Log in

View Full Version : Anti-Terrorism Expert Sneaks Explosives Aboard Plane


megalomania
September 4th, 2006, 12:26 PM
Friday, September 1, 2006

Just when the hysteria was calming down, one man proved there is no reason to lower your guard.

An anti-terrorism expert was able to sneak C4 plastic explosives and all the parts needed to detonate the bomb onto a Phillipine airline. This agent was asked to conduct this security test by a government official, in the wake of the discovered Heathrow airport bombing scheme.

The man was able to bring the bomb and components onboard an airplane at the Manila domestic airport on August 14th, despire the heightened security. But how did he do it?

The security expert said he attached a piece of C4, a plastic explosive, to the sole of his leather shoe, and placed another piece inside an electric adaptor.

The wires he placed in a “secret” pocket near his belt.
While at the scanning and X-ray area prior to boarding, he casually placed a cellular phone in the basket that security personnel checked manually. The cell phone could serve as a detonator.

Ten minutes after takeoff from the Manila domestic airport, the antiterrorism expert said he got up from his seat and went to the plane’s lavatory. Inside, he mixed all the materials together. He then pulled out a digital camera from his jacket and took a video of his lethal concoction.

Other bomb insertion drills like this will be performed elsewhere in the country, perhaps we will see this new testing technique spread to other countries as well.


‘Suicide bomber’ flew on RP plane
Airport guards flunked anti-terror test 2 times
By Arlyn dela Cruz
Inquirer

Published on Page A1 of the September 1, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

A MAN WEARING a jacket and carrying a bag was able to sneak a bomb onto a flight from Manila to Davao City last month at the height of the nationwide security alert after Britain uncovered a plot to blow up transatlantic planes.
The man pulled off the same stunt on the return flight to Manila.
Had he detonated the bomb, he would have turned the commercial plane into a fireball and killed himself, the crew and hundreds of other passengers.
The man turned out to be a civilian antiterrorism expert tapped by a government official to test security measures at Philippine airports after British police foiled a plan to blow up US-bound planes in midair using liquid explosives.

Security was tightened at London’s Heathrow airport on Aug. 10, setting off alarms at airports across the globe, including in the Philippines.
But the security and antiterrorism expert, who asked not to be named because of his work, said he managed to bring the bomb and its components onto the plane on Aug. 14 despite the additional security measures at the Manila domestic airport, like the banning of hand-carried fluids and gels.
A similar “insertion of bomb components scenario” is expected to be conducted at other airports in the country as part of efforts to upgrade the antiterrorism capability of airport personnel.

At the departure gate, the antiterrorism expert said he passed through the walk-in detector, frisking and X-ray areas. He underwent the same security checks at the boarding area. To prove that he was able to get the explosive and its components past security personnel, he filmed the bomb he had assembled on the plane and showed the footage recently to select members of the media.

How did he get the bomb and its components past the tight security?

C4 plastic bomb
The security expert said he attached a piece of C4, a plastic explosive, to the sole of his leather shoe, and placed another piece inside an electric adaptor.

The wires he placed in a “secret” pocket near his belt.
While at the scanning and X-ray area prior to boarding, he casually placed a cellular phone in the basket that security personnel checked manually. The cell phone could serve as a detonator.

Ten minutes after takeoff from the Manila domestic airport, the antiterrorism expert said he got up from his seat and went to the plane’s lavatory. Inside, he mixed all the materials together. He then pulled out a digital camera from his jacket and took a video of his lethal concoction.

“The only missing act was the push on the button to blow up the aircraft,” he said in an interview.

“In a real terrorist threat, the terrorist, usually a suicide bomber, will not hesitate and push the button to accomplish his or her mission.”

Astonished
The antiterrorism expert said airport security personnel came to know about what he had done only after he told them about it when he got off the return flight from Davao.

Security personnel, around 50 of them, participated in the antiterrorism exercise. They were astonished to realize that they had not been that thorough in checking passengers.

None of the airport personnel who participated in the training knew the antiterrorism expert. He was introduced to the security personnel by the “authorized government agency” that had hired him only after he alighted from the plane.

Think like a terrorist
In an interview, the antiterrorism expert said: “To catch a terrorist, security personnel must act and think like a terrorist.”

After the antiterrorist exercise, he submitted his recommendations, which he hoped would be forwarded to the Air Transportation Office (ATO) by the “authorized government agency” that commissioned his services.

Among his recommendations were the following:
• All items like cigarette and eyeglass cases, key chains, watches and all other objects made of metallic materials must pass through the X-ray machine.
• Shoes and belts must be removed from the body and must be submitted for X-ray examination.
• Airline crew must undergo rigid training on the threat of bomb insertion.
• Politicians, military and police officers, and all other government officials must not be exempted from frisking and standard security checks to set an example so that other passengers will cooperate in the stringent security checks.
• Training of airport personnel must be upgraded but must start with a review of the basics.

The security lapse at the Manila domestic airport and at the Davao International Airport may be due to the fact that security personnel did not really know what to look for, according to the antiterrorism expert.
The expert said security personnel may have been looking for what is believed to be sophisticated bomb components, like liquid bombs.

Diversion
In his sixth recommendation, the expert said authorities must consider the threat posed by liquid bombs, but they must also consider that it could be a way to divert attention from the actual plot of terrorists.

“For all we know, this is what the terrorists want us to think. That they have the capability to build liquid bombs, but the truth is the option still available to them remains the conventional components for making bombs,” he said.
He recommended that politicians and other officials not be exempted from security checks because security personnel may get the wrong idea of how a terrorist looks like and behaves.

“Right now, there is no fixed way in identifying terrorists. The key is to know how they think, what they are trained for and what makes them do this, usually based on religious convictions,” he said.

This may give a better picture of a terrorist determined to carry out a bombing mission, the expert said.

megalomania
September 4th, 2006, 12:27 PM
This is the kind of story you will NEVER read in any American newspaper. How did he sneak his bomb on board you say? Well here are step by step instructions. All that is missing are diagrams.

Granted this is the Philippines, so their security may not be the same as in US or UK airports. Of course US and UK anti-terrorism measures rely on a turncoat snitch to warn them beforehand, so some lone bomber with an agenda that keeps his mouth shut is probably going to succeed.

May the one true Christian God help us if the ragheads start using one man cells.

nbk2000
September 4th, 2006, 03:04 PM
At Bruce Schneier's security blog, there's been a bit of discussion about this topic:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/man_claims_to_h.html

Personally, I think it's rather stupid to bring live explosives on board a plane and then stick a live detonator in it (as mentioned elsewhere), as Murphys Law says that the one time you do that onboard a plane, will be the one time the thing goes off by some fluke means.

But it also shows that anyone smart and silent can do it. The downfall of most of the publicly revealed 'plots' has been the fact that there was dozens of raghead idiots involved, meaning too many mouths flapping to get anywhere.

SQRLS
September 5th, 2006, 06:27 AM
What about the possibility of paper saturated with PETN or RDX. Then any old newspaper becomes a potential terrorist threat.

PS. Live explosives on a plane with Innocent retards is a bad idea.

Jacks Complete
September 5th, 2006, 07:09 PM
PS. Live explosives on a plane with Innocent retards is a bad idea.Why? If it goes off, the "authorised government agency" wrings it's hands and puts out the prepared statement about how the terrorist threat is still as real as ever, and could we have some more power and funds please?

25 to 100 years later, when it gets found out, the civil 'servants' who did it are long retired or senile.

Either way, everyone wins when you show up a hole in security. Except the people.

cutefix
September 5th, 2006, 10:06 PM
I see something different with that so called explosives expert testing the security status of airports..He was paid by an organization so that their will be legitimate reason for implementing stricter security measures to prevent catastrophic plane crashes "that are to be blamed on " terrorists.
They can gain from long term investments of security related gadgetries that will later be mandatory requirements for every airport in any country.
Therefore the main benefactors are the security related businessmen to the discormfort and hassle of the ordinary traveler.:rolleyes:

Think about if the security inspection is to be done to the extreme,Its not farfetched; there will come a time that passengers will alit the plane NAKED!:rolleyes: :p

nbk2000
September 6th, 2006, 10:56 AM
I'd be working on a security device for airlines, myself, as that's the big money-maker for the near future, if I had any money to do so.

cutefix
September 6th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Go for it!
You have the right mindset and personality for such job:cool:

ShadowMyGeekSpace
September 7th, 2006, 09:44 AM
I'm waiting for the day when everyone wishing to board a plane must be knocked out via n2o or something.

Ropik
September 7th, 2006, 10:32 AM
And then, after several years, environmentalist will say that N2O damages the whole Earth and blackjacks will be used...

JakeGallows
September 7th, 2006, 02:51 PM
I think this "experiment", the way it was described, was reasonable and accurate in the sense that it can be replicated. Certainly attacking a largely defenseless airplane can be accomplished, in my opinion fairly easily - depending on what criteria you should to fulfill.

However, I am, and others should be, hesitant to accept a government agency's test which indicates that that government agency needs additional funding, power, etc.

Diabolique
September 7th, 2006, 10:45 PM
This guy must be one of the clowns in the security circus. Live explosives assembled into a working bomb aboard an aircraft.

There are explosives simulants available that he could have used, including some that will set off explosives detectors and bomb sniffing dogs, but are inert. There are also inert detonators that look real except for the coloring and markings. If you could get a simulant aboard, you could also get the real thing aboard.

Gives one a feeling of the warm fuzzies - the feeling one gets when wrapped in flaming steel wool.

Cutefix, you may have found a way to revive the airline industry - naked passengers. All the old leches will be lining up and taking trips on the chance of seeing some young foxy sans her clothes.

Knocking out everyone to keep the leches under control wouldn't help, though. What if the terrorist has a bomb surgically implanted, or uses K-Y jelly to insert the bomb where this security clown keeps his head?

Cobalt.45
September 8th, 2006, 03:40 AM
I was reading posts from three years ago, that eerily foretold the recent case of rag heads smuggling the makings aboard for making AP or MEKP.

Several means of getting the precursors on the plane were outlined.

My favorite, was the way one member imagined the terrorists could get the necessary chems on board the plane without being detected. Or if detected, nothing would be found on their person, except the chemical signature from recent exposure.

The scheme was to drink the chemicals, then assemble in the head or galley and puke the shit back up to be mixed into the explosive. Even if it failed, that's pretty damn clever!

A good method of preventing absorption for as long as possible would be necessary. But it's not as if any health hazards would matter to them, as they would soon be fucking their 72 or how- many- ever virgins.:rolleyes:

Diabolique
September 9th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Drug smugglers's mules are known to swollow condoms full of drugs. Find an appropriate swollowable/vomitable container, and a little ipicac will retrieve them.

I guess ipicac is now going onto the list of banned substances.

Meawoppl
September 9th, 2006, 04:32 PM
As diabolique mentioned, security as we know it is OVER after the first "butt bomb". Screeners will have golves w/ a marking on the wrist for how deep they have to go. And on that note, I would really rather drive.

ShadowMyGeekSpace
September 9th, 2006, 09:14 PM
The thing is, you don't even have to be in a plane to take it down. Why wouldn't a terrorist just take a semi auto .22 and fire into the engines at the end of a runway as the plane is climbing? I mean, come ON now people, people are giving up their freedoms for a false sense of security!

Shit, someone could drive a truck full of pigeons to the end of the runway as it was taking off, and set off a firecracker after opening cages. I'm sure 1 or 2 pigeons into the turbines would take down the plane.... or what about just bottle rockets? :/ Sheeple piss me off.

Anira
September 9th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Pigeons wont take the plane down. Those turbines are made to survive pigions, since they do fly in the air too. ;)

Why don't we accept that fact that more people die from cars than terrorist attacks on planes. I mean we don't have secutity check points on on ramps to freeways do we? What about the drunk drivers?

ShadowMyGeekSpace
September 10th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Then why do planes go down when pigeons get sucked into the engines?

Chris The Great
September 10th, 2006, 12:42 AM
A swarm of birds will take a plane down and this has caused several crashes. Airports generally like to keep birds of prey around to prevent large groups from forming. A truckload would down a plane. You'll need more than one or two but if a plane flies into a large number the engines clog and stall.

festergrump
September 10th, 2006, 08:38 AM
I mean we don't have secutity check points on on ramps to freeways do we?
America would NEVER do something like that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA4KZV0xfDM&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZYi-H0FrQ&mode=related&search=

DarkWrath
September 10th, 2006, 09:52 AM
I was able to get trichlorotrinitrobenzene abord a plane in my country without being detected by getting it in crystaline form in a salt bag.

It wasn't checked if it was really salt or something else. But here we don't have tight security measures.

That means that it is not only possible , but very easy to do. And we have international flights to US from here too , meaning someone could easy get the plane down while landing on a international airport.

barbwir3
September 10th, 2006, 05:57 PM
In MA, they had a bunch of semtex lost because of a bumbling terrorist test. Aparently they misplaced the semtex bby leaving it on the back of a truck before then driving away.

c.Tech
September 11th, 2006, 02:32 AM
Oh I can’t wait for the day when the media try’s this. “Tonight, a special report. We sneak explosives on the plane and detonate them during flight to show the flaws in our airport security, the results will shock you” ;)

DarkWrath, which country are you from?

lucas
September 17th, 2006, 03:23 AM
I read a while ago about a test kit for acetone peroxide which is the size of a large pen. The AP is first reacted with a catalyst which decomposes it to acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Second the peroxide is deteted with an indicator and the test lasts only minuites.

The point is the kit was carried with a sample of AP on a plane by the developer to visit some sort of law guy to demonstrate it. I love the irony of that.

lucas
September 17th, 2006, 03:27 AM
Oh and a local magazine, ZOO did a story like 'zoo makes liquid bomb!' They found a few net recipies on the net (about 10 in 5 minutes), bought the ingredients, showed a photo, printed the price, ($150 which I found astonishlingly high), printed a recipe with the volumes and times blanked out and then mentioned that they didnt actually make it. They also hazed out the brand names of products.

I like that sort of crap.

They had a car battery as their acid source, which probably accounted for the majority of the $150.

Of course it's still not a liquid but hey that doesn't matter does it?

Syke
September 17th, 2006, 11:25 PM
What about C-4 in a laptop? all it needs to do is boot up to convince the security "guards"(snicker) and that leaves plenty of room for a bomb and detonator especialy if its a larger older model.

cutefix
September 18th, 2006, 06:45 AM
Sykes...pray that the security hounds will not be paranoid enough to do that as that will bother a lot of travellers..including me .:(
A laptop is such an essential item as that will keep you busy during long haul flights:cool: ..

Diabolique
September 18th, 2006, 12:05 PM
Flight 103 (Lockerbie) was brought down by Semtex in an AM/FM radio. Today, the explosives detection equipment looks for mono- and dinitrotoluene, which C-4 has a lot of. It is Comp C (RDX and motor oil) that worries me.

Worse is the stuff they used back in WW2. The French Maquis were supplied by the British SOE with RDX mixed with flour. It could be backed into bread, and the bread walked pasted the guards to be used in the German sub pens. A (anti-)hero sandwich could be brought past security. The electronic sniffers would have a hard time detecting it, and the dogs would likely be distracted by the roast beef.

For every measure taken, there is a countermeasure, and a counter-countermeasure for that. Reminds me of MAD Magazine's Spy vs Spy cartoons.

cutefix
September 18th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Today, the explosives detection equipment looks for mono- and dinitrotoluene, which C-4 has a lot of. It is Comp C (RDX and motor oil) that worries me.


IIRC...only composition C-2 C-3 s have the DNT,TNT as part of the energetics along with the main component RDX
Meanwhile. C-4 is made with RDX with inert binders and plasticizers....

nbk2000
September 18th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Nowadays they add DNT or other chemicals as a taggant so dogs and machines can detect the presence of the explosive.

But certainly not enough to call it 'a lot of'.

Diabolique
September 19th, 2006, 10:21 AM
I stand corrected. I was likely thinking of C-3 instead of C-4.

Some of the detection techniques I've read of are quite sensitive. The particles of RDX can be sub-micron sized, and become airborne and detectable. When plasticized, they also look for the other materials present.

The newer techniques do not rely on random particles, but use neutron activation and nuclear magnetic resonance to detect the nitro compounds. Neutrons are captured by nitrogen, and it emits a gamma ray. With neutrons of precise energy, it is possible to determine the ratios of materials present, and not be confused by chlorine.

NMR usually screens for the resonance of the nitro group and a carbon or amine. Not as sensitive for this as it is for hydrogen resonance. NMR can be used for passenger screening, I understand, but I would suspect that the sensitivity would be degraded.