Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Pennsylvania Student Arrested

Pennsylvania Student Arrested

roXefeller - 3-2-2014 at 07:33

A person in central Pennsylvania was arrested last week with 'weapons of mass destruction'. Here is the link to one of the more detailed stories (http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/578482/R...). He had flash powder charges (Mg powder, KClO4, KNO3, and 'fuses'). I'm not sure if they were safety fuse or electric ignitors. The last WMD event that actually occurred was Boston using much simpler, but more sinister materials. This case seems to be more of a heavy fisted WMD charge applied to an illegal pyrotechnic device. Most news stories make note that he was a Russian with a visa.

Edit: As far as how this applies to amatuer science, are we to be harassed for posession of powerful or oxidizing chemicals or for illegal devices made from such.

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by roXefeller]

forgottenpassword - 3-2-2014 at 09:50

"charged with possessing a weapon of mass destruction"

Seems reasonable!

Zyklon-A - 3-2-2014 at 09:58

Not that I do anything illegal, but if I ever get arrested for possessing flash powder, I'm going to say, "I've never detonated any of it ever." (You cant detonated flash powder!)

hissingnoise - 3-2-2014 at 10:04

Quote:

(You cant detonated flash powder!)

Sure you can ─ they're not called "fulminating mixes" for nothing . . . ?

forgottenpassword - 3-2-2014 at 10:07

"Mass arrests for WMDs at Chinese New Year celebrations!"

Zyklon-A - 3-2-2014 at 10:11

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Quote:

(You cant detonated flash powder!)

Sure you can ─ they're not called "fulminating mixes" for nothing . . . ?

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=14675
Flash powders can't be detonated, they only deflagrate very quickly.

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by Zyklonb]

bfesser - 3-2-2014 at 10:49

Quote: Originally posted by roXefeller

As far as how this applies to amatuer science, are we to be harassed for posession of powerful or oxidizing chemicals or for illegal devices made from such.

<em>If it's illegal, then yes, you should be harassed</em>—and charged with the applicable crime, for that matter. This event is only weakly connected to amateur science.

Zyklon-A - 3-2-2014 at 11:05

At least he was using anti static spray, something unheard-of in the text files/anarchist cookbook community.

Quote:

"charged with possessing a weapon of mass destruction" Seems reasonable!

(Assuming you were being sarcastic), It is sound reasoning, the amount of flash that he had could have caused 'mass destruction' if used in the right (wrong) way.

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by Zyklonb]

forgottenpassword - 3-2-2014 at 11:33

It's only sound logic if you redefine "weapon of mass destruction" as having a different meaning from its traditional usage. If you don't redefine what a weapon of mass destruction is, and if you recall what mass destruction actually looks like - Hiroshima, for instance - then it is anything but sound logic, but rather pathetic hyperbole.

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by forgottenpassword]

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by forgottenpassword]

bfesser - 3-2-2014 at 11:56

<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs" target="_blank">

Quote:

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure. <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" />

</a><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/html/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap44-sec921.htm" target="_blank">

Quote:

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" />

</a>

[Edited on 3.2.14 by bfesser]

roXefeller - 3-2-2014 at 13:41

Illegel chemicals should be harassed, but I buy my chemicals through legals channels just like the next guy. This is applicable to the legal issues of amatuer science because most all of us have at least one precursor to one of the many WMD that those regulations vaguely try to define. Or what about someone with 2 lbs of sugar in the kitchen and another pound of any other oxidizing agent. It doesn't take much to have a pound of anything, 500g is a reasonable quantity to buy for many chemicals and is just over one pound. Should I buy my nitrates in 10 gram quantities to avoid someone seeing it as WMD oxidizer. My personal favorite example of things to take out of context would be: I cook my beans in a pressure cooker (6 minutes to cook them, its awesome!), I have bulk powder for my firearms (1 lb for the shotshells, 1 lb for the rifle), nails for fixing things around the house (1 lb of course because that is a minimum saleable quantity for things), and lead shot for trap shooting league (5 lb units are typical). Because it could vaguely be assembled into a destructive device, if the precedence is there, they could harassingly charge you. Now take it to another level with chemicals, if you are studying five unique and diverse reactions, but one reagent out of each one could be combined on the side to make a crude chemical weapon, that is in violation of item (B). What if you never assembled such a configuration because you chose to do legal things with your lab.

They probably charged this guy because he did assemble, and did admit to setting them off (said blow things up, instead of saying he set off a pyrotechnic device). But will an officer in my jurisdiction (or yours) see my legal intentions as illegal because they think the precedence is already established (flash powder = WMD).

[Edited on 3-2-2014 by roXefeller]

forgottenpassword - 3-2-2014 at 14:14

So Iraq did have WMD all along! The UN inspectors were looking for VX nerve gas when they should have been looking for flash powder!

fabio5546 - 23-6-2015 at 08:14

He got sentenced for 2 years jail.
The problem was that they found some stuff with Anarchy symbols and a note in a bullet case that said: "if you read this, you wont find me anymore" or something like that. Also he hab ready devices laying around. They said, he put about half a pound FlashPowder into CO2 cartridges. If there are CO2 cartridges as big to hold half a pound, than this really would be a bad-ass devide! Together with notes like the one they found it gets really hard for the lawyer to prove that his intentions werent bad...

If you go by having stuff in your home, which WHEN PUT TOGETHER could make a WMD, than almost every hobby chemist would get in trouble. Like said above any oxidizer with almost everything can explode/burn/burst or even detonate.

Loptr - 23-6-2015 at 08:27

Did the WMD charge ever stick? If so, all I can say is that us Americans are extremely sheltered. I wish any one that shared this view would be sent to an area of the world that is actively engaged in warfare (Middle East comes to mind), and see if they can even compare the Boston bombing to anything they saw happening on a daily basis after they return! A house or building being blown up with military ordnance--that would eclipse this non-nonsensical child's play they called a WMD.

annaandherdad - 23-6-2015 at 09:19

Thanks for the citations from the law, bfesser. However, my impression of the evolution of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is that it began as a term referring to chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, all of which could cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands or more. It was a useful term in the cold war, because the US made it clear to the USSR that any attack involving chemical or biological weapons would be considered equivalent to a nuclear attack, and one justifying a nuclear response.

This may not be the right history, it's just my recollection of how things went. But it sounds to me like the US has diluted the meaning of the term since 9/11, since it now apparently includes things like the pressure cooker bomb the Boston bomber used.

blogfast25 - 23-6-2015 at 09:26

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

Thanks for the citations from the law, bfesser. However, my impression of the evolution of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is that it began as a term referring to chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, all of which could cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands or more. It was a useful term in the cold war, because the US made it clear to the USSR that any attack involving chemical or biological weapons would be considered equivalent to a nuclear attack, and one justifying a nuclear response.

This may not be the right history, it's just my recollection of how things went. But it sounds to me like the US has diluted the meaning of the term since 9/11, since it now apparently includes things like the pressure cooker bomb the Boston bomber used.

No, it IS the right history, you ARE correct. The term WMD was first used referring to the A-bomb. Ridiculous linguistic erosion/evolution caused 'meaning creep'. By today's usage a hand grenade would be a WMD. And US troupes would be using WMDs ALL the time!

It's political, of course.

[Edited on 23-6-2015 by blogfast25]

byko3y - 23-6-2015 at 17:41

Well, to become a terrorist you need to have firecracker, some nitrate fertilizer, gasoline and anarchy symbols at home. Indeed, US is a land of freedom.

Loptr - 23-6-2015 at 19:27

Hyperpatriotism. Why do we run around acting like freedom is something unique in this world that can only be found in America? Is America the only nation on the planet considered free? What is with that? Are we the only nation that has faught adversity against oppressors for something we believe in? The only nation of people that has a past of laying down their lives to better themselves?

[Edited on 24-6-2015 by Loptr]

Zombie - 24-6-2015 at 02:05

[rquote=410263&tid=28816&author=Loptr Are we the only nation that has faught adversity against oppressors for something we believe in? The only nation of people that has a past of laying down their lives to better themselves?

[Edited on 24-6-2015 by Loptr][/rquote]

Sorry Bro, but we as a nation have never once fought against oppression.
Not one war in our history has been fought because we were threatened by any sort of oppression.

Give me a war. Any war, and I will show you how it was a "for profit" undertaking, and who profited.

Sadly the many millions of Americans that died fighting in wars both here, and abroad had nothing to do with our freedom, quality of life, or any form of imminent threat to our security.
The revolutionary war? You want to know who started it, and why?
It wasn't about "taxes" I promise.

You might ask how we as a fledgling nation of rag tags funded that war. Who paid for it? Look up Haym Salomon. He was the ONLY reason we could afford to fight.
Yes the revolution was also a for profit war. Guess who funded the Brits! The same man that backed Haym... Meyer Rothschild.

It took decades to pay these two men back. The US debt to Haym totaled $354,000. In today's money...$9,910,000.00.
The British debt to Meyer.. 250 million pounds.

The war had NOTHING to do with taxation. Sort of... These two men conspired to create a war.

Robert L. Owen, former chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, explains the matter on page 98 of Senate Document No. 23. He states that when associates of the Rothschild’s asked Franklin how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the colonies, he replied : “That is simple — In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script — We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry.”

Robert L. Owen remarked that not very long after the Rothschilds heard of this they realized the opportunity to exploit the situation with considerable profit to themselves. The obvious thing to do was to have a law passed prohibiting the Colonial officials from issuing their own money and make it compulsory for them to obtain the money they required through the medium of the Banks. Amschel Mayer Rothschild was still in Germany but he was supplying the British Government with Mercenary Troops at £8 per man. Such was his influence that in 1764 he succeeded, through the Directors of the Bank of England, in having laws passed in accordance with his dictates.
http://www.lovethetruth.com/books/pawns/05.htm

Yes I despise the Rothschild family. Bush, DuPont, Rockefeller, and many more.
Show me one war the US has ever fought for a reason other than MONEY!
Don't even try WW I or WW II.

[Edited on 6-24-2015 by Zombie]

Loptr - 24-6-2015 at 11:09

Yes, there are always underlying currents that guide the actions of a country, as with any country, and will always will be. (I can't verify what you wrote at this time)

This does not mean the people didn't have some ideal they held on to at that time, of which there were a part seen as the oppressors.

What you say does not invalidate that point. There are always many sides to a story, and none of them detract from the other.

[Edited on 24-6-2015 by Loptr]

[Edited on 24-6-2015 by Loptr]

aga - 24-6-2015 at 11:18

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Show me one war the US has ever fought for a reason other than MONEY!

Independence - oh that was Money.
Civil ... oh. Money again.
Aha! War on Drugs. Doh ! Money again.

Funny how 'muricans go on about freedom and 'Fighting The Oppressor' yet have little actual Freedom under such an Oppressive regime.

Zombie - 24-6-2015 at 14:56

Perhaps a better way to describe the "free peoples" of the world is as a comparative to a junk yard dog.
Yes you are free to a point. Free to go anywhere. (papers please). Do anything. (bend over and cough please). Say anything you like. (NSA on the "net, email, street microphones, recorded telephone calls, ect).
If this does not suit your needs then you do have the right to voice your opinions, and create change in your government. (Snowden, Colonel John Vann, Peter Buxton, Daniel Ellsberg, Perry Fellwock, Karen Silkwood). That's if you don't die from a car crash or fall into a well first.

It's for our own good I suppose. We would most likely just run around and bite people or hurt ourselves.

I think I'll go to that White House down the block, and see if there is really a Black Man that needs a dog. He might be the president of people but not of dogs. My bark is worse than my bite.

Admit it. You all cringed just a little... No one says that shit without a reaction. From who?

Fantasma4500 - 3-7-2015 at 03:28

the US is certainly not capital of freedom, their police is trained by people who handle their civilians like terrorists.. without mentioning names or countries they have even used nerve gas against demonstrants, and not to mention you can be intellectually overqualified to be a cop in the US

but its all for the best of the (potentially terrorist) civilians

will there come one day where we will need to wear safety equipment, to wear safety equipment maybe? safety equipment for handling table salt have been done quite a lot of times already..