Talk:Plastic explosive

message: Shouldn't something be mentioned about how plastic explosive is detonated and what definitely does NOT cause it to detonate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.133.22 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 September 2005  (UTC)
:Probably not. Detonation of explosives is already covered under explosive materials, and there is nothing more specific that can be said for plastic explosives. For example different grades of semtex span a wide range of sensitivities. But feel free to add something if you like. -- Securiger 07:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detonation? 

message: What type of engineer uses PE?  The article says engineers and combat engineers and links each to its own article but these designations cover too broad a spectrum of disciplines to be helpful, e.g.: do electronics engineers use PE (I am one and I don't)?  Also, a combat engineer is simply an engineer who uses his/her expertise for combat purposes, so including such begs the question.  Likely candidates are mechanical or mining/metalurgical engineers but it must be a very specialized activity requiring special training, which may be interesting to expand on a little in the article.  If the article is going to mention who uses PE it might also benefit from information about under what conditions (regulatory, environmental, task-related) PE can be used and if special rules apply to PE that do not apply to other types of explosives. Jelsova (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineers 

message: I don't doubt that terrorists have used C-4 at one time or another, but the two examples we give are rather doubtful:
:In October 2000, terrorists used C-4 to attack the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors[2]
The cite given at present is an interview with the brother of one of the murdered sailors. He has no expertise in explosives, which isn't anywhere near the main topic of the interview anyway. What he actually says -- in partial answer to a question about Saudi involvement in the attack -- is:
:First, the attempted attack aboard the "USS Sullivan" in January of 2000, which was failed because they had too many explosives on the boat, so it sank. But they salvaged the same boat out of the harbor, put a new motor on it, then lined it with Semtex, a C-4 explosive, and used it in the "Cole attack.
Now, I don't want to make personal criticisms of the guy -- he is an aggrieved relative, not a bomb investigator -- but this contains several errors. The first target was , not USS Sullivan. Semtex and C-4 are completely different explosives. An additional, minor error is that in the US Federal indictment against al-Badawi (which is pretty well the sole public source for information on the attempt against USS The Sullivans) the boat is described as sinking immediately at the beach, rather than in the harbour, and nothing is said about replacing the motor. (A submerged OBM is quite simple to repair so long as it stops running before water enters the cylinder(s), which is usually the case.) The same indictment says nothing about the nature of explosives except that it was tested for waterproofness.
Several other sources -- and possibly even this one -- allude to statements by Robert Finke. But those statements, as can be seen here, are speculation.
So we have no good cites either to say that C-4 was used in this attack, nor indeed that any plastic explosive was.
:In 1996, terrorists used C-4 to blow up the Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia.
No cite is given, so I added a cite tag. Our article on the Khobar towers bombing does not mention the type of explosive used, and a brief search has not turned up any other source that does. (In fact one source states that the due to limited co-operation from the Saudi authorities, US investigators were unable to collect explosive traces for analysis.) Our article's main reference for details (the indictment) also does not explicitly describe the type of explosive, but does provide some details that make plastic explosives quite unlikely. Specifically, the terrorists initially sourced a moderate quantity of plastic explosive, but their smuggler was detected by the Saudi authorities and the PE was seized. So they instead used some other sort of explosive which was used in a much larger quantity, and was mixed with gasoline in the bomb. C-4 does not work well mixed with gasoline. Whereas another well known explosive, frequently used in large scale terrorist attacks because it is much cheaper than the alternatives, needs to be mixed with a liquid hydrocarbon to work. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious terrorism claims 

message: The gelignite article claims this plastic explosive is commonly used in mining. This contradicts the claim in this article that plastic explosives are not commonly used for applications like this. ~KvnG 18:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious blasting claim

message: The list of Plastic Explosives used in each country are so minimal as to be worthless. It is difficult to find any definitive list for any country but I know what we used and our main explosive in warheads was PE6 or Plastic Explosive No.6. Recently PE7 has been introduced, it is PE4 with a marker chemical and batched in metric amounts. The following UK commercial site lists C4, PE4, PE6, PE7 and PE10, Primasheet and ACE (Advanced Cutting Explosive). So that is the minimum list of plastic explosives I can prove for the UK, though I wouldn't necessarily agree that ACE is a plastic explosive. 
http://www.epc-groupe.co.uk/edsl/products.php
Chann94501 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Very poor list of plastic explosives

message: Dear wikipedians, I've noticed that "Nobel 808" redirects to this article; and after reading the "merge" discussion in this Talk Page agree that a stub with just 2 sentences is way too little to be an independent article. However, the paragraph where this explosive is mentioned seems confusing (at least to me)... can any of the editors involved in merging "Nobel 808" into this article please rewrite that paragraph? Also I suggest to put a heading for this (and any other not well described) explosive in this article, or maybe add a list, to locate more easily the information. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel 808 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Plastic explosive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140319030927/http://www.eurenco.com/content/explosives/demolition-breaching/new-generation/explosive-blocks/f to http://www.eurenco.com/content/explosives/demolition-breaching/new-generation/explosive-blocks/f
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article claims without citation that British Nobel 808 plastic explosive captured by German forces was the material used in the July Plot bomb. I have been unable to find sources supporting the statement. Worse, the statement is seeing a fair amount of copy-pasting across the web, which may be confirmed with a quick Google search. As an individual, I would not be surprised if the claim turns out to be true, but as it stands, I can't imagine it meets any encyclopedic standards. Would advise removal of the statement unless someone with greater expertise can chime in.
Dsty292 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable association of Nobel 808 with the July Plot