It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Isis releases photo of bomb that took down Russian airliner

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Wouldn't petn be enough? I know only enough about ieds to figure out what some of the components are and how they are used. Like in this instance the trigger would be the hand. Obviously not remote by any means. But he explosive as you said should have been a different explosive since it is so small. What other types of explosives could be placed in there. And how would they have to set up everything to make sure the blast was enough to cause destructive force? Wouldn't the explosive need to be put in a tight space in order to be effective? Sure cabins are pressurized but wouldn't some extra stuff be needed in order to create a more massive explosion? I know that in one case they used other bags as a means to compress the explosive to create a bigger release of energy.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: imitator

The passengers are, the bags are scanned with an x-ray system. Explosives in a can would be difficult to spot depending on what type of x-ray was used.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

Other than defensive systems Air Force One is structurally still just a 747-200. There were minor changes made to accommodate certain aspects of the interior, but it's largely just a standard 747.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
It wouldn't have to be PETN. Just take a artillery shell, heat it up and dump the molten explosive into the soda can. When it starts to cool, insert the detonator. Leave the wire coiled up in the bottom of the can. Carry the wire and switch in your pocket. Make the connection when the plane is in flight, yell "Allah Akbar!!!" and the monkey flips the switch. Boom.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: GiulXainx



Wouldn't petn be enough?

It is one of the most powerful explosives known, so yes it would be enough.
It would have to be cast into the can though to be effective.
Mixed with RDX and plasticizers, it makes Semtex, which is easier to work with and can be put into the can at room temperature.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Airport staff are already being considered as prime suspects in placing the bomb by some Russian media outlets, so not even xrays would have found it if that were the case.
Given what the OP is about, soda can bomb, that would fit much more than being smuggled on by passengers.
We can try to stop these things, but if staff at airlines/airports are involved then there really is no hope of stopping it.

Staff suspected in Sinai airplane crash



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

You're never going to stop the serious terrorists. They have too many resources they can throw at the problem. Airport security is going to stop the guy that's pissed his wife left him, or that he got fired, or whatever.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I'm having a little trouble with this. The very first impression I got when I saw the viseo of the explosion was... wow that was a big blast, too big for a missile.

Any AA system that I have ever worked on and any that I am aware of does not carry a large explosive payload. It can't if it meets the goal of high altitude and high rate of intercept. Modern AA systems use small, exotic warheads that hardly produce any visual effects unless they trigger secondary explosions from things like ordnance or fuel, which you aren't going to find in the back of an airliner. When I saw that explosion video I was thinking that whoever built that device was used to working with big stuff like that used in road side IEDs. That and they really wanted to be dramatic as though they new it would be filmed.

My point is that the video of the explosion looks like they used a whole suitcase stuffed with explosives, not a pop can, which ironically, is about the size of many AA system payloads. Just my impression without really researching any specific point of it.


edit on 18-11-2015 by CraftBuilder because: of typos.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftBuilder
Was that video ever confirmed?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Not that I ever saw. It looks like they used an old video and claimed it was from this.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

Not that I ever saw. It looks like they used an old video and claimed it was from this.

I thought the same. Very crappy quality on the video, I would guess that is why they chose it to use.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

It looks a lot like it was shot from another aircraft.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
All flights are scanned with metal detectors... I would think this be an inside job..... I mean why even use a can drink disguised as a bomb if you smuggle it on a plane?

something not right with that picture/story....


exactly


the isis article in the Dabiq magazine is just meant to confound the western intel. agencies

a willing anarchist (or sharia sympathizer) would be necessary to detonate the ied... the article is placing false trails for 'us' infidels to follow...& to scare the travelers' just how primal and unsophisticated a bomb device needs to be to waste a 757 airliner...
the willing perp that detonated the device must have known the aircraft was still in Sinai airspace instead of in international airspace, because the article stated that isis will protect the ME on 'their' grounds...

interesting---very in-ter-es-ting (in my Charlie Chan voice)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Scanning an aircraft with a metal detector is going to tell you that it's made of metal. It's useless, even with bags, which is why only passengers are screened with it. Even if it was used, and did detect the can, you can take cans on planes.

The only way to have found this is with an ETD if it was in a carry on bag, or a combination ETD and EDS I'd it was in a check in bag.
edit on 11/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

do they scan the food carts? could it have been placed in a 24 pack and been the only device? no idea on veracity of this just brainstorming mind you just seems like a non descriptive way of getting the device on shielded by many of the other cans it could be mixed if they are even checked



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Depending on the airport setup, ramp workers don't get screened. They have restricted area badges that get them almost anywhere.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Depending on the airport setup, ramp workers don't get screened. They have restricted area badges that get them almost anywhere.


Yup, and this really is a loophole.


edit on 18-11-2015 by C84K2 because: nvm what say



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: St Udio

Scanning an aircraft with a metal detector is going to tell you that it's made of metal. It's useless, even with bags, which is why only passengers are screened with it. Even if it was used, and did detect the can, you can take cans on planes.

The only way to have found this is with an ETD if it was in a carry on bag, or a combination ETD and EDS I'd it was in a check in bag.


I didn't mean literally scan the aircraft with a metal detector lol.... but I guess taking can drinks on a plane defeats that purpose. The wires, switch and the detonator should of at least been detected....

I think ETD and EDS only works with dumb terrorist.... still seems fishy with this story.


edit on 18-11-2015 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

An ETD will detect a tiny trace of explosive after you've handled multiple bags. Explosives are sticky, so unless you take almost clean room precautions you're leaving a trace on the bag. An EDS will hit on any amount of explosives regardless of where they are in the bag, or how cluttered the bag is.

An x-ray on the other hand, with a cluttered bag is going to have a very hard time detecting the components. There are a lot of things that have wires so they're easy to overlook. The detonator can be confused for something else, especially if it's not assembled until on the plane. As for the can, that's all it will see is the can. You'd have to have an outstanding operator to detect something like this in a full bag, if it's disassembled.
edit on 11/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Those expensive machines are pointless if they allow small electronics, food and drinks on flights. If the security is slacking or have shady employees it's all useless.

I would think EDS would detect metals, and those cluttered bags should sound off alarm algorithms. But I can see not all airports having that kind of security.... and then you have the CIA escorting underwear bombs.... so again useless.

I'd say it's all speculation at this point, don't believe anything you see or hear.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join