Airline Bomb Plot - 3 found guilty

[Xeque]

3 found guilty of plotting to bring down a number of airliners using liquid explosive that they had smuggled aboard.

OK. Fine. The 'plot' resulted in countless millions of pounds of British taxpayers money being wasted on investigations and trials and that is what these retards should be paying the price for - not in actually being able to make the plot work because putting together an HDTD explosive from liquids smuggled on board is absolute rubbish.

Read this:- A Good Explosive Recipe (http://business.fortunecity.com/executive/674/hmtd.html)

As you can see, many hours of dangerous work are required to make this 'dry' explosive and we are being asked to believe that all this was to be accomplished after departure using an aircraft toilet? Given the amount of time required, how long do you think it would be before irate passengers, next in the queue, were hammering on the door demanding that the occupant vacate?

Hydrogen Peroxide, by itself, is not an explosive. I have some in my house now. We use it to treat cuts and grazes. In the past I have used it as a very effective ink eradicator. OK, you might be able to get the Hydrogen Peroxide on board but what about the other ingredients?

It has all the credence of that other failed human being Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, trying desperately to light his sweaty trainer with a Swan Vesta. Do me a favour, please?

Thanks to Reid and the 3 @ssholes convicted today, flight crew and passengers have to suffer the humiliation, indignity and embarrassment of passing through present day British airport security checks with billions of pounds worth of perfectly ordinary factory sealed goods - drinks, food, cosmetics and toiletries - 'confiscated' from them by morons who are, to all intents and purposes, totally unemployable in any other industry.

The claim is that the cost of investigating the Airline Bomb Plot was 30 million pounds. Why? Police get paid anyway, MI5 James Bond wannabe's get paid anyway. The only ones who benefited, it seems to me, are the ones who finally managed to get off the unemployment register by getting a job in 'security'. Oh, yes, and the lawyers of course.

It would cost more than 30 million in unemployment benefit to the green shirt yobs if their jobs disappeared and that is, probably, what is really behind all this. That and a moribund government's feeble attempt to justify keeping our service personnel on active duty in Afghanistan.

The same bunch of no-hopers just let Megrabe go back to Libya. How long before these three walk free?

[CJ1234]

I agree with your sentiments on security - speaking as both pax and pilot, I can say they are some of the most disgustingly rude people on earth. Never before have I come across a profession (ahem) so invariably ill mannered.

Another good point you make - one day those shaven chimps in suits say we're fighting to reduce the risk of terrorism by going into Afghanistan - the next they're letting a convicted terrorist back to his home country out of compassion.

HOWEVER - any suggestion that investigating any possible threat on board an aircraft is useless is, in my opinion, totally ill-founded. Though I totally agree that our money should NOT be p*ssed up Afghan walls, it SHOULD be spent on investigating these cases, no matter how large or small, and thus further protecting passengers. I think even more money should be spent on better and more intelligent initiatives for making our airports safer. Those rude people in security, not being able to bring your own diet coke on board: these things are annoying. But they're all we've got - and they're much better than nothing. I'm afraid until something better comes along, you can't knock 'em.

1234

[Walnut]

The authorities had to get a conviction (at the second time of trying) otherwise all the current security in place would have been called into question. There would have been a complete loss of face. However they must not now rest on their laurels. I have always thought that the most glaring hole in aviation security is the suicide bomber. If a man is prepared to die then what is to stop him boarding with a hold suitcase, with these selfsame liquids placed inside.? I believe profiling is the way ahead with an absolute requiment that tickets are bought at least 48hrs before flight with either a card or cheque but not cash.

[CraigJL]

I understand the concept of detonation in a sealed, pressurised tube 35,000 feet up, but there are probably tenfold the amount of people waiting in queues before passing security - obviously a point our Dr friends in Glasgow picked up on.

I'm glad there has been a conviction in this case, and I fully believe it will be nigh on impossible to get any kind of weapons, bombs or otherwise, aboard an aircraft nowadays.

My main concern is the airport as a whole, where thousands of people are centralised in a place hard to get out of when things go wrong. Although that's true for all public places, airports seem to attract terrorists for some reason....

I find it most interesting that the methods employed by the TSA are more of a block than the measures here. Saying that, my last experience with the TSA wasn't pleasant. I also believe that a "tooled up" cockpit is the way to go - no self respecting terrorist would attempt to takeover an armed cockpit. Why do the Americans once again triumph, but we're left defenceless, relying on the already mentioned unprofessional professional security team.

Sorry, I've turned my post into a "Airport Security General" post rather than the topic at hand.

I see both points regards to the "Sealed factory goods" point: it would be too easy to inject some form of weapon into a sealed bottle, leaving no visible marks. However, I doubt something that can be injected would be volatile enough to cause any significant threat.

It's beyond me that people are allowed a box of matches onboard, but not a Coke. :ugh:

[Rusland 17]

The reply that began this thread is hysterical and ignores the facts.

The three men were convicted of plotting to blow up the aircraft; it is irrelevant whether their plot would have succeeded or not. They were filmed preparing the devices, and suicide videos were found in which they bragged about the attack and talked of body parts littering the streets.

Furthermore, according the the Guardian:Video footage of tests conducted by government scientists, which were played to the jury, showed the devices producing an explosion powerful enough to blow a hole in an aircraft fuselage.

[AltFlaps]

I hope the a$$hole scum rot and die in captivity :mad:

[mickjoebill]

I was involved in two separate tests using the fuselage BA146 aircraft that was subjected to a liquid bomb, made with tang and peroxide.

The tests were organised monitored and filmed by senior journalists from BBC, ABC and ITN.

The bomb did go off both times with devastating effect, creating a 5ft diameter hole each time.

ABC/BBC blast
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm

Inside the Liquid Bomb Plot - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5753092&page=1)

ITN blast
YouTube - Liquid bomb plot verdicts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNZhrK_Gzw)

Mickjoebill

[Xeque]

You'll be able to tell us then.
In the interests of realism, were the test explosive devices put together from exactly the same materials that the plotters intended to use, in an aircraft toilet at the scene of the detonation. If so, how long did it take to complete the devices from start to finish.
With regard to punishment when it is meted out, I see no reason why the British taxpayer should foot the bill for these clowns to languish in a UK prison. Far better to revoke their UK citizenship and drop them into a Taliban occupied area of Helmund Province where they can be free to practice their religion to their hearts content.

[mickjoebill]

You'll be able to tell us then.
In the interests of realism, were the test explosive devices put together from exactly the same materials that the plotters intended to use, in an aircraft toilet at the scene of the detonation. If so, how long did it take to complete the devices from start to finish.
With regard to punishment when it is meted out, I see no reason why the British taxpayer should foot the bill for these clowns to languish in a UK prison. Far better to revoke their UK citizenship and drop them into a Taliban occupied area of Helmund Province where they can be free to practice their religion to their hearts content.

It could have been mixed in the loo, but it was mixed outside so cameras could get good shots. Took between 10 -15 minutes. It also could be mixed prior to takeoff but it was said to be initially unstable then slowly looses it omph..
The above details were reported at the time.

A home made detonator was shown to work but because we were running so many remote cameras with limited endurance a regular det was used for reliability.
The impression given to the public by the explosives expert is that there is a some black art and so a little more to the procedure than meets the eye.

For comparison the July 7 bombers are said to have used home made explosives, all of which went off. (police say it was a mix of flour, peroxide and a primary charge). Then on July 21st four more bombs (of the same mix) were detonated in London but fortunately only the detonators fired and the main charge failed to go off.

It seems probable that since the liquid bomb guys were said to be planning eight or more bombs then at least several planes could have disappeared from radar.

The moral of the story is to be alert for the smell of peroxide or the sight of bottles adorned with wires, batteries, cameras or cellphones.

What a world we live in...


Mickjoebill

[Xeque]

Thank you. 10-15 minutes in an aircraft toilet once the seat belt signs are off. I should cocoa! You're lucky if you get 2 minutes before someone starts banging on the door.

And why are the long suffering traveling public being made to believe that this is all something new? Long before the internet came along kids knew how to make this stuff and more. I remember my brother getting a sound hiding from my father for mixing fertiliser and sugar to blow up rabbit holes in next door's field. That was 30+ years ago but similar mixes have been used since in car and truck bombs. I don't see a worldwide ban on buying fertiliser or sugar - do you?

None of this is new. It seems to me that the actions of three (4 if you count the shoe bomber) mental retards have been leaped upon by a government desperate to provide some kind of logical reason for it's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that 'Broon' and his predecessor 'Blurr' were content to play lapdog to Bush - between them responsible for the quite unnecessary paranoia that followed 9/11.

The result is what we see now at Heathrow and other UK airports. It's totally unacceptable and it's about time the Great British Public drags itself away from its nightly diet of TV reality shows and sundry escapism, faces up to the cold hard world AND DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

And Britain wants to host the Olympics?

[Xeque]

A home made detonator was shown to work but because we were running so many remote cameras with limited endurance a regular det was used for reliability.
So it wasn't a totally realistic test.

And another thought...
It also could be mixed prior to takeoff but it was said to be initially unstable then slowly looses it omph..
Just as the report I quoted from the Internet said - the stuff is very unstable until it has several hours to settle down AND solidify which means it was highly likely that the device would have detonated whilst the lunatic was still in the toilet, trying to ignore the pounding on the door and the inevitable attention of the cabin crew.
There have been bombs in toilets on aircraft before where, despite a hole in the fuselage, the aircraft structure has been strong enough to enable the aircraft to be landed safely. <Quote> "They build 'em strong at Boeing" <Unquote>

[DB6]

Doesn't matter if they were innocent or guilty, they won a long time ago thanks to the tossers at the DoT imposing farcical rules with almost the only result being the huge disruption of the daily lives of Britons. What the hell else do you think they were trying to achieve? Why don't you just hand them victory on a plate? Government pricks.

[parabellum]

There have been bombs in toilets on aircraft before where, despite a hole in the fuselage, the aircraft structure has been strong enough to enable the aircraft to be landed safely. <Quote> "They build 'em strong at Boeing" <Unquote>


Probably the best known examples of bombs going off in an aircraft that subsequently landed safely are the British built BAC1-11s in the Phillipines.

Another security measure not yet tried is to remove toilet doors!

[mickjoebill]

So it wasn't a totally realistic test.

And another thought...
Quote:
It also could be mixed prior to takeoff but it was said to be initially unstable then slowly looses it omph..
Just as the report I quoted from the Internet said - the stuff is very unstable until it has several hours to settle down AND solidify which means it was highly likely that the device would have detonated whilst the lunatic was still in the toilet, trying to ignore the pounding on the door and the inevitable attention of the cabin crew.
There have been bombs in toilets on aircraft before where, despite a hole in the fuselage, the aircraft structure has been strong enough to enable the aircraft to be landed safely. <Quote> "They build 'em strong at Boeing" <Unquote>
No no and no
Short of flying the plane and filling it with cynics!, it was realistic enough! He mixed it on site and ten minutes later it went bang. It didn't need to solidify, it was ready to go straight after mixing and stable enough for the expert to handle it without needing bomb proof garb.

The home made detonator has a higher chance of not going off, something we couldn't afford to happen due to number of cameras rolling and time taken to enforce exclusion zones ect. However the home made detonator was shown to work to the satisfaction of the journos.
Without exception the entire crew and journalists were shocked and somewhat dumbfounded at the sickening degree of damage caused by such an apparently simple process delivered into an innocuous looking bottle...

And no it is not new, similar mixes were used commercially many years ago and that should underscore the threat rather than be cause for its dismissal.




Mickjoebill

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Mick

Thanks for your reply.

Personally, that's enough for me.

I accept that they had a 'viable means' and so it was a proper plot. (me do u-turn):)

Well done for stopping them to all concerned.

What really gets my goat though is our reactionary, bolting the stable door, approach to these things.

We are losing!

The terrs do 9/11- we ban all sharps. Too late.

They 'terrs' do liquid plot. We ban liquids.

The terrs do a shoe bomb. We start looking at shoes....

Get my drift?

Surely profiling would be a good place to start (not least because, if there is any justice, crew will do well here).

For example, say the next plot is simply a large cohort of unarmed but seriously determined guys? Believe me about thirty tough guys could do 9/11 again on their own. (30 to a plane that is) providing the pax did not outnumber them by too much.

What are we going to ban after an attack like that? Passengers??

I could think of a few other examples too, but better to keep schtum.:hmm:

[Xeque]

Good post :ok:

[mickjoebill]

BarbiesBoyfriend I wholly agree.

My view is that the sums do not add up, passengers lives are worth less than the cost of implementing countermeasures against the wide range of methods know exist that cause mayhem.


So in some ways it is good that we are NOT spending billions on, say, protecting every airport perimeter from a drive-in truck bomb or equipping every railway station with xray machines.

Looked at from this perspective "they" haven't won at all, although this is a perspective that won't be shared for the victims of the next terrorist incident.

There is a parallel with the current scrambling by government in Victoria Australia, where 172 people were killed by bushfire, on a day that was forewarned as being potentially catastrophic.

A$360M given by public to victims, plus millions more by government, is a figure that is a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of increased fire protection regulations that will befall new home builders.

Is it worth it? The average number of people killed per year in bushfires in the whole of Australia in the last century is.....8. (before feb 7th the average was 6 per year)

Yet last summer 980 people died in Victoria from heat exhaustion, this was in increase of 374 over the previous mean. Half of these were elderly living at home.
With the money available more lives WILL be saved next "fire season" if evaporative air-conditioners are available in homes where the occupants are at risk of heat exhaustion.




Mickjoebill

[Xeque]

"Having taken into account the views of the prosecution team, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the failure of two juries to agree a verdict, there remains a realistic prospect of a conviction against each defendant on the charge of conspiracy to murder.”
Then why wasn't this the major charge from the outset? If the prosecution are prepared to pursue the matter into a third trial then why didn't they go that route in the first place and save the cost of the two trials completed so far?

[biscuit74]

Xeque,

I thought your first post was right on the money.

Regardless of any dubious science and experimentation, this is an attempt to continue to justify absurd scaremongering tactics and useless job creation for far too many of the otherwise unemployable.

[kenhughes]

If the prosecution are prepared to pursue the matter into a third trial then why didn't they go that route in the first place and save the cost of the two trials completed so far?

Possibly, because if the three had been found not guilty of of the terrorism charges, the Crown would still have the option of the attempted murder charge. Had it all been lumped together at the start and they were found not guilty, there would have been no options left.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

biscuit.

But is it?

I share your scepticism on most things. For long and weary I thought these guys were dreamers or bull****ters or attention seekers.

I never thought that they could do a proper liquids bomb.

I now realise that they prolly could.

We could move on to better ways to stop this sort of thing and have a big old chat about it if you like.:)

Personally, FWIW, I think most terrorist action is well and firmly based.

In other words, they are trying to redress a completely legitimate grievance usually caused by our, or some other countries', rather ****ty and exploitative foreign policy.

And who could blame them? I might take similar action myself, were our roles to be reversed.

Stop terrorism? Easy! Stop ****ting on people!:ooh:

[biscuit74]

BarbiesBoyfriend,
I think the earlier posts make it clear that while in principle it is entirely possible to make a liquid bomb, in a practical sense it's an absurdly low risk on a commercial flight compared to many others. On a risk/reward basis it doesn't hold up = not worth the effort and disturbance. Snag is none of the public, press or politicians understand risk.

Or they wouldn't say things like " Safety is paramount". Nope, it's not, it's a matter of economics. Or of emotion. Every time.
We humans ain't good at logic. (try Dan Gardner on " The Science & Politics of Fear". Interesting book.)

FWIW I very much agree with your comment about terrorists and terrorism. Perspective makes a big difference.

[mickjoebill]

in a practical sense it's an absurdly low risk on a commercial flight compared to many others.


By comparison to what other acts on a commercial flight, can the risk of a liquid bomb be described as absurdly low?

In respect to practicality there are numerous cases of home made bombs causing carnage as well as others that were either thwathed (shoe bomber) or failed to detonate through a quirk in how the bomb was mixed ( july 21st bombers x 4)


Mickjoebill

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Biscuit.

Nope.

It's not an absurdly low risk.


For these guys, it's 'goodbye world' for a long long time- and rightly so.:ok:

I had to be convinced, and I am.