BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / bomb building theories

**Posted by shylock** January 2, 2014 8:55 pm

OK. I mentioned in the 'Bomb off switch' thread that I might start this thread.

If the MOD's are OK with it please let it run.

You never know; Mr. Moffat might just be reading this!!!!

Forget 'How did Sherlock survive the fall'?

I'd love to hear all the explantions and theories as to how an 'in service' underground carridge could be completely installed with explosives, miles of interconnecting wires and complex underfloor detonation systems.

How long, prior to Nov 5th, did the carridge go 'missing' from between the train stations?

Long enough for it to sit in the siding whilst the bomb was assembled in it, or, did it have the bomb already in it whilst 'in service'?

This was no 'back-pack bomb', carried on and left, in this instance every seat had a massive amount of plastic explosive under it and the huge underfloor detonator looked like Moffat had borrowed it from the engine room of the TARDIS.

Thinking caps (or stalkers) on.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 9:39 am

Well, it seems everybody is happy to believe that it just magically appeared!

Sherlock obviously must have just activated his antigravity power at the last second when he fell...... Or would that be too silly?

I thought you guys were problem solvers, full of theories!!!!!!!

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 10:29 am

If only life were so simple....... like falling off a bike (or should I say roof) !!!

**Posted by Mattlocked** January 3, 2014 10:33 am

shylock wrote:
...

I thought you guys were problem solvers, full of theories!!!!!!!

Well, what about starting with yours then? ^^

**Posted by Schmiezi** January 3, 2014 10:34 am

Sorry, shylock, I don't quite understand why you get so angry about it.

Wasn't there something Terry Pratchett wrote about the use of multiple exclamation marks? Honestly, I think more people would like to discuss this matter with you if you stay calm.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 10:36 am

Mattlocked wrote:
shylock wrote:
...

I thought you guys were problem solvers, full of theories!!!!!!!
Well, what about starting with yours then? ^^

That's the whole point of this thread!!!!

I don't believe it could be done and so cannot put forward a theory....convince me.

**Posted by Mattlocked** January 3, 2014 10:41 am

Why convince you???
It's still fiction, at least. *shrugs*

**Posted by Schmiezi** January 3, 2014 10:44 am

Mattlocked wrote:
It's still fiction, at least. *shrugs*

NOOOO! How can you say that?

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 10:45 am

Schmiezi wrote:
Sorry, shylock, I don't quite understand why you get so angry about it.

Wasn't there something Terry Pratchett wrote about the use of multiple exclamation marks? Honestly, I think more people would like to discuss this matter with you if you stay calm.

Please substitute the word angry with either confused or dissapointed.

If I'm at all angry it would be with the script writers who put forward a plot line expecting viewers to swallow it without question.

Staying calm doesn't come into it, I started the thread to promote discussion. A day and 30 views later there had not been a single comment posted.

IMO the bomb plot, and its practical imposibilities, are just as baffling and deserving of scrutiny as the fall and survival, yet it seems to be being simply either ignored or accepted.

**Posted by Mattlocked** January 3, 2014 10:59 am

I see that you want to provoke, but I still don't know if there has to be an explanation for everything.
I also see that this is Sherlock and not eg. James Bond, but I learned to switch off my head from time to time instead of calling "This is not logical!" all the time.... It's still about having fun.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 11:10 am

Mattlocked wrote:
I also see that this is Sherlock and not eg. James Bond, but I learned to switch off my head from time to time instead of calling "This is not logical!" all the time.... It's still about having fun.

I totally agree with you Mattlocked, but this was not a case of someone being in a blue coat in one shot and a red one in the next or a candle growing in size as it burns.

This was (appart from the survival) THE major plot for the episode, a terrorist attack on London which turned out to be by using a subway car. It was why Sherlock was called back from the dead.

Last edited by shylock (January 3, 2014 11:12 am)

**Posted by Mattlocked** January 3, 2014 12:54 pm

You are right, shylock, but then again it was not all about how the bomb was planted but about how Sherlock found it and solved it.
What about The Great Game? How did they manage to put a bomb onto a person AND let it stand there in a middle of a crowded road or a parking lot without anyone around noticing?

**Posted by Be** January 3, 2014 1:03 pm

I don't think we need to know anything about explosives and actual bomb building to get anywhere.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 1:16 pm

Swanpride wrote:
And I don't really see a problem with it. It can be done. You would need to bribe a lot of people, but if there really were a forgotten tube station near Westminster Abbey (and adding one is way in the frame what writers are allowed to do), it is certainly doable. You keep "screaming" that it can't be done, but I really don't see why not. It's not less unbelievable than a terrorist plot which involves capturing a couple of planes and flying them into important buildings. Or an art thief who simply walks into galleries and small museums, stealing paintings by simply taking them off the wall and hide them under his clothes. Or a government official who leaves top secret files in the tube. Or some idiot who uploads the location of secret US bunker to the net. Or a Nazi loot which is found after 75 years. Or a DaVinci which is discovered in an attic. It sounds far-fetched, but all this happened in real life.

And I also don't think that it even was the mayor plot point of the ep. That was simply Sherlock coming back.

We seem to be looking at the same things from different perspectives, and yes, maybe I am playing 'devils advocate'. But the analogies you give are way removed from what was portrayed and suggested in the episode. eg. in the days of lower security prior 9.11, it was relitavely easy for a terrorist to take charge of a plane; there had always been the "Take me to Cuba" type incidents. even getting a 'shoe bomb' or 'suitcase bomb' on to a plane (Lockerbie) is a simple 'one shot' operation as are the art thefts..

This terrorist attack plot (the very reason for Sherlock's rescue and revival) would have involved a massivly greater amount of work to achieve.

We are given sound explanations as to how Jim managed to carry out the Crown Jewell, Bank of England etc incidents, all of which are just as 'unlikely' at first glance.

All I am trying to do is get members of this forum to put a similar amount of thought into how this, seemingly impossible situation, could be achieved, in the same way that there were so many theories (still not substantiated and continuing to be debated) for how Sherlock could defy death.

Let's have fun theorising!

**Posted by silverblaze** January 3, 2014 2:06 pm

Mark Gatiss wrote this episode, not Moffat.

I don't see the problem, not everything is supposed to be super realistic. I mean, never mind the antics of placing the bomb, they invented a tube station that everyone had conveniently forgotten about! Including the train lover! It's really just fiction.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 2:22 pm

I'm really not looking for reality, just pheasibility; as per the fall.

As an asside, there are actually many unused and forgotten tracks and stations within the London underground system, so even that is not so far from the truth.
See:
http://londonist.com/2013/06/alternative-tube-maps-ghost-stations-on-the-london-underground.php

Last edited by shylock (January 3, 2014 2:23 pm)

**Posted by Caroll** January 3, 2014 2:31 pm

Mattlocked wrote:
I still don't know if there has to be an explanation for everything..

Considering that Sherlock Holmes stories are about explaining things, it would be good to have an explanation for everything. "Why was there a carbuncle inside a goose?" "Why did the mother suck her child's blood?" "How did Holmes survived the Falls when ACD wanted to kill him once for all?"
Of course plot holes aren't unforgivable and aren't reasons to hate the show , but if some people (including me) expect an explanation for things that don't make much sense, it is because we know the canon explains things that seem to make no sense in an acceptable way, at least.

**Posted by shylock** January 3, 2014 2:59 pm

your explanation:

they paid of some people to wire or at least put the materials in the car in the depot, paid one of the tube drivers to dispose said carriage plus bomb expert in the right tunnel during a late night drive, and he took care of the rest and then left through the tunnels.

is a good basis for expansion and debate towards one theory.

Like Caroll said: "S.H. stories are all about explaining things", lets run with it.

**Posted by Mattlocked** January 3, 2014 3:06 pm

I fully understand, as I wrote before "I also see that this is Sherlock and not eg. James Bond".
And there might be a good explanation for the bomb but I just don't see it right now and still don't see why it is so important.

**Posted by kittykat** January 3, 2014 4:45 pm

They've always stretched reality a little bit, like how Sherlock could always get a perfect signal and lightning-fast internet connection on his phone no matter where he was (painting in TGG).