7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
1/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
2/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
3/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
4/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
5/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
6/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
7/54
Committee on Hazardous Wrecks comprised Experts from MOD and Home Office,Health and Safety Executive, Port of London Authority and Medway Ports thatmet annually but disbanded by the government in 1983
DfT never employed an expert in explosives and munitions to expertly consider advice itcommissioned or was offerede.g. DERA in their report of 1997 or given by others, including e.g. me
Theresa Crossley claimed defining a safe zone, if the wreck exploded, would be theresponsibility of the national and local civil authority contingency framework.These would include the Chief Constables of Kent, Essex and the Metropolitan PoliceBut they deny such responsibility, even as a possible target of a terrorist attack
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
8/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
9/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
10/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
11/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
12/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
13/54
Explosives Substances Act 1883 Section 2
Action falls within this subsection if it;-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the
public
Terrorism Acts 2000 - 2006
Duty of Care in tort Common Law
UK 1998 Human Rights Act Article 2 "The right to life"
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
14/54
The DERA 1997 Report is the most expert and latest advice sought but DfT ignoredtheir conclusions without any other expert supporting them in;-
1. Fused bombs no more unsafe than in pristine condition and could be removedwith EOD handling care
2. The Keilce ship explosion was caused by using explosives to remove hull platesand not because the ship was unsafe
3. Computer modelling could define risks to protect people
These are the only reasons cited to continue not clearing the wreck but the DfTcontinue breaking laws not knowing how many would likely loose their lives and theirproperty through flooding
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
15/54
Professor Stephen Murray Head of the Department of Engineering and
Applied Science of the UK Defence Academy, named by the DfT, hasgiven advice to the DfT. I have informed him of the technical and legalaspects of endangering life through his advice not resulting in the Wreckbeing cleared.
He has refused to support the DfT or confirm my evidence that removesthe basis for not clearing the wreck, in addition to their legal obligations.
He has failed to remind the DfT of their legal responsibilities to protectpeople from explosives, as he has not discharged his responsibilities, astheir chosen expert.
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
16/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
17/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
18/54
The fuses holding the detonators are not water tight and the smallamounts of the initiator primary explosive lead azide is soluble andwould have been washed away See DERA Report.
NAVSEA US (2008) conducted Steel Ball Impact Sensitiveness Testson copper azide crystals, producing no reactions, so they chosecopper azide for their detonators in a 40 mm Grenade and MineCounter-Measure Dart See NAVSEA Report
Copper azides exists in two states cuprous azide and cupric azide Other research work shows copper and lead azides similar in
sensitivity in impact tests but electrostatic tests show copper azideis more sensitive than lead azide that would not be relevant inmetal cased detonators
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
19/54
It is likely there are no fragmentation bombs as DERA strongly indicated in their Report
But the fragmentation bombs, if present, are not armed and very likely the firing pins would becorroded solid but would not have sufficient kinetic energy to detonate the caps
PERME stated any small initiator material would have been dissolved and washed away soon after
sinking (In 1997 DERA Report)
But copper azide exists in two forms cuprous and cupric azides. They are more sensitive than lead(plumbous) azide but can withstand steel ball impact tests. See NAVSEA Report
Dr Daniel Jean of VAVSEA has used copper azide in a 40 mm grenade and mine clearance dart
I consider the wreck is safe to clear from the munitions but not safe to leave to fate as a collision,an internal collapse or terrorist attack are real possibilities, causing it to explode that could kill all14,000 in Sheerness and many more beyond
Roger Elliot, now retired, Head of SMIT Salvage stated SMIT offered to support me , subject to
contract, as I was going to lead the way in a submersible first
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
20/54
I have read all the MCA Reports and available evidence and can see no basis for not clearing the wreckbut the DfT insists it is too dangerous to conduct an internal survey of the state of the bombs that theyare required by law, if they had a licence to hold explosives, that they do not have and are in breach of HSE Regulations
The DfT have refused to find an expert to argue their case with me invite me or discuss my newevidence that the copper azide is not as unstable as they claimed
DfT have refused my offer to have the risks computer modelled, so a safe zone could be determined andthe number likely to be killed or seriously injured could be estimated
DfT accept the wreck could explode from a collision , capsize or movement of the cargo but will notdefine a safe zone and move people away
The last DfT Summary Report was in November 2000 and the Iraq war with the emergence of suicidebombers have a very easy accessible target intent on taking life that even the Police CCs have ignored.
The Port Patrol vessels are not armed to intercept a terrorist, so the crews would likely be shot andmission accomplished
DfT are waiting till the wreck collapses and then expect experts to clear it! But it might explode! Why!
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
21/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
22/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
23/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
24/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
25/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
26/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
27/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
28/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
29/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
30/54
The Kielce has been wrongly cited to supportthe Non-Intervention Policy.
It was totally irresponsible to use Explosivecharges to cut holes in the hull plates withbombs on the other side
But the DfT state this as a reason not to clear
the Montgomery, showing how little theyknow about explosives and munitions
Munitions are designed to detonate but thisdoes not make them unsafe to handle, store
or transport
DERA informed them explosives should notbe used near the wreck
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
31/54
DERA 1997 Report Conclusions
3.1 The bulk of munitions are high explosive bombs. The main fillings are probably stillin serviceable condition and, with suitable initiation, capable of a mass high order
detonation.3.2 Any fuses present are likely to have been completely flooded for some time and
are either non-functional or no more sensitive than in their normal state.
3.3 The white phosphorus smoke bombs would present a special hazard in the eventof a recovery operation or explosion.
3.4 The condition of the explosives would probably permit handling by normal EODprocedures providing an aqueous environment was maintained.
3.5 It would be extremely dangerous to use explosives in the vicinity of the wreck.
3.6 The reports which estimated the effects of a mass explosion of the remainingcargo were both written some time ago. As there have been significantdevelopments in computer programs capable of modelling events of this type, itmay now be possible to obtain a better assessment of the effects of a massexplosion under a variety of different wind and tidal conditions than was previouslyavailable. The Explosives Effects Sub Committee of the Explosive Storage andTransport Committee may be prepared to carry out this assessment.
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
32/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
33/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
34/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
35/54
Copper azides ChemistryCopper azide exists in two covalent states as cuprous azide and cupric azide
Cupric azide can be prepared by a metathesis reaction between copper(II) nitrate
(Cu(NO3)2) and NaN 3 sodium azide
Cu(NO3)2 + 2NaN 3 Cu(N 3)2 + 2 NaNO 3
Cu/N ratio 1/6 atoms
Cupric azide Cu(N 3)2 has a Molecular weight of 147.59
Cuprous azide Cu 2(N3)2 has a MW of 211.14
Cu/N ratio 2/6 atoms
Atomic weight of copper is 63.546
Atomic weight of Nitrogen is 14.0067
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
36/54
Lead azide exists in two states as plumbous azide and plumbic azide.
They both have different ratios of copper or lead to nitrogen atoms.
Plumbic azide Pb(N 3)2 has a MW of 291.24 Pb/N ratio 1:6 atoms
Plumbous azide Pb 2(N3)2 has a MW of 498.44 Pb/N ratio 1:3 atoms
Atomic Mass of lead is 207.2 Atomic Mass of N is 14.0067
Lead azide Chemistry
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
37/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
38/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
39/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
40/54
Joined R.A.R.D.E. 1966 Applied Explosives Branch EOD Section (luck to be saving lives not killing)
1968 Invented water guns up to 3m long - 16 mm mild steel plate penetration
1970 Water gun to make safe any limpet mines attached to Navy ships
1971 Circuit Breaker NI IEDs made safe the first IED in Belfast on Friday 12 th Nov 1971
1973 Beguine flying plate for first car bombs
1974 RARDE Fragment Attack Test Anglo- French TNT most unpredictable
Sensitivity testing of UK explosives in many tests, including TNT and its mixtures with others like RDX
1977 Paw-Paw Mk 1
1982 Invited to be Team Leader of UK IND Response but rejected offer as no MOD insurance for Team
1986 low height Paw-Paw Mk 2
1987 Various enhancements to Mk 8 Wheelbarrow
1992 Trainee Team Leader of Nuclear Terrorist bomb Response Team and shocked how backward the US & UK were and still are
1994 Voluntary redundancy when PIRA declared their ceasefire 1994 over 3,000 IEDs had been made safe in the UK by my systems
2007 Offered to computer model and clear the Montgomery
2012 First public proposal presentation on 27 TH September at Canterbury University. Home Office, Kent Police & Medway Council warned people not to attend
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
41/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
42/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
43/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
44/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
45/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
46/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
47/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
48/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
49/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
50/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
51/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
52/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
53/54
7/27/2019 Shorter SS Richard Montgomery Presentation
54/54