"The Score" Safe blowing method works, well sorta anyway.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:13:35 -0700, thebeastunderyourbed snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote: In the end Safe's aren't very

This last piece of advice is actually pretty good. They can't steal what they can't find. Better yet if you really want some insurance put a fairly cheap but substantial looking safe where they will definitely find it and don't put anything in it. Hell for this purpose it doesn't even really need to work or have the combo known as long as it is locked. A surplus GSA cabinet with lost combo like the other poster on here is trying to get open would work just fine. They sell for $50 like that all the time. With luck a crook will waste all kinds of time on it and still be trying to get in it when the cops show up. Put the real safe in a hidden location, recessed in a ground level floor is always good because it provides decent fire protection + concealment + if they do find it they have to go through the door which is usually gonna be harder for them especially if they don't know what they are doing. Any of the good round pullout doors from star major etc are gonna be more than the local crackhead with his two big hammers and tire iron can handle even if he can find it.

Calm down and take a deep breath. First of all you need to learn to properly quote what you are responding to. I didn't say anything about blowing up anything. That said, before you embarass yourself again, the vast majority of safes on the market in the US are not rated against any form of explosive attack, a greater percentage in Europe are. Even then that is typically against shaped charges used on the outside of the container. You cannot reasonably expect a safe to contain a high explosive charge detonated inside it. That's covered by a X6 rating. If an attacker does not have time to make the hole to insert a charge the fact that the safe will not contain an explosion is not a problem. Are attacks with explosives rare? Yes. Is that because high explosives are not suficiently powerful or controlable to breach the vast majority of safes? No. It's because those with access to true secondary high explosives, blasting caps, and the skill to use them safely and effectively can make a lot more money using them legally and have little need or desire to commit criminal acts.

So called improvised explosives are usually ineffective, more dangerous to the manufacturer than the target, or both. Those that are marginally effective and truely simple enough to make for home manufacture like ANFO (still too low a detonation velocity/brisance for optimal effect against hard targets) for example require compound detonators which are even harder and more dangerous to produce than the explosive itself. For any safe and useful improvised explosive you have to not only improvise the explosive but also a primary explosive to initiate it. Commercial explosives while fairly easy to obtain have tagents which make them traceable which means if criminals use commercial explosives for anything they will probably steal them. Then to use them they have to steal the caps which by federal law in the US must be stored seperate.

They won't be

With the exception of the last item yes most safes on the market will fail to one, all or a combination of the methods mentioned given sufficient time and expertise, it doesn't improve security to pretend otherwise. It hurts it. Why people like you make idiots of yourselves pretending otherwise is beyond me. Nothing is impregnable and nothing ever will be. With regard to holding water it would make little difference. The Mythbusters could likely have achieved a very similar result absent the water, they might have had to use a little more powerful charge to get the same dramatic effect.

If your going to give advice, please stick to something you know

So which piece of advice do you disagree with? That criminals cannot steal what they cannot find? That a safe concealed in a floor offers both concealment and a degree of fire protection? That you will be very hard pressed to open a properly installed round lift out door star or major B or C rated 'in a floor' type safe with two big hammers and a tire iron? That a burglar will likely attack the safe he can find instead of the one he can't? Just which point is it that you take issue with?

???????????????????

Still?????? What are you talking about? I've never posted anything here before. I'll tell you now troll run along back to your hole. You're way over your head.

You don't have a clue about

Clueless losers are always the first to claim that about others. They figure because they know nothing and spend their lives in a confused fog everyone else is in the same situation.

I've got 5 different Chubbs in the shop now that you couldn't get

You poor dumb fuckwitt it did happen just like that. watch the video if you can figure out how. The only real problem they had was getting it to hold water.

Poor poor little fuckwitt are you telling me a metal box is going to withstand the MILLIONS of PSI a modern high explosive charge can exert from the inside?????????? Well little fuckwitt? The force generated has nowhere to go but out and your little metal boxes are not going to contain it no matter who made them. It will rip them apart like tissue paper. If you think otherwise point me to an independent tests or explain the physics in your psychotic little world that make it possible.

They won't be

More fuckwittery, most of the manufacturers recomend drilling in case of lockouts, and they have to make it fairly easy so they can instruct a fuckwitt like you with a 3rd grade education how to do it.

or hold

Like I already said if you could actually read the original post they don't need to. You are talking millions of PSI of pressure, with or without water somethings going to give.

If your going to give advice, please stick to something you know

It's pretty clear from your fuckwittery that you know little to nothing. Now run along you're boring me.

you can kindly watch you mouth around here. guess rifnraf's response went right over your head because its evident that you are clueless as to exactly what you were responding to.

no real need for you to respond ! <plonk>

Riffy riffy riffy I knew you couldn't stay gone. You lack the self control. Now you're saying high eplosves deontated on the inside will not open a safe? Just what magical quantity is it that safes have that make them immune to the laws of physics that effect everything else?

Wow. Gee rif I guess ervybody isn't as patient with your stupidity. I bet you miss my pleasant demeanor now. LOL.

Beast just ignore Key. Key thinks he is a Usenet Jr. G man. He knows from experience that he will lose any argument he gets in so he responds then runs away as fast as he can go. It's his coping strategy after years of being verbally humiliated on usenet.

I saw this when the show aired. I think they should have done the test dry and then used a better sealing method from the outside of the door and done it wet to see just how much effect the water really has but I imagine two safe's were not in the budget. My instinct is also that the water would not make much difference. A charge detonated inside is just going to put too much pressure on the container for it to realistically stand up. I will be willing to bet none of the so called experts like riffyraffy will be able to give any meaningful explanation with regard to physics or metalurgy as to how it could survive that much force. He will just keep babbling over and over that it could never actually be done. He and his mirror image Key have both totally failed to state what defense there is against an attack like that. I don't think any of the real professionals are going to claim that a safe can contain something like that.

-snip riffy's hysterical nonsense about impenetrable fantasy safes that defy all known laws of physics-

So riffy if you are the big name successful locksmith and safe tech you like to fantasize you are (and for the sake of all Australians I sure hope you aren't) why not post with your real name? The only published professional I know of who posts here, Billy Bob Edwards, has no problem using his real name, and lets face it unlike you he has a real reputation to uphold. A few silly comments like you make and that repuation would be badly tarnished. Of course that doesn't seem to be a problem for him because he makes sure he knows what he's talking about before he posts.

Yes Timmy, I do understand that explosives can open a safe. I also understand that lancing a hole in a safe will probably destroy almost any reasonable type of item that one would find within a safe. Let's look at it this way: Banks and jewelry stores are the predominant users of TDR safes....Agreed? How many jewelry stores are going to have a hose fitting within reasonable distance to fill a safe??? As a lance runs on 440V, not many banks or jewelry stores are going to have 3-phase power source. Now lets think about noise........ thermal lances are incredibily noisey not to mention the detonation of the explosive. Since most of these safes are rarely bolted down(because of 2-3tons of weight), the back and front of the safe are going to end up in the alleyway or the front of the shopping mall when the detonation goes off. Is their an alarm???? That's another topic in itself. Is this a reasonable way to open a safe................ nope

Well thank you Tim, the middle name isn't bob BTW.

I saw my first demonstration of a thermal lance in 1973. There wasn't any electricity required either and a good thing since there wasn't any in the building. The demonstration was arranged by the NCPI in conjunction with Mosler and the safes that were opened had been gathering dust and spiderwebs for years before. I saw one safe with 4

I believe that your instinct is incorrect for two reasons. First if there is water in the safe all of the force from the explosion will be exerted against the walls of the safe and the energy will not be expended to compress the air inside the safe. Think about fire extinguishers and bottles gontaining compressed gasses. These must be tested from time to time to be sure that they will be able to withstand the pressure. To do this they fill the bottle with water, and apply pressure to the water. In the event of a rupture the pressure rapidly drops to zero when the water finds an escape route and the whole bottle does not become shrapnel.

The same would be true with a safe. by filling it with water you minimize the amount of explosive needed to breach the container as the pressure would be relieved once the welds were broken.

A second reason is that a dry explosion would tend to blow up and or burn up the currency inside the safe. A wet explosion would just get the currency wet.

In the film, he tapped a sprinkler pipe. Should have set off a flow alarm, but I do not know how sensitive those are, maybe a low enough draw won't trigger it.

A thermal lance is pure oxygen burning iron in a concentrated jet. It was designed for cutting into Nazi bunkers on the battlefield, some use

oh? what db are we talking? Compared to drilling or abrasive cutting wheels? Explosive detonated in water is likely far quieter, because the speed of sound in water is much lower.

You're forgeting that the water is only an intermediary. It carries the full force, or very near it, of detonation to the sides of the safe. The force is then released when the door is blown away or the safe ruptures or both. There will still be a lot of noise, although not as much as if the explosion were set off outside the safe. The lance is not especially noisy at all he clearly doesn't know what a thermal lance is.

I think you are right that a wet detonation would be more efficient and do less collatoral damage but either way it's going to be blown open. As far as damage to paper currency the lancing took care of that. The only instances I have ever heard of of safes being attacked with explosives where there was any elaboration on exactly what was done the explosives were either placed as shaped charges on the outside to breach a hole or were poured or molded into the door jamb. Both methods would minimize damage to contents even relative to torching which is a well known method of illegal entry. Since the primary advantage of explosive opening is speed having to first make a hole into the container by another process would seem to be a real disadvantage.

Nobody with any brains is going to claim that a safe can contain a substantial detonation inside it. We all know this just ain't gonna happen, but whether such a method is practical given that you have to first take the time to make a hole to insert the charge, and especially if you have to fill the safe with water is open to debate. This would seem a pretty overcomplicated method that makes a lot of assumptions. First that you will have time to make the initial hole in the container and that it would be feasable to lug the extra equipment that requires, and Second that the safe can be quickly made to hold water and that suitable water to fill it quickly will be available, this assumes of course that water is needed which is also highly debatable. Using shaped charges to either shear the door bolts, or perhaps easier cut away the pockets they extend into, or to simply cut a hole in the container would seem a lot more likely for someone who really knows what they are doing especially since the main advantage of using explosives in the first place is time.

Many otherwise knowledgable people poopoo these as being dangerous or uncontrolable etc. They are neither and they will do things nothing else will do in anywhere near the time. They either don't know what the tool really is like the guy claming it operates on electricity, or they assume the only models that exist are all on a scale for cutting up mangled rail cars and track.