MovieChat Forums > *batteries not included (1987) Discussion > Why would the arsonist use the hypergoli...

Why would the arsonist use the hypergolic trigger to start the fire??

posted 17 years ago by JSouth1
7 replies | jump to latest

When the second guy hired by Lacey goes into the building, he has ONLY the intent to burn it down. he is not concerned with lives, property or anything else. Just to burn the place to the ground, with as little trace as possible.

SO, he uses a bunch of gasoline-filled ballons, hanging from the ceiling to "accellerate" the fire, and to start it, he uses a "hypergolic trigger", composed of some sort of powder,(probably potassium perchlorate or something similar) which will be acted upon by what appears to be sulfuric acid, after it dissolves the bottom of a milk carton holding it. The milk carton is sitting on top of the powder, and when the acid hits the powder, it will instantly explode. This will cause the gas-filled ballons to drop and ignite, and from there--the whole place would go up. No trace of the "cause of the fire".

Or WOULD there be??

Would not investigators find evidence of the acid, gas and perchlorate??? NONE of those would "normally" be in the room, after all. So--why not use something like a "cigarette trigger" , and a "gas leak",or such, which would not cause so much suspicion??

[–] Gage26 17 years ago

Because it's a movie...

[–] isotop235 17 years ago

New cigarette paper from the past 3 years doesnt burn if left alone anymore..to prevent terrorism.

Fiery the angels fell, deep thunder rolled around their shores, burning with the fires of Orc

[–] Spike_J_Wolfwood 17 years ago

New cigarette paper from the past 3 years doesnt burn if left alone anymore..to prevent terrorism.

Sure, that’s true now but this movie was made in 1987, well before the new paper became standard. Also, the switch wasn’t made to prevent terrorism… Last I checked terrorists weren’t that subtle about blowing things up. The switch to the new paper was an attempt to help prevent accidental fires in such cases as people falling asleep with lit cigarettes (happens more than you may think) or carelessly discarding them in wilderness areas.

[–] howwarrd 17 years ago

Um... as a smoker, I have to disagree, unless every cigarette I've smoked in the last year or so was over 3 years old (hard to believe since they are Camels) then this is not true.

Everyday when I get to work I have about 3/4 of a cig. left (because I'm an idiot and light one without thinking right before I get to work) and I drop it in the ashtray at the back entrance, when I come out about an hour later for a cigarette, only the filter and a nicely shaped bit of ashes remain.

Most cigarettes will burn just fine with the very slightest puff of a breeze, including the airflow from heating/cooling.

Just FYI :)

[–] taz420nj 10 years ago

Here's hoping you actually see this, even though it is 8 years after the OP.. I just found your posit interesting.. :)

In a nutshell, no. As you said, the object was just to burn it to the ground - and that's exactly what happened. Given what was left of the building, there is nothing to investigate. It probably would have been deemed suspicious circumstances given the history, but there would be no way to prove arson in the aftermath.. Especially in 1987 when GCMS wasn't yet in widespread use.

Since fires are by nature destructive of any evidence, and firefighters' first priority is to save life and extinguish the fire. They give little regard to preserving potential trace evidence. Arsonists use this to their advantage by using materials that probably wouldn't be out of the ordinary even if they were discovered. The powder is most likely sugar and potassium chlorate (not perchlorate), which is commonly found in kitchen matches. The sulfuric acid could be from a stored car battery or emergency light battery.. And also don't forget when wood burns it turns into charcoal - which is alkaline and will neutralize any residual acid.

The arsonist probably used the chemical fuse because it is very predictable and gave him a comfortable time delay. One can figure that there is a "standard" timeframe for the sulfuric acid to eat through the milk carton - ie: 30 minutes give or take 5.. A cigarette fuse and a gas leak really would not be predictable enough, nor long enough.

[–] frogalini 9 years ago

Wow. How do you know so much about this?

[–] taz420nj 9 years ago

I like chemistry.. 

"Now you start using your head. That's that lump that's three feet above your ass!"