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    51. Re: beliefs by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      All conventional, non-trivial definitions of God lead to contradictions, and consequently believing in a god so defined is an error.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    52. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The presence of dangerous chemicals in Village Glen Apartments' Building 109 after explosions on March 5, 7 and 8 made it unsafe to try to salvage the building, officials said, citing the risk of another explosion or chemical exposure to workers."

      "Safety concerns became evident when a bomb exploded Thursday while an expert from the Dane County Bomb Squad was checking the building following the controlled explosion that had been executed the previous day, Mannel said. “There were some areas the FBI was not able to clear,” he said."

      The 2nd explosion was the FBI trying to get rid of the remaining chemicals. The 3rd explosion happened while a bob tech was in there checking if it was safe.
      I am thinking no one wants to risk their life going in there to deal with whatever else is in there.

      https://www.fdlreporter.com/story/news/2018/03/15/beaver-dam-apartment-burns-after-three-explosions-earlier-month/427471002/
      http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime/man-killed-in-beaver-dam-apartment-explosion-had-worked-as/article_949181f3-d59e-566b-98d5-978780fa9027.html

    53. Re:beliefs by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Robots that don't use brush motors, for one thing. Robots that can't build up a static charge due to extensive use of non-conductive plastics and rubber. I'm thinking about the risk of a spark setting off an explosion from a puddle of volatile liquid.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    54. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both

    55. Re:beliefs by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Explosives are not a bomb, they might not even be synthesized for their explosive properties.

    56. Re:beliefs by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      wanna bet this guy was DEEP into church crap?

    57. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were an asshole for destroying insects. Fucker. Today was a workday in my yard, but I let the birds and squirrels enjoy a
      warm day of foraging before I went in an disturbed them. That is how one coexists.

    58. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ate the squirrels. Who cares if they foraged before becoming dinner.

    59. Re:beliefs by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in my neighborhood is some yahoo who shoots off a random firework 2-3 days a week for half of the summer. What's baffling is that they often do it before dark. Guess they need to do it before they send their kid to bed?

      Regardless, it's a super obnoxious jolt for everyone besides those expecting it. There's no way for me to figure out who it is, since it's semi-random and often light enough to not really be noticeable. And apparently their immediate neighbors don't care enough to call the cops on them.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    60. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does his profession have anything to do with this other than being a convenient excuse to slam religion?

      By the same logic, someone who's a parent who didn't see this coming because they're not helicoptering over their adult child should be deemed an incapable parent.

      Yours is a non-sequitur statement if there ever was one.

    61. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing what you could do with match heads or flare power.

    62. Re:beliefs by zumajim · · Score: 1

      At least we can be sure that Mr. Morrison believed in something that ended up flying in his face.

    63. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rule was usually made for the bottom 10 percent, so if you're in the top 90 percent, then you're right.

    64. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He died dealing with volatile compounds, wether he was intentionally making explosives or not is unknown. The volatile state may have been an intermediate state of production, or may have been the result of an error during his process. It's not proven yet if explosive compounds were his intended end product.

      How large were his potions? A thimblefull of potion might kill him, but not destroy the building.

    65. Re:beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were another resident I just might have been willing to file lawsuit immediately (before they can burn it down) to get my stuff back. "Due process" comes in handy sometimes, especially with a jury demand. The government might be willing to get out of my way rather than have the demolition tied up for weeks.

    66. Re: beliefs by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Squirrels are just rats that live in trees.

    67. Re: beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lobsters are just cockroaches that live in the sea, what's your point?

    68. Re: beliefs by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't eat lobsters either.

  6. Meth lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad stuff

  7. Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    PETN is decently easy to make, if the drying is done wrong it is radically sensitized, and the precursors are easy to find.

    Given the FBI's records for creating "bombers" and then busting them, I do wonder what the FBI's involvement was beforehand with this guy.

    1. Re:Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I remember we had a "militia" group in Georgia a couple of decades ago. A bunch of loudmouths who got together to drink beer and bitch about the "Gubmint" and shoot guns at targets. They had a guy join up and he had all kinds of neat ideas about how to build bombs. He helped them source some stuff and build the bombs then they were arrested. I felt no pity for them, anyone building bombs needs to be in jail.

    2. Re:Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing TATP.

    3. Re:Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by hey! · · Score: 1

      As a pharmacy student he'd be familiar with PETN, which has similar medical applications to nitroglycerin. I'm not sure though why it would require abandoning the building and most of its contents.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Oops! There go a whole lot of military contractors off to jail for making bombs.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Probably PETN or one of its derivatives. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      My Father and some of his buddies did a fair bit of chemistry experimentation when they were teenagers. They called it quits when one of them nearly blew his hand off. He didn't clean up everything one night and put it off till later. The next day when he slid a beaker across a counter top, it exploded. At the time the best the surgeons could manage was to save his hand by turning it into a flipper.

  8. Things I won't work with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reminds me of an old part of an old blog: Things I won't work with.

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

    I'm guessing something with fluoride chemistry:

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

    It's a really fun read about a shockingly horrible bit of chemistry done by our military science.

    1. Re:Things I won't work with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, fluoride compounds should not be your first guess, no. Some of the other things on that list, maybe, but fluoride chemistry is relatively pointless even if your goal is to violently remove yourself from this mortal coil. The only thing that fluoride compounds are really good at is purifying uranium. For any other purpose, there are easier ways to get there, and for many of those the properties of being corrosive, poisonous, and highly reactive could even be considered downsides.

    2. Re:Things I won't work with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah - but I was guessing what would cause federal agencies to want to burn the place (force rapid entropy) without allowing folks to go back and get their stuff, not what would be the most effective for a purpose.

      Fluoride chemistry after-effects would be like a rainbow of horrible side-effects, and no one today would be that willing to do experiments to see how they could make it safe.

      They would also be the kind of thing a lone curious nut would let get out of control after getting that education.

      At least it would be the most fanciful and entertaining result to guess on.

    3. Re:Things I won't work with... by Bentbob · · Score: 1

      The 'Devil's Kimchi' (FOOF) is a favourite read on that blog.

    4. Re:Things I won't work with... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIRC Hydrogen Fluoride gas was used to frost lightbulbs, so don't say it's only really goo for purifying uranium. (And I think that the Uranium Hexafluoride approach wasn't eventually used, anyway.) If you aren't planning on separating the isotopes then I think they normally end up with a Uranium Oxide, so fluorine wouldn't be involved.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Things I won't work with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HF is used extensively in semiconductor manufacturing
      I remember being shown a guy's hand years after he was exposed (double gloves, both had bad seams) and it had started dissolving the pinky finger bone through his flesh, They have kits with special cream to stop the reaction, but his hand was pretty messed up from a very short exposure.

    6. Re:Things I won't work with... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Fluorine is used to etch glass, make Teflon, and coat optical lenses. It's used in toothpaste and other dental preparations. It can be used as part of an extremely powerful rocket fuel, although the disadvantages are manifold.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. Male Idiot Theory by nsaspook · · Score: 1
    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    1. Re:Male Idiot Theory by mikael · · Score: 1

      That's just a cartoon. Real world idiots playing with tannerite:

      Blowing up a fridge with tannerite:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      How to lose a leg while shooting a rusted lawnmower filled with tannerite:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You live a sad life if you immediately link this kind of event to Trump. I wonder who/what was the Boogeyman for you before he got elected, and where you will direct your fears and insecurities when he's no longer president.

  11. "He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by stevegee58 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...until he blew himself up.

  12. Rave time! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Since it happened in America, I'm waiting for the rave that will inevitably follow in this building (complete with pyrotechnic effects).

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Fishy by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How unstable can the remaining stuff be? I mean it obviously did not detonate when the fist blast went off.

    My guess if the FBI is covering something up.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Fishy by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air? Wouldn't it make more sense to tear down the building and send all the materials to a landfill for hazardous chemicals? Something seems fishy here.

    2. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      How unstable can the remaining stuff be? I mean it obviously did not detonate when the fist blast went off.,

      Only if you didn't bother to read the article or know anything about chemistry. "The presence of dangerous chemicals on site make it unsafe to try to salvage the building, officials said, citing the risk of another explosion or chemical exposure to workers."

      Depending on what he was trying to make, the intermediates and the by-products could be very toxic. This was compounded by the fact that the chemicals were spread by an explosion. Have you ever seen how law enforcement clean up a meth cook site. It's full Hazmat suits. Would you say the FBI is "covering something up" when they have to condemn a meth site?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further reading, the initial explosion occurred on the 5th, but apparently subsequent explosions occurred on the 7th and 8th.

    4. Re:Fishy by xlsior · · Score: 1

      ...And who knows what else he has stockpiled elsewhere in his apartment that didn't blow up... yet.

    5. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?

      If the burn is done right, it destroys the chemicals. That's "if" though.

      Wouldn't it make more sense to tear down the building and send all the materials to a landfill for hazardous chemicals?

      Who would tear down the building? If it is as dangerous are reported, that would require people in Hazmat suits for weeks, months to tear down the building. Then the second half of your plan is to send hazardous material to a landfill. Most of these repositories take in solids and liquids and encase them in domes. They don't take in drywall, wood, plastic, etc. The dome would be considerably large if they had to take in ruble of a building.

      Something seems fishy here.

      Here are the things that are fact: There was an explosion. People were evacuated. Now you're claiming that it's "fishy" that they want to demolish the whole building. And how does that serve any conspiracy theory? The authorities want to put many people out of their homes because they want to cover up an explosion that everyone agrees has happened? They just hate people in those building that much?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Fishy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Hard to say. This was a trained chemist, so he might have been dabbling in hobby chemistry. It's possible the investigators just found his stock of big jars of chemicals now shattered and decided it would be safer to destroy the entire building than call in a team of experts able to identify and dispose it all - and burning down the building is a lot cheaper than safely demolishing it when you'd need everyone on the site dressed in full hazmat gear. If you can't identify the chemicals, you have to assume they are the worst possibility and then some.

    7. Re:Fishy by gtall · · Score: 1

      Just wait a few days, the alt-right will find a way to claim the FBI blew the boy up and then decided to destroy the evidence to cover it up.

    8. Re:Fishy by gtall · · Score: 2

      Lawyers. Let's look at our options: 1. pay people for their belongings, maybe a few mill max. 2. pay people if the authorities missed something and it goes boom, maybe a few 10's of mill. Gee, as a county executive, what would you chose...and do not forget if something else goes boom, your re-election will also go boom?

      Yep, something's fishy here. Stop watching TV, it is bad for you.

    9. Re:Fishy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Option 2 also implies "drag this mess on for a month while we wait for the analysis results to come back, during which we will need a constant police presence on site to keep out the photographers, gawkers, and the residents who are trying to save their belongings from us."

    10. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Here are the things that are fact
      Here is a thing that was claimed as fact: "The accident left the apartment building so contaminated..."

      > conspiracy theory
      I don't think anyone even left a skeleton for you to put this straw on. The unsubstantiated assertion is up there, bud.

      Feel free to doubt the doubt, but it's a dumb place to look for answers.

      We probably won't get any regardless, but the effort will be better spent looking at extraordinary claims that don't even have ordinary evidence.

    11. Re:Fishy by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Yet another amateur alchemist trying to create the homunculus. There's booby traps in them old books.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    12. Re:Fishy by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it might not be the stuff that blew up they're worried about. I'm guessing he probably didn't confine himself to one explosive, or even explosives per se, so he probably had quite a collection of interesting reagents lying around.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Fishy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      What has unstable to do with that?
      Most stuff used for explosives is poisoness ... and the building is full with dust of that stuff.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Would you say the FBI is "covering something up" when they have to condemn a meth site?

      Half the people on this site would indeed cook up a conspiracy theory about that.

    15. Re:Fishy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      My guess is that there was a ton of smoke from burning chemicals after the blast, and it spread through most of the other units. So there's your nice dress, only you can't touch it. Maybe it causes blisters. I knew someone who did professional fireworks and they always use gloves because of the minor irritation some of the chemicals have. Now if it were a major irritant, a carcinogen, etc, it's just not safe.

    16. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend from high school that works for the local police department said that the FBI agent he talked to said they knew five people owned guns that lived in the same building. That's why the FBI is forcing the building to be burned down to take their property without payment. I know the guy the local news talked to said something about keeping guns off of the streets. This is how they take property without compensation.

    17. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love to see cops subvert the law to protect us.

    18. Re:Fishy by Alypius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I posit lawsuits as a driving factor. Door #1 has "condemn the building as an EPA SuperFund site and settle up with the insurance companies after they pay out." Door #2 says, "Be stuck with the medical bills after we cleared people to go back in." There's certainly risk assessment going on, it's just not with the tenants' best interests in mind.

    19. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Here is a thing that was claimed as fact: "The accident left the apartment building so contaminated..."

      So according to you, when an explosion happens, all the materials that were used to make the explosion self-organize into neat little piles to be cleaned up. Or are the materials everywhere? They had to detonate twice after the explosion to clear away other ordinance as far as I know. Have you worked in a chemical lab? Do you know what kind of safety equipment that is required not to contaminate your workspace let alone the entire building. I doubt that he put in air purifiers, fume hoods, etc.

      I don't think anyone even left a skeleton for you to put this straw on. The unsubstantiated assertion is up there, bud.

      No I'm asking you to think about why would the FBI lie about it. They are going to make several dozen people homeless because . . . they hate those people so much? They hate the property owners of the building? What's the angle in demolishing a whole building? They are covering up for an explosion that everyone agrees has happened? Please put up a plausible explanation for a conspiracy.

      We probably won't get any regardless, but the effort will be better spent looking at extraordinary claims that don't even have ordinary evidence.

      Someone who turned their home into a lab has contaminated his home and surrounding homes with an explosion isn't an extraordinary claim.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Fishy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?

      If the burn is done right, it destroys the chemicals. That's "if" though.

      This is why all barrels of hazardous chemicals are disposed of by incineration, and we don't have to actually have any landfills for hazardous chemicals.

      Wouldn't it make more sense to tear down the building and send all the materials to a landfill for hazardous chemicals?

      Who would tear down the building? If it is as dangerous are reported, that would require people in Hazmat suits for weeks, months to tear down the building. Then the second half of your plan is to send hazardous material to a landfill. Most of these repositories take in solids and liquids and encase them in domes. They don't take in drywall, wood, plastic, etc. The dome would be considerably large if they had to take in ruble of a building.

      Funny, I've looked into buying a house where, if it burned down or I decided to have significant work done on it, I would have to send the rubble produced to a hazardous waste landfill, because asbestos. (This is also why I decided I wanted nothing to do with it.) You have to look around a bit, but given I was able to find several sites local to me that appear to accept precisely what you're talking about...though YMMV, as I'm also in an area where the city has multiple hazmat teams on the payroll.

      Something seems fishy here.

      Here are the things that are fact: There was an explosion. People were evacuated. Now you're claiming that it's "fishy" that they want to demolish the whole building. And how does that serve any conspiracy theory? The authorities want to put many people out of their homes because they want to cover up an explosion that everyone agrees has happened? They just hate people in those building that much?

      The fishy part is the method, if the summary is accurate. There was an explosion, the most likely contaminants to be sufficiently dangerous as to forbid the other residents from retrieving anything from the building are ones that either won't be destroyed by burning the building, or will blow up more. My guess is that it's not conspiracy, but more an issue of figuring that the landlord and residents are not going to be able to take them to court & not wanting to spend the money on getting experts in.

      However...

      If you actually RTFA, it mentions that they've already had a couple controlled detonations and are allowing residents to retrieve pets and some personal possessions. I'm not, however, going to accuse the reporter of being so incompetent as to neglect to say so if the problem is really just that the building itself is going to blow up more no matter what and they're planning things so as to hopefully have it do so while they've got a reasonably good chance of minimizing the damage. (This isn't going to actually prevent contamination of the surrounding area or destroy any hazardous materials other than the volatile ones, but burning on site is about your only choice if they're likely to explode if you attempt removal...and in this case it might well be impossible to do so without the building going as well.)

    21. Re:Fishy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      How unstable can the remaining stuff be? I mean it obviously did not detonate when the fist blast went off.,

      Only if you didn't bother to read the article or know anything about chemistry. "The presence of dangerous chemicals on site make it unsafe to try to salvage the building, officials said, citing the risk of another explosion or chemical exposure to workers."

      Depending on what he was trying to make, the intermediates and the by-products could be very toxic. This was compounded by the fact that the chemicals were spread by an explosion. Have you ever seen how law enforcement clean up a meth cook site. It's full Hazmat suits. Would you say the FBI is "covering something up" when they have to condemn a meth site?

      They also usually don't try to burn meth sites.

      Part of the problem is that the article and summary are not particularly good--it does not really make sense that they'd opt for a controlled burn unless they were doubtful that the place wasn't going to continue to explode anyway, but I'd generally expect that to be something that would be mentioned explicitly in the article. As it is, the summary seems to not list all of its sources, as it says nothing is getting removed due to contamination while the article linked to says pets and some limited personal items...but, well, I'd also be wanting to evacuate the area and keep it clear well ahead of the burn and therefore be pretty explicit if there's a risk of further explosions on the off chance that the volatile chemicals end up going before the planned burn.

    22. Re:Fishy by HiThere · · Score: 2

      My wild guess:
      His apartment, and the area immediately adjacent is contaminated with hazardous chemicals that also happen to be inflammable. If they take out his apartment, the rest of the building is structurally unsound. So they decided the simplest and cheapest approach is to burn it. This is making the presumption that he wasn't using anything that would survive a fire, but perhaps if he was making explosives that's a reasonable assumption. (Well, OK, he'd have some sulfuric acid, etc. but the explosion would already have spread that all over a bunch of organic stuff, so it won't be acid anymore. And the air is already probably full of nitric/nitrous acid, now that the EPA has stopped enforcement.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:Fishy by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      They burned an old farmhouse less than ten miles from me here because it was a heavily contaminated meth site.

    24. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they are just attempting to send a message to the public. If some idiot blows himself up, no one cares. If some idiot blows himself up and I loose *my* stuff then I am going to be pissed. Therefore anyone playing with explosives is bad, mkay?

    25. Re:Fishy by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      There's certainly risk assessment going on, it's just not with the tenants' best interests in mind.

      Huh? Wouldn't not getting people sick be in their best interests?

    26. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?

      If the burn is done right, it destroys the chemicals. That's "if" though.

      Except for mercury fulminate. Then burning might not be a good idea.

    27. Re:Fishy by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The extraordinary claim is that everything in the building is so contaminated that the risk involved in recovering even a few precious personal items is unacceptable.

      If there was a large quantity of very toxic material involved in the explosion, it would have been scattered around the neighborhood in an uncontrolled manner and the whole neighborhood should be encased in impermeable concrete. Otherwise, some amount of careful recovery should be possible.

      This seems like heavy-handed government overreaction, looking for the easy solution without regard to who it harms. No conspiracy, just laziness and contempt for those who are being hurt.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:Fishy by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make sense. The FBI gains nothing. The guns may be insured, in which case the owners suffer no loss.

      You are also assuming that the FBI knows of the gun ownership, which is unlikely and possibly illegal.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:Fishy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?

      A large portion of toxic chemicals break down when heated. Disposing of chemical weapons is often done using fire... though usually in a more controlled manner the point is the same.

    30. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are probably tri-iodo based explosives.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_triiodide

      Really hard to make and if you don't watch/control the temperature closely it goes BANG in your face.
      What is left all over the place is highly sensitive to any disruption or pressure, even radiation can trigger it!

      My father was a PhD chemist/geneticist and we made this stuff when I was a kid. Looking back, it was very reckless fun and I learned that doing chemistry experiments the temperature of the reagents can mean life or death. We did it way out in the countryside where we lived, so only our own lives were at risk, and I was just a kid. Now that I have my own kids, I would never play that game again with them around. WAY TOO RISKY!

    31. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KlAf936E90

    32. Re:Fishy by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily unstable, but quite possibly toxic.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    33. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it backwards, the extraordinary claim is that the materials didn't travel into the other rooms. Between the movement of smoke, dust and particles tracked around by the bomb squad, it's highly unlikely that whatever he was working with wasn't all over the place.

      We don't know what he was working with, so we don't know how bad that would be, but keep in mind that a meth lab can leave an entire building too dangerous to inhabit, so it's hardly that unreasonable that other reactions that explode could contaminate the whole building.

      The burden of proof here would be on people who think it's safe, not those that think it's unsafe.

    34. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No your talking conspiracy theories! That will get you booted from youtube you know!

    35. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have *already* done two controlled detonations, but they can't risk letting the residents back in to get their stuff?

      Bullshit. This is, best case, total incompetence and ignorance, or more likely a desire to make a big story and get famous, while ignoring 'facts' and stupid 'reality'.

    36. Re:Fishy by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      They have not publicly disclosed what chemicals were in apartment 11 where Morrow lived, only describing them as 'extremely volatile and unstable explosives.'

      The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.

      If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    37. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.

      There is a difference between it's not being reported in detail and "it's secret". So did you look the applications made by the local police and FBI to condemn the building? Did you look at their demolition permits? Did you look at any and all court orders? No. You assumed it's secret because you don't know.

      If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.

      Again you not knowing details doesn't mean it is secret.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    38. Re:Fishy by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.

      You could have figured this out. Not that I hope for anything better from one so proud of your own ignorance.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    39. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you have looked up the applications by the FBI and police or are you merely asserting them?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    40. Re:Fishy by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Applications don't matter. Read.

      It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    41. Re:Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you didn't read the applications yet are sure what they don't say. . . That's like my new novel coming out who tells you who really killed Kennedy or not. You'll have to read it even though I'm not writing a novel at all.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    42. Re: Fishy by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try to understand the topic that is being discussed ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    43. Re: Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you agree then that you haven't looked any paperwork but are asserting things that may or may not be true?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re: Fishy by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You agree that you have no clue what is being discussed ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    45. Re: Fishy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Right you agree you haven't read the application thus you have no idea what we are talking about.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  14. Failed his intelligence test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hoisted by his own petard,
    He flew up high and landed hard,
    And proved again for all to see,
    Before you leave you always pee.

  15. Re:Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Place one on the barbie and all that.

      Makes sense in the Trumpverse.

    I'm sick of jerkoffs like you attempting to bring politics into every discussion.

    Why don't you go ride a skateboard on a highway, you useless worthless prick.

  16. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hate people who talk about stuff I don't like, go die"

    Typical child with no life experiences.

  17. Controlled Burn of the Apartment Building by McGruber · · Score: 5, Informative

    The apartment building was successfully burned down on Thursday morning: Beaver Dam apartment burn a success; some personal items retrieved by bomb squad

    1. Re:Controlled Burn of the Apartment Building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the bomb squad did do residents a solid and collected as much valuable and critical stuff from each of the apartments can they could. Bravo! Good guys!

      > During that sweep, bomb techs also grabbed some property in the various apartments,
      > including important papers, jewelry, money and other family heirlooms.
      >
      > "While we realize that this is a change in the previous position taken by the city, further
      > analysis led us to believe that this is something that can be accomplished safely
      > utilizing the experts from the FBI bomb squad," the release said.

  18. He kept it real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really exothermic

  19. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by NadNad · · Score: 1

    ...until he blew himself up.

    Now he's blown into lots of separate bits.

  20. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was as unstable as his chemicals.

    He just couldn't keep himself together.

  21. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was quiet after he blew himself up, too.

  22. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Yuk yuk. Now let's look at TFA:

    “I’d love to defend Ben because he has been described as a bomb maker and he’s not a bomb maker,” [Reverend] Marsden said. “He wasn’t a recluse as some have said he is. He was far from that.”

    Emphasis mine.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  23. Pretty much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I wonder if the reverend believes anything else that flies in the face of reality" religion is an article of faith for which reality offer no evidence, so in all fairness he is probably used to believe stuff which are contradicted by everyday's reality.

    1. Re:Pretty much by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Religion doesn't necessarily fly in the face of reality. Many religious statements are unfalsifiable. There's a big difference between believing something that can't be falsified and believing in something that already has been falsified.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. Retrieved belongings update by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

    While the residents weren't able to get any belongings, the FBI bomb squad did retrieve high value items for them.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Retrieved belongings update by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      While the residents weren't able to get any belongings, the FBI bomb squad did retrieve high value items for them.

      What do they mean by value; very often the things that are most precious to people are things of little financial value, like the small wooden boat that grandpa helped you to paint.

    2. Re:Retrieved belongings update by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      They explicitly mention jewelry, papers and keepsakes/heirlooms. Apparently the residents were consulted before the items were removed.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Retrieved belongings update by houghi · · Score: 1

      So those items where not contaminated? Never knew that chemicals know what to contaminate and what not.

      And depending on your financial situation, clothes (not designer clothes, just clothes) and food and a bed can be high value.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  25. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He probably won't be getting his security deposit back

  26. Boom by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My unbelievably excellent chemistry teacher in high school guaranteed at least one explosion per week in class. Kept our attention grinding through stoichiometry, with the side benefit that most of us went through AP chemistry the next year and got some cheap college credits. The last week he filled a huge balloon with a perfect mixture of oxygen and some exotic relative of pentane, detonated with a remote piezo device he concocted himself. The shockwave blew covers off of the fluorescent lights and rattled windows on the opposite side of the fairly good sized school building.

    My AP chemistry teacher was a bit more pedestrian, but as a bonus for attending a study session on Saturday, he demonstrated thermite burning a hole through 1" thick plate steel.

    Of course, nowadays this would be completely vorboten, and such activities would end you up on an FBI watchlist.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Boom by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      By the time I was in chemistry class, we got tiny thermite demonstrations and one flammable liquid fire. That was fun. But I work in a school now, and I can say that the fire would never be allowed any more. The thermite maybe, but only if it were done following a five-page risk assessment form signed by a department head and carried out with all the students kept on the far side of the room behind a safety barrier.

      It took me two weeks to get approval for students to use a soldering iron in an after-school club.

    2. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verboten, not vorboten. Verboten means forbidden. Vorboten (pl.) means harbingers or forerunners.

    3. Re:Boom by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. I bought a chemistry set for my kids, but going through the instructions I realize that by removing anything that could be dangerous from the set what they had left was just boring.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Boom by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      That makes sense. They almost sound like "forbidden" and "foreboding."

    5. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took me two weeks to get approval for students to use a soldering iron in an after-school club.

      I did soldering in middle school, regular part of class in fact. We were eight or so? Chemistry in highschool included thermite and other deminstrations, and kids burning tiny strips of magnesium themselves. It saddens me to think you can't do that any longer.

    6. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing. When I was in school, my chemistry teacher would brew up hallucinatory drugs, and we all got to partake. Then we would rampage through the neighborhood putting explosive chemicals on random walls, cars, etc, with remote detonators, so we could watch the whole thing go up at once with a single click.

      But when you tell that to kids these days, they don't even believe you.

    7. Re:Boom by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      When I was in High School there was a courtyard (open air space area within the school) where students were allowed to smoke.

    8. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a gifted Chemical Engineer who made some important advancements in his early career (late 60s and 70s). As a teenager he was very mischievous. He had documented evidence of his tales ranging from cherry bombing his hometown from a crop duster to coloring many miles of a river red on Easter Sunday using a barrel of shark dye. At the time, these things were expected of precocious, gifted people. They were punished with a paddle or belt and a secret chuckle, not prison. After all, this was also a day and age when my grandfather occasionally fished with dynamite.

      This kind of upbringing led him to save the plant he managed and probably a nearby block of homes later in his life by crossing a catwalk high over a fire to hand trigger a failed halon bomb in a large wood flour silo when the firemen had already evacuated. On his way back, a portion of the scaffolding collapsed and a piece of metal went all of the way through his calf. He made it out.

      Dad would have been labeled a terrorist or other type of criminal many times over if doing the same things as a teenager today. There is no way he would have made it to college before prison.

      I'm sure those childhood experiences contributed greatly to his passion for and early knowledge of chemistry. So much is forbidden or considered too unsafe today that it has to be having an effect on the career paths of kids. And I wonder how many of our best may be in prison.

    9. Re:Boom by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      My AP chemistry teacher was a bit more pedestrian, but as a bonus for attending a study session on Saturday, he demonstrated thermite burning a hole through 1" thick plate steel.

      My AP chemistry teacher was the same lovely, meek, sweet, but subtly psychotic lady that I had for my first year of chemistry. Highlights of the class where when she spent the time between classes charging herself up on a van deGraff generator and greeting her students with a friendly touch on the arm when they arrived, and the time when we did fractional distillation of some nasty, right out of the ground crude oil. That resulted in some mercaptans coming out, which was an experience the entire school got to share in.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    10. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I greatly enjoyed the loud demonstrations in CHEM 101 (1978) there is good reason to be cautious Key Lessons for Preventing Incidents from Flammable Chemicals in Educational Demonstrations U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB). I don't think all of these demonstrations should be done away with, but most schools do not understand how to do them safely.

    11. Re:Boom by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      My AP chemistry teacher was a bit more pedestrian, but as a bonus for attending a study session on Saturday, he demonstrated thermite burning a hole through 1" thick plate steel.

      My AP chemistry teacher was the same lovely, meek, sweet, but subtly psychotic lady that I had for my first year of chemistry. Highlights of the class where when she spent the time between classes charging herself up on a van deGraff generator and greeting her students with a friendly touch on the arm when they arrived, and the time when we did fractional distillation of some nasty, right out of the ground crude oil. That resulted in some mercaptans coming out, which was an experience the entire school got to share in.

      We used to mix up some ammonium iodide for flies. My high school had no A/C, open windows with holes in screens.

      I tried to see how charged I could get myself off a VDG Generator. Had a classmate handle the off/on switch. I stepped up on a stool, with a camera and a mirror in front of me. I was getting the hair out just right and I was about to take a picture when everything started arcing. My cock to the table - about a 6" arc, the guy holding the switch... everything. Teacher comes running back... "What are you guys doing!!!!!!" Both of us - "Oh nothing." Of course we had to explain. We lived though it though. Still remember it like it happened yesterday. Sadly enough the Cannon AE-1 camera didn't have anything recorded on the film. The next week a cheerleader came in, turned it on and then tried to touch the silver ball.... Pap! (us ha ha ha ha ha)

    12. Re:Boom by JillElf · · Score: 1

      Please, I'm so old we had soda and snack machines that contained sugar contaminated items at school.

    13. Re:Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Don Herbert's Wikipedia page:

      "In 1999, Stephen Gordon, founder of the furniture company Restoration Hardware, teamed up with Renee Whitney, general manager of a toy company called Wild Goose, to recreate the chemistry kits marketed by "Mr. Wizard" in the past. However, they found that most of the items in the original kits are now illegal to sell, and the resulting product they ended up marketing contained just 5 chemicals ("including laundry starch, which was tagged with an ominous warning: HANDLE CAREFULLY. NOT EXPECTED TO BE A HEALTH HAZARD")."

  27. No shit... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Uhh, who here hasn't made explosives before?"

    I was going to say the same thing. As a kid, we would make black powder from its base three ingredients - took awhile to learn the right proportions. Used extension cords to detonate out in the backyard. Today what was once considered a hands-on chemistry lesson would today get you thrown in jail.

    1. Re:No shit... by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      While there's some truth to that, you probably weren't still making black powder as an adult. I understand that some people may still do so for legitimate reasons (e.g., manufacturing their own ammunition), but there's a whole host of behavior that society is far more willing to tolerate in children than they will in adults. It sounds as though some of the stuff this guy was playing with shouldn't have been done in a residential area at all.

      Part of being an adult is learning to take appropriate precautions and implementing safety measures. It sounds as though you had a reasonable grasp of that even as a kid, but this guy should have known better.

    2. Re:No shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One weekend I was round my parents with my brother, and over dinner we got to discussing our pyrotechnic past. I'd done NI3, blackpowder, gun cotton etc. My brother chipped in with his similar experiences, though more towards molotov and napalm. My mother was looking quite aghast when my father chimed in with just what he did down the east end of London with the unexploded Luftwaffe munitions that the ARP had collected. In defence of my generation, neither my brother or myself had access to surplus military munitions, so our lack of 12ft craters is understandable, though how my dad survived is a bit of a head-scratcher.

  28. I wonder if authorities are being stupid by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to wonder if certain authorities aren't severely over-reacting. In general, amateurs will use fairly readily available components, many available at your local hardware store or Walmart. They aren't sensitive or all that dangerous until they are combined and processed to make an explosive. The dangerous chemicals are of course harder to get, and not at all necessary to make explosives.

    The report doesn't say what was in the apartment, but odds of are the components aren't really the dangerous at all. After being combined and processed, you of course end up with an explosive, which is dangerous. I wouldn't expect that to be made into a powder and sprinkled around, though - the more dangerous explosives would be contained. The explosion that killed him would also be expected to set off any nearby high explosives. That's how high explosives are set off - by a smaller explosion, not by burning. Generally only low explosives such as black powder are set off by burning. Low explosives have to be in a container to explode, so residue isn't really a problem. (A LOT of residue built up somewhere is a fire hazard, though.) Black powder isn't quite as safe as something like table salt, but a little residue isn't really dangerous and even humidity will render it non-flammable.

    In short, a good cleaning with soap and water probably would have rendered it perfectly safe as far as explosive residue. If the explosion did structural damage to the building that's another issue entirely.

    1. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      And now we may never know, because the chances of the authorities ever telling the public what these mysterious super-toxins may be is pretty slim.

      When the story mentions 'DIY explosives' and 'blows self up' though, smart money is on hydrogen peroxide and acetone. Good old TAP - high explosive you can make in your kitchen from readily available chemicals. Also tends to explode if you just stir it a little too fast.

    2. Re: I wonder if authorities are being stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I assumed this meant that the building was in a poor area, or an "eyesore" that the local govt wanted knocked down and they're just using this as an excuse.

    3. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      And now we may never know, because the chances of the authorities ever telling the public what these mysterious super-toxins may be is pretty slim.

      There's going to be lawsuits, since the other residents of the building aren't being allowed to remove personal belongings and the whole building is being burned. The authorities will almost certainly have to divulge what these mysterious super-toxins are in the process. However, odds are that you will have to be directly tracking the cases and court documents to learn, because I doubt those who'd be reporting on the cases would opt to mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.

      The authorities might actually have given the name(s) already, and those just didn't get reported.

    4. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would be interesting to try as a chemist though, the guy had quite a chemistry education and apparently was not trying to build a weapon.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    5. Re: I wonder if authorities are being stupid by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      This other comment in this thread has a link to an article about the controlled burn: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

      From that article, they only took down one building in a complex, so I have to guess that the 'eyesore' theory did not apply.

      I'm totally baffled at the fact that there was some chemical that was okay for them to burn like this, but not to clean up. Maybe the concussion impregnated it into the walls, drains, and HVAC systems.

    6. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Stupid. The you cant know bit is to cover their legal ass.
      Is this a legal first - never happened before?
      Strange because that Canadian lost the GM weed trespass case on the principle that a little contamnation was OK.

      Explosives mostly decompose - water sunlight rain and moisture.
      Hosing down the units may HAVE be an option.

      An expert would tell you water and a sniffer dog would find most.
      Burning plastics and foam- produces lots of toxic cancerous gasses,

      Oh - a child may find a lump and take it to school - does not wash, because lots of guns and ammo was removed first.

    7. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      many available at your local hardware store or Walmart. They aren't sensitive or all that dangerous until they are combined and processed to make an explosive

      You should try mixing bleach and pool acid in a bucket in an enclosed room. If your lungs are still functioning afterwards, come back and tell us how safe it is to mix off the shelf chemicals and how complicated it was to "process" them into something used as a chemical weapon in World War I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:I wonder if authorities are being stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If explosive residue got into the building's ventilation system and then spread around the building, it could have turned the building into something like a minefield. Even worse, if the initial explosion breached the walls, residue could have spread throughout the unreachable spaces of the building.

      Odds are they don't know what the danger is and don't want to risk some tenants' lives just to find out.

      dom

  29. If you outlaw explosives synthesizing .... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0
    ... only outlaws will synthesize explosives.

    Explosives don't kill people, people kill people.

    Manufacturing explosives is the tool intended by the founding fathers to protect the citizens from tyranny.

    Hey! Almost all the second amendment arguments easily extend to explosives.

    Sadly, ... I will be modded down to negative infinity in no time.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:If you outlaw explosives synthesizing .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can only be modded 5 times.
      And no one cares about you anyway ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:If you outlaw explosives synthesizing .... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You can only be modded 5 times. And no one cares about you anyway ...

      I too was worried no one would take me seriously. But then, you took the time and effort to reply assuring me all is well, and people will not rest till they correct everything that disagrees with them on the internet.

      Thanks, for restoring faith in humanity, buddy.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:If you outlaw explosives synthesizing .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My pleasure :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  30. He reportedly was making TATP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TATP is easily made from acetone and hydrogen peroxide. From Wikipedia:

    "A key disadvantage is its high susceptibility to accidental detonation (and resulting in "workplace accidents" in bomb-making shops), which has led to TATP being referred to as the "Mother of Satan." TATP was found in the accidental explosion that preceded the 2017 terrorist attacks in Barcelona and surrounding areas."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide

  31. Safety/Environmental Hazard or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a 4th amendment violation.

    How is burning one's personal items any different than confiscating them?

    Expect to see more of these 'necessary' controlled burns in the future now that precedent is set.

  32. Close down that school! Terrorists in training!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait. It's a Christian School?? Not mooslims? Ah, never mind. Carry on with the thoughts and prayers then.

  33. There's Big Oops for You by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It sounds like he knew just enough chemistry to kill himself. Chemical reactions can be oddballs simply because following exactly the same mixtures and methods can have more than one final result. So if you do not know that you may have either a good result or an explosion you just might try certain experiments. My bet would be he was trying to cook up a batch of meth.

  34. Don't forget... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Explosives should be kept in schools to protect from potential grizzlies.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  35. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "closer to his $DIETY"

    Well it sounds like he's lost weight (mainly limbs I guess).

  36. I just went to the web site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This college holds and teaches extreme fundamentalist beliefs by its own admission, right on the "about" page. This isn't part of what is known as "christian modernity," which is a popular movement of politically liberal Christians who do not regard the Bible as inerrant. This is a classic "the lost burn in literal fire forever, and that's the highest example of God's love" college.

    They, of course, do not recognize themselves as extremists. When you are born into such an environment, and its beliefs are reinforced for you by your parents, teachers, friends, etc., everywhere you go for your entire childhood, any belief, no matter how extreme, can seem perfectly reasonable and normal.

    Of course, none of this means that the guy was planning on murdering people with his chemistry experiment. Despite the temptation to equate extreme christian beliefs with abortion clinic bombers, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of extreme Christians don't do that sort of thing. If they did, we would have blown-up hospitals every other day!

    And, of course, non-christians always love it when devoted Christians do things that are clearly immoral, because everyone likes to look down upon the hypocrisy in others.

  37. 2.5 kg jar of TNT in the chem lab at military acad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the chem lab assistant in military school I used to order a 2.5 kg tub of TNT powder yearly for the 3 years I served as one so the students could learn to mold TNT safely in our military chemistry course...

    Coolest school ever(in the '60s)..

  38. Boom University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine colleges and universities have it easier.

  39. We'll see what info leaks out over time by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This whole situation seems odd and subject to a wide range of interpretation due to the lack of information.

    - He could have been just a guy who chose an extremely stupid hobby.
    - He could've been cooking meth (although it's hard to see why the police wouldn't just say that).
    - He could've been working on some other synthesized and highly volatile drug... has anyone sought out the expert opinion of John McAfee?
    - He could have been an anti-government wacko planning an attack on a government building.
    - He could've been a radicalized convert to Islam.
    - He could've been planning an attack on an abortion clinic.
    - He could've just been another dude with a grudge against someone and a psychological disorder.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:We'll see what info leaks out over time by careysub · · Score: 2

      Right. There is literally no information about what he was actually doing, what caused the explosion, or what chemicals he had. Any speculation is speculation in complete ignorance at this point.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:We'll see what info leaks out over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - He could've encountered a spider on the wall and killed it with reasonable force.

    3. Re: We'll see what info leaks out over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have been one of those guys who the FBI got a hold of, and was subsequently inspired to do something he'd otherwise never do... And the burning is less to deal with volatile compounds, and more to deal with volatile ideas.

  40. what's a contaminant, really? by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many of those things contaminate an entire apartment building so much the best option is to burn it to the ground without allowing residents to collect their belongings?

    Contamination is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

    Some of these "contaminants" might have no human (or wildlife) health effects, but could simply be watch-list chemicals for terrorism screening sensors, and the authorities simply don't want to have to navigate false positives for years or decades to come.

    Now grab your popcorn and watch the fire insurance companies declare this self-interested DHS bonfire an act of God.

    1. Re:what's a contaminant, really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They probably mean that they can't be sure his apartment doesn't have more explosives in it.

      To be sure they would have to clear it out and strip it down. In bomb disposal gear, with the risk of being blown up.

      Not sure what the kind of job costs or even if it can be justified given that the loss is material things vs life.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  41. TAP is the main thing I thought of by raymorris · · Score: 2

    >. 'blows self up' though, smart money is on hydrogen peroxide and acetone. Good old TAP - high explosive you can make in your kitchen from readily available chemicals. Also tends to explode if you just stir it a little too fast.

    I thought of the same. Low explosives such as black powder don't tend to kill the maker in an accident. (Unless it's industrial scale). Losing a finger is entirely possible. Acetone peroxide, as you said, attracts idiots because the components are readily available, AND it's very unsafe to make - killing yourself is entirely possible.

    I heard one guy who lives near me had a lot of experience making pyrotechnics, making black powder and such. He (very carefully) made a few MILLIgrams of acetone peroxide. Seeing what just a few milligrams was like, he swore to never again go near AP.

  42. s/Morrison/Morrow/ by burgundy · · Score: 1

    My last name is Morrison, so count me as being a bit sensitive to this – the original article identifies this particular Darwin award winner as Benjamin D. Morrow (not Morrison).

  43. Nuke it from orbit; it is the only way to be sure! by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    Nuke it from orbit; it is the only way to be sure! Tim S.

  44. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    ...until he blew himself up.

    So you're saying he got mad over something that wasn't working right and ... went to pieces over it?

    Too early? If I wait a week you'll forget about it; if I wait two weeks then I can't comment anymore. Come back and read it in a month or two -- it'll be funnier then and he'll still be dead. If you wait MUCH longer than that, then ..... ohhh, never mind.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  45. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we will obsess over the candidate that lost the electoral vote even if the popular vote went their way. Nah... Only an idiotic goon would blame the losing opponent of their election for their own incompetence.

  46. Philosophers, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the catch, you can't prove the existence of objective reality when all you have to go on is your own subjective experiences, including your subjective experiences of other people reporting on their subjective experiences.

    Put simply, one person seeing an apple might be hallucinating. So, we get ten people all looking at it and describing it in the same way, and we say that by doing so we have established objectivity. That, at least is good enough for the scientific method.

    But, one person seeing that apple, and seeing nine other people talking about it, might still be hallucinating. All nine people might also be hallucinations.

    Though this isn't a particularly useful position to take, it remains true that there is no logical basis for establishing objectivity by means of subjectivity (and subjectivity is all we've got).

    1. Re:Philosophers, too. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the purpose is not to "prove reality", although Occam's razor ought to be given consideration. The purpose is to set up a system of rules and principles that allow humans to live a good life. If the system corresponds with reality, it stands a much better chance of promoting a good life than does a system which does not correspond well with reality. In particular, the assumption that hallucinations are universal, or even frequent, would not lead to a good life because it would discourage action.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Philosophers, too. by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      the purpose

      and

      a good life

      Are subjective.

      If the system corresponds with reality, it stands a much better chance of promoting a good life than does a system which does not correspond well with reality

      There's some evidence that suggests that those with (mild to moderate) depression have a more accurate perspective, particularly around personal circumstances. Most non-depressed people have a slight but measurable degree of unrealistic 'optimism' about themselves. To the degree that personal happiness forms a component of your definition of 'a good life', then a slightly distorted view of reality is 'better' than a more accurate one. For an individual. At a group or societal level, the assessment might be calculated differently.

      the assumption that hallucinations are universal

      Not needed. I only need to assume that I am hallucinating when I see both the apple and the people saying that they see the apple. More, the GP loads the example by talking about a hallucination as though there exists a non-hallucinogenic state that has a more accurate perspective.

      the assumption that hallucinations are universal, or even frequent, would not lead to a good life because it would discourage action

      Not if the pattern of hallucinations is reasonably consistent. I presume you mean that inaction results from random or apparently unconnected input. If the hallucination is consistent, 'though, then you can make predictions about possible responses and choose to act based on those predictions. Religious beliefs, superstitions. So long as the cost of acting on a perspective that is inaccurate is lower than the benefit from same, then it's not even 'bad'.

  47. I wonder what he was making by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    If he was experienced, I doubt he would be making anything too unstable. But the convenience of organic peroxide based explosives is really tempting.
    I wonder if the sublimation of acetone peroxide claimed another life. I would think he would have been aware of that though, it's well documented on a number of 'energetic chemistry' forums.

  48. Not Florida man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wisconsin man. Not Florida man

  49. Attempt to, without getting it right by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.

    Although I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, that's really not a good analogy. We're talking about listing the ingredients used. If major newspapers published the ingredients for Coca-Cola, some people might TRY to make it. Not knowing anything more than the ingredient list, they'd probably fail to make it right. When making high explosives, failing to do things right can result in KABOOM, as it did in this case.

    So the theory is given the list of ingredients, some idiot might TRY to make it, perhaps by just mixing together random amounts. In the case of acetone peroxide, just mixing the two ingredients will cause an explosion. It'll go off without being purposely detonated, if you don't take active steps to prevent spontaneous detonation.

    1. Re:Attempt to, without getting it right by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      > mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.

      Although I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, that's really not a good analogy. We're talking about listing the ingredients used. If major newspapers published the ingredients for Coca-Cola, some people might TRY to make it. Not knowing anything more than the ingredient list, they'd probably fail to make it right. When making high explosives, failing to do things right can result in KABOOM, as it did in this case.

      So the theory is given the list of ingredients, some idiot might TRY to make it, perhaps by just mixing together random amounts. In the case of acetone peroxide, just mixing the two ingredients will cause an explosion. It'll go off without being purposely detonated, if you don't take active steps to prevent spontaneous detonation.

      No, it's very much the proper analogy because most high explosives are organics--to put it bluntly, the chemical name only gives you the list of elemental ingredients and possibly some idea of the structure, but you will often find a great overlap between the chemical ingredients in HEs and the material you routinely deposit into the toilet. Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up.

      And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet. Most organics require rather more than 'mix ingredients' to synthesize, and I am quite happy with the process being generally not my particular field of chemistry.

  50. Re:More like Antifa by dryeo · · Score: 1

    He was a Christian, you know, those who love Trump as Trump has so many Christian values.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  51. Crates Labelled ACME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crates Labelled ACME were found all around.

  52. This is why assault rifles worry me more by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    than explosives. A common argument is that if mass shooters couldn't get assault rifles they'd just use explosives. Believe it or not handling explosives is tricky. Even with access to the Internet and info on how to handle them you can still blow yourself to bits. Yeah, crock pot bombs are easy enough to make, but that mess in Boston had all of three victims. Compare that with the parkland shooting that killed 17 and injured the same.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The fact that you are claiming the ill-defined term "assault weapons" are bad, assures us that you don't know what you're writing about. The laws that have tried to cover that territory are often grab-bags or include characteristics that are largely cosmetic. There are many firearms not fitting into the category that would advance the body count more quickly.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of a place called Ireland? Little island just north of England. Just look them up and Bombs. The police had so many bombings over there that they could tell you how much and what type was used based on the destruction of windows around it. Back in the 1970s it seemed like they were blowing stuff up all the time.

      It's not that hard. Plans are all online and materials are easy to get. 17 killed and injured would look like a walk in the park. They used to kill and injure hundreds, sometimes thousands and condemn big buildings. Maybe you heard of the Murrah building in the US? https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur... That fool blew up the building right before I was getting my Government clearance. Held it up for months.

      So why don't you think bombs can be effective again?

      Now about your "assault rifle" remark - they are already effectively banned. Have been since the 1930s. That's an automatic rifle. You can own one in some cases, however they are very expensive and very heavily regulated. Not one has ever been used in a crime. You may have meant - assault weapon. That's just the left's attempt to scare you. Usually a big scary looking gun like the AR-15 that they sell to civilians. I could do a lot more harm with a 12 Ga shotgun. There are a lot more effective guns that could be used.

      With any luck this fools demise saved a lot of people.

    3. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Chris,
          Actually he wrote assault rifle, not assault weapon. Assault rifle is such a thing and I pointed out to him that has been regulated since the 1930s. Asssault Weapon as you are thinking is bullshit. Anything stupid anti gun people are scared of. Stupid because they can learn about these things, they chose not to.

    4. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      If this guy was making his own explosives for a bomb he was deliberately going about it the hard way. You can buy materials to make effective diy bombs at practically any grocery store. If you want to go the extra mile you can buy gun powder by the pound and make some pipe bombs that are relatively safe to produce, handle, and time.

      Hell I remember when an idiot at my middle school thought it would be funny to screw a lid onto a bottle of water after dropping in a few bits of dry ice and leave it at the back of the room when the bell rang. Luckily the teacher spotted it before the kids had even made it out the door and got the lid off before it built up enough pressure to blow.

      It isn't the laws and regulations that provide most of the safety that we enjoy from violence these days. It is the simple fact that most people aren't murderous psychopaths. We have psychopaths aplenty but luckily the vast majority of them seem to be able to find better ways to get ahead than murder. The tools or weapons someone might need to wreak havoc are all around us and readily available despite plenty of nanny state rule making.

    5. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Now about your "assault rifle" remark - they are already effectively banned. Have been since the 1930s. That's an automatic rifle. You can own one in some cases, however they are very expensive and very heavily regulated. Not one has ever been used in a crime.

      The Thomson Submachine Gun was a fully automatic weapon extensively used in crime in the United States in the 1920s and 30s. Its extensive criminal use in the Depression Era is credited for the creation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 in the first place. Two of them were used in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, which was most definitely a crime. (Rather bizarrely, the Berrien County Sheriff's Department still has them.) They were expensive from the very beginning, selling for $225 in 1925 dollars. For comparison, a Ford Model T Runabout sold for $260 that same year. Their use in crimes dropped dramatically after they became illegal to make and rare.

      In other words, gun control worked.

    6. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How about considering high-powered semi-automatic rifles with large magazines?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add to the end of that sentence, not one has ever been used in a crime since.

      As for what else you said - in other words it didn't work. We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc. We still have mass killings, by guns, vehicles, bombs, etc, so it doesn't work because the gun isn't the problem in the first place. The activity stopped in the 1930s due to going after them other ways. Not due to the machine gun law. You might as well outlaw pants or shirts. They were involved in the crime as well. Before you respond half cocked so to speak, think about it. If guns were the problem we'd have a lot more problems. Where I grew up I think every kid had at least a shotgun or rifle by the age of 10. I had a high power rifle in my room, with ammo since I was 12. By the time I was 16 you'd be toast at 500 yards. This is un-aided without a scope. Just iron sights. Today, man I have a whole bunch of guns. I have ammo for guns I don't even own. We used to learn how to shoot in the high schools in this country. We used to teach respect and the concept of shut up, you need to do your work. You're not a victim either.

      As for the machine gun bit, we were shooting semi's effective like a machine gun way back in the 1980s. Without the so called bump stock. It's not hard. The bad part is you go through ammo very quickly. It's only recently that people seem to realize it.

      So let's talk about "gun control". It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is. Where we have more guns we have less crime and fatalities. In other words - it doesn't work. It's pure insanity to keep on trying the same old thing over and over again and expecting different results. So the question is, are you insane or not? I'll be able to tell with your response. I'll get some popcorn if I see one. Let me save some time - Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there. And so on. Smart thing to do is admit it doesn't work and we need to fix our society. The world is going way to far to the left.

      The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it and in America it's always historically been racist. The left doesn't advertise that part much. So you're almost certainly a racist. They keep pushing it so they can control the people. A well armed public keeps government in check. Something we may need to do very soon in California with the lawless governments out there. They seem to want a 2nd civil war. The Democrats won't win this time either. I think we need to do a lot more cleaning after the fact, however.

    8. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.

      And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.

      Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.

      It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.

      It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.

      Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.

      Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.

      The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...

      And you lose. Godwin's Law.

      ...and in America it's always historically been racist.

      A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?

      A well armed public keeps government in check.

      Riiiiight. In check you say. That's what it is. Sure. I can tell. If it is, not one gun was used to keep it in check. When was the last time there was a successful armed revolution that overthrew a repressive regime in the Western world? Name one. I'll wait.

      They seem to want a 2nd civil war. The Democrats won't win this time either.

      As usual, completely ignoring that the political stances of the two parties have swapped essentially end for end since the Civil War. Historical revisionism wins you no arguments.

      I think we need to do a lot more cleaning after the fact, however.

      Ok Internet Tough Guy. You know what I saw on the highway last week? A pickup truck with a permanently disabled license plate surrounded by a US Marine Corp plate holder, with a Service Disabled Veteran bumper sticker. And right next to it, a RESIST sticker. People who own and know how to use guns are not all gun nuts.

      Today, man I have a whole bunch of guns. I have ammo for guns I don't even own.

      Yeah, I know, you have a fetish. It was obvious from your argumentation, and only borne out by that statement.

      I find it amusing that you and all your ilk and your favoritist lobbying organization in the whole wide world goes on and on condemning the "Assault Weapon" ban while saying in the same breath that it only banned the "scary" parts of guns. Which it did. And I understand why you hate it so much, and "the left" that passed it. Even though that ban did nothing whatsoever to affect the ability of anyone to own guns that would be perfectly effective for your precious armed revolution that will never happen, YOU hate it because it bans the sexy parts of guns. You have a fetish. You want your fetish objects to look menacing, even when those features have negligible effects on their utility.

      Ordinarily, I wouldn't care about your sexual obsessions, but you've decided to obsess over an object that is also a deadly weapon. That's fine. You do you. But I want all your fetish objects treated just like the fully automatic

    9. Re:This is why assault rifles worry me more by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.

      And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.

      Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.

      You realize there are still fully auto guns in private hands today, so what you're saying is clearly wrong. Fully auto guns in crimes was never very common. So it didn't work. You won't get this point because you can't show it's true. It could be amusing to see you try though. It's a fools errand, let's see if you're a fool or not.

      It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.

      It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.

      I'm not confused, you are. It's easy when your logic is flawed. I've been following gun control since the 1970s. Plenty of studies. The ones that show gun control works in every case I've researched, it was because they used bullshit and got caught. They make up numbers, statistics and you have to prove they're wrong. Been there, done that, I have a drawer full of t-shirts. So to me, yes it's trivial.

      Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.

      Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.

      As I said, Australia won't help you because it was already falling well before that law was passed. In fact if the law hadn't been passed it's likely we would be right where we are today.
      Nonsense you say? Here is another piece of very sound advice given by me on slashdot, read this - https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp... . Once you've read it, you can stop sounding like a fool. I know those stubborn facts again.

      The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...

      And you lose. Godwin's Law.

      You realize that you automatically lose if you invoke Godwin's and it is something the Nazis really did, right? Do you even know what Godwin's law is about? It's ok to mention Nazis, Hitler if it's something they really did. They really did champion gun control, implement it and it's documented. It's ok when that's the point you're making and it is. Gun confiscation, actually seizure in most cases leading towards a totalitarian government and you can't do anything about it because nobody is armed. They weren't armed. That's what you get. Godwin himself said it's ok to compare facists (the leftists that are to the right of the communists and still well to the left - alt right) to the alt right because that's what they are.

      ...and in America it's always historically been racist.

      A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?

      Wow, really wow... you're accusing me of being a leftist? I didn't expect that. Well if that is what you meant, that's a first for this Century

  53. Calling all 911 Conspiracy Theorists by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Get to work guys.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  54. Not Unreasonable by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

    As an amateur chemist I keep my hazmat in my shed for just this reason.

    I know what's in there, and I would seriously consider burning the shed down if an explosion smashed open a bunch of the containers. For a fire marshal to make the same decision is not at all unreasonable.

  55. Re:Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    You have access to information not available to the general public, that you've not reported to the police? No, you're just advertising your ignorant prejudices.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  56. Two things by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Okay two issues. First, I'm talking about the components, the ingredients, used to make the explosive. Any actual explosives likely detonated in the explosion that killed him.

    Secondly, the name of the explosive may very well be "acetone peroxide". Think nobody can guess which two ingredients you mix to make "acetone peroxide"? (For those unsure, it's acetone and peroxide.).

    > Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up.
    > And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet.

    Try randomly mixing acetone and peroxide some time and see what happens. Mix no more than 1 gram, and make sure nobody is within 300 meters for the next several days.

    1. Re:Two things by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Okay two issues. First, I'm talking about the components, the ingredients, used to make the explosive. Any actual explosives likely detonated in the explosion that killed him.

      Secondly, the name of the explosive may very well be "acetone peroxide". Think nobody can guess which two ingredients you mix to make "acetone peroxide"? (For those unsure, it's acetone and peroxide.).

      > Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up. > And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet.

      Try randomly mixing acetone and peroxide some time and see what happens. Mix no more than 1 gram, and make sure nobody is within 300 meters for the next several days.

      Many, if not all, of the high explosives are, in point of fact, made up of just four elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The only thing the name of an organic substance tells you are the elements and a bit about its structure. Yes, this includes your favorite acetone peroxide. The name does not provide sufficient information to let you know if it is something you might randomly get it in your waste bucket (a known phenomenon with acetone peroxide) or if it requires a long chain of reactions all going right to synthesize. A rather significant part of OChem is devoted pretty much to learning how to successfully synthesize organic substances without accidentally blowing yourself up or setting yourself on fire, with a section on the first day of lab typically devoted to what to do when that does happen anyway.

      Honestly? I would actually not be particularly surprised if he was trying to make something that wasn't supposed to go KABOOM, and it's just that the FBI is so used to it being bomb makers that they start with that assumption.

    2. Re:Two things by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > A rather significant part of OChem is devoted pretty much to learning how to successfully synthesize organic substances without accidentally blowing yourself up or setting yourself on fire, with a section on the first day of lab typically devoted to what to do when that does happen anyway.

      And we'd rather that not happen. We don't want untrained people trying to make acetone peroxide. Unfortunately there are people, such as my nephew, who will hear "this guy mixed up an explosive, acetone peroxide, from common household items" and they'll try mixing acetone and peroxide. My nephew would totally do that. When I was 14, I almost would have. There is no need for me or him to parse 3,3-Dimethyl-1,2-dioxacyclopropane in order to do something stupid.

  57. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of said life's in America lately

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  58. Re: Really just wanted to be closer to his $DIETY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Trump.

  59. Mercury fulminate? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Only thing I can think of that is that unstable and that contaminating would be mercury fulminate. How do I know? My roommate in college stole a huge bottle of mercury from the chemistry lab and was making it in my dorm room, explaining, "I have to keep the window open for this; they usually use a fume hood to keep from poisoning themselves when they did this." Thanks...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  60. PCC/Pensacola... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've lived here for 23 years, and have met many people that went there... None of them are right in the head. The joke we locals make is that it stands for Pensacola Concentration Camp because the rules are so ridiculously strict. No secular music, no movies... They can't go out by themselves if they live on campus. Groups of 2 for the guys, minimum 3 for the girls, and only in long dresses.... Gender separated elevators and stairwells... My sister rebelled after their high school program got through with her... Shitty place. Their basketball team had to forfeit a game because the coach checked the opposing team's uniforms.. Their shorts ended half an inch above the knee.

  61. Terrorist does making bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh never mind he's white

    1. Re:Terrorist does making bomb by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Oh never mind he's white

      And what does this have to do with anything? You believing leftist bullshit? Tim McVeigh - he was a terrorist and he was white. The Unibomber - he is white too.

  62. Re: More like Antifa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's another idoit that has to bring President Trump's into every conversation not about politics. Rub some more Vaseline on your rim, you're getting cranky.

  63. Split an atom ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He used a diamond bladed knife, shot a U235 atom at it thus split a atom BOOM.

  64. You're way smarter than that by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You've been on Slashdot long enough, and I've read enough of your posts, to know that when you quote me saying "until they are combined" you know what that means.

    Bleach is in fact not all that dangerous, and doesn't require demolishing a building. Same with swimming pool chemicals. "until they are combined".

  65. LOL! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    "Though a local reverend believes 28-year-old Morrison was "not a bomb maker,"" No shit?!

  66. PS guess what's in pools besides acid :) by raymorris · · Score: 1

    PS the main chemical you put in swimming pools is bleach.
    Then you pour in that acid. In order to make the water SAFER than just plain water. Just add water - no more danger.

    1. Re:PS guess what's in pools besides acid :) by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      PS the main chemical you put in swimming pools is bleach.

      No shit Sherlock. And the wonderful concentrations in which you mix them (parts per million) is what prevents chlorine disassociating into chlorine gas. Point that you so conveniently skirt is that you can make a metric fuckton of highly volatile chemicals from things you buy from the store.
      And no, you can't turn chlorine gas back into chlorine by adding water, for that you'd want to ventilate the air, or are you supposing the FBI go back in time to a point before he did what he did and add water?

  67. Contaminated, but burn by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure this is part of a government conspiracy to turn me into a person who believes in government conspiracies, because: too contaminated, therefore we're going to put it all into the atmosphere?

    Does this make sense to anyone?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  68. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yuk yuk. Now let's look at TFA:

    “I’d love to defend Ben because he has been described as a bomb maker and he’s not a bomb maker,” [Reverend] Marsden said. “He wasn’t a recluse as some have said he is. He was far from that.”

    Emphasis mine.

    Agreed. Not everyone is a Unabomber. When I was younger, I wanted to make explosives. I collected a lot of info about it. I never knew how accurate it was, and didn't think that the reward was worth the risk, so I never made anything. I didn't want to go postal, I just wanted to make a big bang in an empty field or something.

    Recreational explosives enthusiast. Not deranged lunatic. I don't know this guy, so I can't really say which one he was. I wouldn't jump to conclusions though. Vehicular homicide has become a new favorite among radicals, that doesn't mean that car enthusiasts need to be on a watch list.

  69. Identified by his DNA by slyborg · · Score: 1

    That apartment must have been quite a mess.

  70. Re:"He was a quiet man. Kept to himself..." by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    He fell to pieces!!!

  71. Chemist or a bomber?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He may have been a chemical experimenter or making a meth lab?
    Grignard chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grignard_reaction,
    or Schlosser's base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlosser%27s_base and there are other reactions that use very reactive metals like potassium

    Many of these reactions are strongly exothermic and any explosion IS an instantaneous exothermal process.

    This guy may have been an experimenter beyond his reach and ability, or he may have been a trub bomb maker. I tend to believe the experimenter theory and there is not much need for volatile explosives.

    A quick check for nitratiing materiel, Nitric Acid and Sulfuric acid would tell. TNT is tri[ly nitrated Toluene, and has intermediates that are volatile, but DNT is not very good as an explosive.

  72. chemist in alkali reaction metals?? or making bomb by aurizon · · Score: 1

    He may have been a chemical experimenter or making a meth lab?
    Grignard chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...,
    or Schlosser's base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and there are other reactions that use very reactive metals like potassium

    Many of these reactions are strongly exothermic and any explosion IS an instantaneous exothermal process.

    This guy may have been an experimenter beyond his reach and ability, or he may have been a trub bomb maker. I tend to believe the experimenter theory and there is not much need for volatile explosives.

    A quick check for nitratiing materiel, Nitric Acid and Sulfuric acid would tell. TNT is tri[ly nitrated Toluene, and has intermediates that are volatile, but DNT is not very good as an explosive.

  73. You *can*, sunlight speeds it, but faster ways by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > And no, you can't turn chlorine gas back into chlorine by adding water,

    Actually that's what happens if you sit and do nothing. Chlorine reacts with water in the air, strongly catalyzed by sunlight, to form hydrogen chloride. That's not the fastest and easiest way to get rid of it, though. Chlorine reacts (combines) with almost every element on the periodic table, other than the noble gasses, which don't really react with anything. So you could neutralize it by adding just about anything, or just sit and wait while it reacts with (bleaches) whatever happens to be in the room.

    Soldiers in WW1 would protect themselves (somewhat) by breathing through a wet handkerchief, allowing the chlorine gas to react with the moisture on the handkerchief instead of the moisture of their mucous membranes.

    Just curious, why are you arguing about chemistry.without having any idea what you're talking about?

  74. Under-rated. Successfully guessed this is TATP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smart money is on hydrogen peroxide and acetone

    Yes. Good guess. As reported by Wisconsin News3 (CBS).

  75. Missing facts... by WayneWinquist · · Score: 1

    The building was already demolished in a "controlled" burn last Wednesday. Residents in the other apartments in the building weren't allowed to return to retrieve their belongings, also believed to be contaminated, though someone supposedly went through and retrieved a few irreplaceable items for them.

  76. well, meth labs come to mind but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if a meth lab is found sometimes burning the house down is the only way to avoid contamination, but other units would still be allowed to move their stuff out beforehand.

    so that get me thinking that maybe, N, B or C, with less emphasis on C and more on B and N. N being the worst, which would definitely be "you don't want people taking stuff out" comes to mind. Dirty bomb maybe?