Via Of Arms And The Law.
“Each device consisted of roughly six inches of PVC pipe, a small clock, a battery, some wiring and what is known as energetic material, which is essentially potential explosives and material that give off heat and energy through a reaction to heat, shock, or friction,” Wray said at a Justice Department press conference.
Wray on Package Bombs: ‘These Are Not Hoax Devices’
“Energetic material.” so when the Feds start using technical euphemisms, you know they are trying to cover up stupid stuff.
Energetic materials are a class of material with high amount of stored chemical energy that can be released. Typical classes of energetic materials are e.g. explosives, pyrotechnic compositions, propellants (e.g. smokeless gunpowders and rocket fuels), and fuels (e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline).
That is from Wikipedia. So basically anything from lighter fluid up, is “energetic material.” Still, they do not say they were viable devices with a clear and present danger. IE: Your car is out of gas and you bring a gallon from the station and place it inside your trunk. You have a car with gas, but that does not mean it will start and take you home. Even worse: You put the same gallon of gas inside your toddler’s Little Tyke’s Cozy Coupe plastic car and call it a NASCAR racer. Not happening.
I graduated from a course that I took here:
http://www.emrtc.nmt.edu/
Check it out, maybe this will help
I wonder if sugar or leaf lard is considered “energetic meterial”?
I certainly think a nice plate of biscuits and gravy get my ass in gear in the morning.
I was going to add that sugar or flour meets their description.
Lots of stores calories, and will release them as heat once you get it burning.
“Energetic material”.
I.e. match heads.
And under that facile pseudoscientific definition, paper is “energetic material”.
So are wood chips for your back porch smoker.
And fireplace logs.
Bear in mind ordinary processed baking flour is a listed component in military field manuals detailing the construction of “dust initiator” explosive devices. (And as most Midwesterners know, “dust-intiated explosions” is the reason grain silos explode on a regular basis.)
This is beyond retarded.
This guy could have sent a toilet paper tube full of Gold Medal flour, or Bisquik, and the FBI would be doing Twister-gymnastics to call it a viable explosive device.
This is on the level of someone claiming that there are enough fissible components in a given block of lead to wipe out NYFC.
Well, yes, Professor Genius, if you could figure out how to split those electrons, protons, and neutrons as easily as you can with fissile material, you could do that.
And get a Nobel Prize in Physics at the same time.
It’s just that it happens to be a lot easier if you start with the building blocks in U-235, or Pu-239.
Statements like these are what I refer to as “True-isms” (not to be confused with a Truism)… Words that individually are factually accurate, but when combined and presented as a whole, are intended to convey (or be interpreted to convey) a completely different conclusion from reality.
Note that the description provided completely neglects to mention *ANY* sort of initiator/detonator/firing mechanism. The description is MEANT to convey the idea that these..things…were a real and viable threat, when in fact they were no more threatening than a stage prop for a high-school play.
One description I saw referred to “flash powder”. Glenn Beck had a memorable description: “Wiley E. Coyote pipe bombs”.
Interesting that the description has no mention of detonators.