View Full Version : Viable pipe bomb found by UK security

blind pew
28th Feb 2017, 06:23
Ryanair passenger found with pipe bomb in luggage was allowed to fly again days later - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ryanair-passenger-found-with-pipe-bomb-in-luggage-was-allowed-to-fly-again-days-later-35450223.html)

What beggars belief is that he was allowed to fly as he alleged that someone had planted it in his baggage.

28th Feb 2017, 06:54
Not much point in security doing their job if some numpty further down the line fails to attribute any significance to it :ugh:

28th Feb 2017, 07:13
Next time I am caught with a packet of cocaine in my luggage I'll say someone planted it and hopefully I'll be allowed on my way.

28th Feb 2017, 07:19
A bit early AM here so sorry if I am being thick but I'm not quite completely clear to me from the article where he was caught "outbound"..Reading between the lines - Manchester?

Found it, FWIW there is a slightly different account of what happened here:


It isn't not clear from the MEN report (written the day before the Irish account) whether in reality he was allowed to travel or not...maybe all will become clear and we will find out more on/after March 13?

Above The Clouds
28th Feb 2017, 07:30
Incredible, after years of having restrictions on liquids, food substances and intrusive body scans by the jobs worth, airport security they finally let a terror suspect caught with a viable explosive device in his hand luggage fly a couple of days later.

You just couldn't make it up :ugh:

28th Feb 2017, 07:54
Very strange article:

"It is unclear what flight the man was due to board and whether the detected device was viable."

Can you get as far as security at MAN without a valid boarding pass ?

28th Feb 2017, 08:24
I think both articles are strange TBH, as I read it the "it is unclear ..,,," can be read as being unclear to the jurno and/or unclear to the Police.....

Piltdown Man
28th Feb 2017, 08:38
I wonder which bit of security found the device. Was it the hand baggage search or was it the real security behind the scenes that said: "Look in this man's bag."? I'm glad the device was detected but I worry that this may have been a test run. Another interesting question would be about this gentleman's name, ethnicity and background. Are there any surprises or are we not allowed to ask?

28th Feb 2017, 08:49
I know it is a bit old fashioned, silly me, but this is still the UK, with due process etc. MIght it not be worth waiting until after the court case before raising the nationality, background and ethnicity issue. Then I agree it might be "fair game".

Cuillin Hills
28th Feb 2017, 09:20
Question, literally, should be asked in parliament about this.

I do not like the word 'viable'.

I cannot believe he was allowed to travel.

Was the airline and Captain informed of the passenger detention at security?

If informed, I know what my answer would have been.

Trav a la
28th Feb 2017, 09:36
Security seem to have done their job very well.

It's the prosecution decision makers, the CPS, or whatever they are called these days, that appear to have messed up.

28th Feb 2017, 09:41
From the article linked by wiggly...

Nadeem Muhammed, of Tinline Street, Bury, is charged with possessing an improvised explosive device under the Explosive Substances Act of 1883

Heathrow Harry
28th Feb 2017, 09:49
A lot more to this than meets the eye I think:-

"Jessica Hart (prosecuting) said there was no intention to proceed under terrorist legistlation"

surely not
28th Feb 2017, 12:32
I would like to think that he was allowed to travel, without his pipe bomb, so that he could be monitored as to who he met and where he went when he got to Italy.

Surely it would be unlikely that the decision to let him go was made at a junior level?

28th Feb 2017, 12:54
Very strange article:

"It is unclear what flight the man was due to board and whether the detected device was viable."

Can you get as far as security at MAN without a valid boarding pass ?Since they're using the term "Luggage", my first guess was that it was caught by the hold baggage system. But other news articles are saying "hand luggage".

They are describing the device as being the size of a large market pen. That's pretty small for a pipe bomb and it's probably why they didn't recognize it as an intentional threat on first inspection.

28th Feb 2017, 13:24
So it was a bomblet.. test run perhaps?

28th Feb 2017, 21:25
It's even better in Canada where Security at the airport handed the pipe bomb back to the passenger to take on the flight. See link to article from 2014

Pipe bomb handed back to passenger Skylar Murphy by airport guard - Edmonton - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/pipe-bomb-handed-back-to-passenger-skylar-murphy-by-airport-guard-1.2497650)

28th Feb 2017, 22:06
From Pipe bomb handed back to passenger Skylar Murphy by airport guard (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/pipe-bomb-handed-back-to-passenger-skylar-murphy-by-airport-guard-1.2497650):-The device was in a camera bag, which Murphy says he placed there in February 2013 when he and and a friend made two pipe bombs.
They blew up one in a field. Murphy said he left the other one in his bag and forgot about it.
The device was about 15 centimetres long and five centimetres in diameter with screws at both sides. A three-metre-long fuse ran through the device, which was filled with gunpowder.

Reportedly, Murphy was told “You can keep it.”
Murphy insisted the guard take it.
He was then allowed to clear security and board a plane to Mexico where he was travelling with his family on a weeklong vacation.

1st Aug 2017, 05:58

I think the security screeners actually did a reasonably good job there. They found the device, then used some judgement to see if the guy was a terrorist or if he indeed just forgot about the device. I think it's possible to judge from the reaction of the guy if he expected the device to be in his bag.

I once got told a story of a guy who flew with a set of shuriken - he had got them as a present, stowed them in his camera bag (seems to be a good candidate for such stuff, as most people don't pack and unpack it frequently and forget about stuff in there) and forgot about them. He didn't get caught, but I'm told it was definitely an "oh sh*t" moment when he unpacked his bag for some other reason and found them...

I, myself, once brought a waiter's tool (one of those things with a bottle opener, a corkscrew and a knife) on a vacation trip and back - I had forgotten to unpack it from my carry-on after a non-flying trip somewhat earlier and only found it after getting back from the vacation... oops.

I'd be more worried about some attacker detonating one of those pipe bombs in the queue before security... On the other hand, wasn't the bomb that brought down Metrojet 9268 roughly that size?

What I'm trying to say, I believe bringing banned stuff on planes happens more frequently than most people think...

(Disclaimer: I'm just SLF)

1st Aug 2017, 18:43
I don't know UK law, but it may have been a case of not being able to hold him for longer than a certain period without charges. And the test results may not have come back in time.

On the other hand, I imagine that his apartment was given a good going-over while he was on his final holiday in Italy.

1st Aug 2017, 20:48
It's slightly different forgetting to leave your corkscrew, leatherman or yoghurt at home than a pipe bomb... they should have shot him on the spot.

1st Aug 2017, 21:26
It is interesting what gets missed on occasion. Some years ago a friend brought a ceremonial dagger into the UK from Africa in the bottom of her backpack. She'd forgotten it was there and it was only when outbound from Heathrow that security pointed out its presence. They let her put it in a parcel and put it in the post.

Flying out of SFO when my son was small, I'd gone for a walk around the duty-free and when I got back to where he and my wife were sitting, he was drinking from one of his favourite soy milk cartons. Which was greater than 100ml by volume and it was part of a six pack. Security didn't spot it that day.

I had a hard disk in my backpack once, security were most interested in it (opaque to x-rays) and it got carefully checked for explosives. Second time, I put it in the tray with the laptop and it went through with no comment.

2nd Aug 2017, 13:08
According to todays ‘Corriere della Sera’ the offender was initially suspected when security found a strange items in his possession at the security check for a flight between Manchester (UK) and Orio al Serio (Milano-Bergamo, Italy) , but they could not do anything as the item was found not to be a bomb/explosive.
However, UK security iformed Italian police. Apparently, the offender lived in Italy (or has lived in Italy for some years) and was working in UK.
Upon arrival in Italy, Italian police followed him discretely in all his movement, and they found that he had contacts with activists.
Upon his return in UK, before boarding the a/c in Italy, he was thoroughly inspected without finding any dangerous item. During his Italian trip, however, UK police determined that the item that they previously impounded from him in Manchester were in fact part of a homemade bomb, and therefore upon aiirval in Manchester- and in cooperation with the Italian police they arrested him

Heathrow Harry
2nd Aug 2017, 13:50
" part of a homemade bomb" - if it took that time to establish it obviously was a longggg way from an active device

2nd Aug 2017, 16:43
You've missed part of the press report: The security supervisor kept the "device" in her pocket. When the people who know about these things eventually saw it, nine days later, it was described as "potentially viable".

2nd Aug 2017, 16:54
The Grauniad had it thus:
She said she was told the item had been swabbed and no trace of explosives found, so she “popped it into” her jacket pocket so “it wouldn’t go missing”.
Jeffery, who has worked at the airport for 19 years, said she later put it through an X-ray machine but could not see a detonator and did not believe it was viable.
The device was later passed to counter-terrorism police and, when examined by experts, found to be a “potentially viable” bomb containing nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose.
The question here is what "potentially viable" means in this context. Usually devices are viable or not, why qualify this with a "potentially"?

2nd Aug 2017, 20:14
I would guess they mean that it would be capable of exploding but needed some extra parts first.

3rd Aug 2017, 08:56
Lots of travellers carry some nitroglycerine with them. It's only a problem if it's in a metal container with a primer attached. It's essential to avoid unwarranted persecution of "minorities" on the basis of minor infractions.

3rd Aug 2017, 15:38
Correct, medication for certain heart problems.

8th Aug 2017, 14:36
Manchester Airport pipe bomb plot: Nadeem Muhammad guilty - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-40851414)