Things that make you go Hmmm?

For the most part, I’ve stopped writing or reporting on “mass shootings”. They happen. My initial takes are normally wrong. The information that we are fed is designed to tell a story. I hate being a conspiracy guy.

My biggest error, so far, has been my initial analysis of the Trump shooting.

Having said that, it is difficult not to have questions when something stinks.

Part of critical thinking is to ask questions. To verify answers. To put answers to the test.

Example: We had a breaker pop on Friday. I knew what the cause was instantly, the wife was running her space heater.

When I got to the living room, she’s sitting on the sofa. Within seconds, I determined that she had left the heater on, even after she left the room.

Wife and Ally are telling me that it couldn’t be the fault of the heater because it had been running for a while and hadn’t blown the circuit.

Yeah, that was before we had that extra bit of draw on the circuit from the wife turning on the TV and side table light and other loads.

They used critical thinking to eliminate the heater. I used more knowledge to rule the heater in.

That circuit is rated at 1650 watts. The heater, in low mode, draws 750 watts. The lights left on, the misc. stuff plugged into the walls, the bathroom light and fan easily reaches 300 watts. My computer has a 750 watt power supply in it. The switch and other “stuff” plugged into the same circuit. All of that is a significant load. Thus, popped breaker.

While rated at 1650 watts, those circuits will actually run for a bit over that limit until they pop.

When you look at a fact set, you have to evaluate all the parts to be able to reach a logical conclusion. Upon reaching that conclusion, you still need to have an open mind for more data that might change your analysis.

Security Analysis

Doing a security analysis of a location or situation has risk. I’m reminded of a sales analysis I did and provided to our sales manager for Cray.

The short of the analysis was that they were asking for millions of dollars from the client for a drive system which they could buy from other sources for under $100 thousand. I gave him this analysis so that he would have the ability to answer these types of questions before they were asked of him.

The sales manager reported me for “attempting to sabotage the sale”. I listened and reported back to my chain of command. The customer didn’t need me to tell them what their options were, they already knew.

Security analyses are like that. Telling a potential target of an observed weakness is more likely to get you in trouble and harassed than it is to get the institution to budge.

I’ve gamed out some options against institutional targets. I don’t ever talk about those analyses because I do not want something to happen to those targets and me becoming a person of interest.

Even the language I use would get me in trouble. I learned it from working for the military. Everything we analyzed was a “target”. It didn’t matter whether it was a T-90 from Russia or a Leopard II from Germany or an XM-1 from the US. They are all targets.

Most people don’t get it. So I don’t use those terms.

Questions

A veteran from the US Special Forces has decided to do “bad things.” He is going to detonate a bomb to cause damage to a Trump Hotel.

For some reason, he decides to take his passport with him on this mission.

The heat from the detonation is so intense, his weapons melt. Likely just the plastic furniture, but his passport and IDs survive.

What protected those IDs from the heat?

He rented a Tesla truck to do this in. What advantages does a Tesla truck have over an Econvan?

With extensive training on IEDs and making explosives, his device was pretty much a dud. What was the explosive used? Why didn’t he use a real explosive?

See TM 31–210 (HQ Department of the Army, 1969) pages 7 through 72 contains extensive information on primary and secondary explosives from field expedient sources.

Pages 194 through 223 cover making Fuses, detonators, and delay mechanisms.

A revised version was released in 2007.

So SF dude, who has been trained in all of this, messes up a simple bomb?

This man was likely highly trained in how to perform one man operations that were extremely successful. Why did he forget so much of his training?

Finally, why did he choose to use a Desert Eagle in 50 cal to off himself?