BOOBIE TRAP!!

El Guapo!

FEMALE suicide bombers are being fitted with exploding breast implants which are almost impossible to detect, British spies have reportedly discovered.

The shocking new al-Qaeda tactic involves radical doctors inserting the explosives in women's breasts during plastic surgery — making them "virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines".
It is believed the doctors have been trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals before returning to their own countries to perform the surgical procedures.
MI5 has also discovered that extremists are inserting the explosives into the buttocks of some male suicide bombers.

Lethal


Terrorist expert Joseph Farah claims: "Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaeda are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery."
The lethal explosives called PETN are inserted inside plastic shapes during the operation, before the breast is then sewn up.
The discovery of these methods was made after London-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab came close to blowing up an airliner in the US on Christmas Day.
He had stuffed explosives inside his underpants.
Hours after he had failed, Britain's intelligence services began to pick up "chatter" emanating from Pakistan and Yemen that alerted MI5 to the creation of the lethal implants.
A hand-picked team investigated the threat which was described as "one that can circumvent our defence".
Top surgeons have confirmed the feasibility of the explosive implants.
One claimed: "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines.
"You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray.
"Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."
Explosive experts allegedly told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN could blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin, causing it to crash


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2903793/Radicals-deadly-booby-trap.html#ixzz0j5IQMhD0

Yes this news came from the Sun :rolleyes:

WindSock

What's their bra size? C4?

sbsquarepants

I can spot falsies a mile off!
Sounds like some perv security guards reason for feeling up women going through the airport:rolleyes:

xsiborg

WindSock wrote: »

What's their bra size? C4?

BRLILLIANT!!!

bonerm

She wouldn't be the first woman to be left with an explosion all over her chest.

Biggins

Can I volunteer the mother in law?

General Zod

Unless they are putting a detonator in at the same time how will it blow up?

load of bollix.

Biggins

General Zod wrote: »

Unless they are putting a detonator in at the same time how will it blow up?

load of bollix.

By remote, timer and/or by air pressure measuring device used to start bomb or attached timer?
And its not a load of bollix - its a load of boobs! Loaded boobs to be more accurate!

seanybiker

Inserting bombs in the lads arses? Sure if they want to blow the arses off themselves a few pints of guinness and a curry would do.

General Zod

I'm very sceptical of these type of these type of reports, and here's why:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/pants_bomber/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

they just aren't feasible.

Biggins

While difficult, of that I have no doubt, some lunatic will sadly find a way by some method if they are determined enough.

General Zod

Biggins wrote: »

While difficult, of that I have no doubt, some lunatic will sadly find a way by some method if they are determined enough.

Determination isn't an adequate substitution for the laws of chemistry just yet.

Biggins

General Zod wrote: »

Determination isn't an adequate substitution for the laws of chemistry just yet.

Tell that to those who invested chemical weapons!

General Zod

you're right, but your average chemical weapon (including synthisised Sarin, like the Tokyo subway attacks in March 1995) takes a lot of money and resources to put together. It's not something you can adequately make and take aboard an aircraft, and is generally the reserve of a government war machine.

BigDuffman

Thank god lolo ferrari is dead imagine the WMDs she could fit in those weapons :eek:

Biggins

General Zod wrote: »

you're right, but your average chemical weapon (including synthisised Sarin, like the Tokyo subway attacks in March 1995) takes a lot of money and resources to put together. It's not something you can adequately make and take aboard an aircraft, and is generally the reserve of a government war machine.

Again, very true - but as in the case of a mad Japanese nutter who let lose a chemical weapon on their subway trains, anything is possible.
I'm mis-directing the thread though from explosives to chemicals.

It's a worry only, that some sad lunatic will come up with some ingenious method of get their explosive material to where they want it, by means of transport, be it in a person or built altogether at the designated target.

In terms of technology, months now, not years, there is leaps in the ways things are invented, done and improved.
Some bright spark out there, will come up with a way of creating their own "spark" at an inappropriate time, and there's nothing we can do to stop that determination.
Its just a matter of time...

AnonoBoy

The pictures with that article are strangely tame for the Sun considering what they could have run with.

General Zod

Biggins wrote: »

Again, very true - but as in the case of a mad Japanese nutter who let lose a chemical weapon on their subway trains, anything is possible.

I think you'll have considerable interest in reading this artice about the people behind the subway attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo

lexsor

what will they think of next

Biggins

lexsor wrote: »

what will they think of next

Well if it is possible to fit a nuke in a suit case - and they could manage that years ago, I dread to think.

If fact I suspect your better off "hoping!"
There is no point in dreading what will happen, just hope that safeguards are good enough to do the job of stopping such acts.

Buford T Justice

Hmmm, I can see this all going tits up.

General Zod

Biggins wrote: »

Well if it is possible to fit a nuke in a suit case - and they could manage that years ago, I dread to think.

actually, no.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/31/red_mercury_trial/print.html

Biggins

General Zod wrote: »

actually, no.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/31/red_mercury_trial/print.html

Actually "yes!"

Both the United States and the Soviet Union have acknowledged producing nuclear weapons small enough to be carried in specially-designed backpacks during the Cold War, but neither have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a normal-sized suitcase or briefcase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions.
The Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn’t take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons. These types of weapons can also be as big as two footlockers.
The warhead of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb consists of a tube with two pieces of uranium, which, when rammed together, would cause a blast. Some sort of firing unit and a device that would need to be decoded to cause detonation may be included in the “suitcase.”
Another portable weapon is a “backpack” bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three “coffee can-sized” aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It’s kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

And see text and example picture here: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

Example:

Yablokov stated that he personally knows individuals who produced these suitcase-size nuclear devices under orders from the KGB in the 1970s specifically for terrorist purposes. As a result of their being produced for the KGB, Yablokov has stated that they may not have been taken into account in the Soviet general nuclear arsenal and may not be under the control of the Russian Defense Ministry.

Weldon has further said that the Russian government eventually acknowledged that such weapons had been produced.

General Zod

Biggins wrote: »

Actually "yes!"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Ah now, even wiki is sceptical

"Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are known [1]I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words"]by whom?[/URL][/I to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons.[2] Both the United States and the Soviet Union have acknowledged producing nuclear weapons small enough to be carried in specially-designed backpacks during the Cold War, but neither have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a normal-sized suitcase or briefcase."

"This section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (August 2009)"

that page even contradicts your second page

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

And see text and example picture here: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

You'll forgive me if I treat a supposed bomb on a page run by

NationalTerrorAlert.com is a private homeland security blog and not affiliated with any government agency.

with a dose of scepticism.

Biggins

And the last link...?

There are many more examples out there and if the Russians are supposed to have that level of tech by the 1970's, you can bet the Americans have tried to match them or gone further - much more by now - just in case! (no pun intended)

NothingMan

Old news. Hill dog was doin this years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2cWFAYg-nc

BennyLava

What a way to go though

Death by Boobies

General Zod

Biggins wrote: »

And the last link...?

agitprop.

why make these devices when they can launch a much much larger one with considerably more accuracy?

Biggins

General Zod wrote: »

...why make these devices when they can launch a much much larger one with considerably more accuracy?

Sadly, a number of reasons.

Supposing you want to take out an infrastructure of a capital and/or somewhere you can drive a car/bike/whatever, as a single individual, go within a couple of miles and leave one of these to go off near a military airport, surface to air defence system, a capitals strike-back system, take out their electronic monetary and/or communications system prior to the incoming larger missiles etc coming - and you have one (or many) simple devices that can be put anywhere.
Told to go off by use of a simple phone call, no tracking to be traced or followed of incoming missiles, no major damage done if you want to retain structures (for later self use) and use it as a low powered, less traceable electromagnetic pulse device (E.M.P.).

I'm quite sure a number of embassies in foreign countries have considered having one of these somewhere near by kept - if not on site, ready to go, "just in case".
Someone somewhere, picks up a phone and orders Sargent Joe Smith to set it off in ten minutes.
No warning, no way to fire anything to disable it by force. A silent waiting bomb that can go off in an instant at a moments notice.

Two minutes from now with one of these bombs beside you in a passenger car seat, a suicide bomber drives up to the gates or half a mile of Windscale/Sellafield and boom!
Game over.

Its a scary thought and the British government alone is not supposing IF it will happen but have already planned for WHEN it will happen.

Kanye

WindSock wrote: »

What's their bra size? C4?

I had to google practically everything before I got that and I'm pretty sure the Feds are gonna be all over me now, but fair play, sir and/or madam.

Biggins

Kanye wrote: »

I had to google practically everything before I got that and I'm pretty sure the Feds are gonna be all over me now, but fair play, sir and/or madam.

Thats nothing. :pac:
Try looking up detailed plans for a thermo-nuclear device and the parts/ingredients needed! LOL
I did some time back and got contacted by the Americans (email) as to why was I needing that info.
Somewhere in the states, I'm named in a small file in a records basement.

Kanye

Why were you looking that up? As a matter of interest, like.

Biggins

Kanye wrote: »

Why were you looking that up? As a matter of interest, like.

Research for an ongoing project.

gandalf

BigDuffman wrote: »

Thank god lolo ferrari is dead imagine the WMDs she could fit in those weapons :eek:

I think they are called MoaB's !!!

Mother of all Boobs

(ok I'll get my coat and go quietly!)

El Guapo!

Biggins wrote: »

Research for an ongoing project.

Hmm....ongoing project, or plan to take over the world?!!
Either way thats brilliant. I'd bet if you went to the States alarms would go off in the airport.

Biggins

Dean09 wrote: »

Hmm....ongoing project, or plan to take over the world?!!
Either way thats brilliant. I'd bet if you went to the States alarms would go off in the airport.

Wife and four kids!
I'd be lucky to take over the remote control!

Writing project.

And yes, it would go some way as to by I am CONSTANTLY body searched at airports.
Aaa the price of freedom.

Dublin_Gunner

Biggins wrote: »

Sadly, a number of reasons.

You left out the fact that the target would not know where the bomb originated from. (well, assuming all the fissile material was used in the blast - otherwise the radioctive material could indeed be traced bak to the country of origin).

However, I highly doubt a full scale thermo-nuclear device could be self contained within a backback or suitcase.

A fission device needs large amounts of high explosives, and a fusion device needs complicated circuitry and other components (as well as a fission device to provide the heat necessary for fusion).

In reality, all that could be contained in a vessel of that size would be a crude dirty-bomb.

LD 50

General Zod wrote: »

you're right, but your average chemical weapon (including synthisised Sarin, like the Tokyo subway attacks in March 1995) takes a lot of money and resources to put together. It's not something you can adequately make and take aboard an aircraft, and is generally the reserve of a government war machine.

These guys and girls are backed financially by saudi princes and the guys that own the oil wells. There is no shortage of money to put something like this together.

Biggins

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

...In reality, all that could be contained in a vessel of that size would be a crude dirty-bomb.

You could be 100% right.
The thought sticks though in the back of the mind, that lord knows how much better the top powers have gotten in their advancement of producing such weapons - especially since 1970 and the capabilities then.
Dirty bombs are indeed as far as the range can be gotten by most "nutters" (for want of a better word) but if the main world powers had the capability by now, and I'm sure they quite have (looks at the Japanese for miniaturisation skills alone), to produce such devices, why not have them in their arsenal of possible weapons to be used at some stage.

Its maybe better (for some) that the public/other countries is kept thinking that is not possible to produce a fuller, more effective weapon.
The art of deception didn't end with the cold war.

Dublin_Gunner

Biggins wrote: »

You could be 100% right.
The thought sticks though in the back of the mind, that lord knows how much better the top powers have gotten in their advancement of producing such weapons - especially since 1970 and the capabilities then.
Dirty bombs are indeed as far as the range can be gotten by most "nutters" (for want of a better word) but if the main world powers had the capability by now, and I'm sure they quite have (looks at the Japanese for miniaturisation skills alone), to produce such devices, why not have them in their arsenal of possible weapons to be used at some stage.

Its maybe better (for some) that the public/other countries is kept thinking that is not possible to produce a fuller, more effective weapon.
The art of deception didn't end with the cold war.

There's no way to miniature the physical size of a critical mass of fissile material though.

If using the 'implode' method - there is no way in hell that could be contained in a backpack - or even if it did fit, it would weigh too much to be practical.

If using the 'gun' method, it would probably be too big.

The best I'd say you could hope for would be a gun-type method with some high grade plastic explosive, which would most likely result in a dirty-ish bomb - i.e some fissile material would react, but most likely would just be strewn everywhere by the explosives, causing a huge radiation hazard.

I'm sure the gov's etc have way's of developing small nuclear devices, but in a backpack or briefcase? I think not.

However, there have been a few atomic weapons that are fairly small:
(I know its Wiki, but these are real)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

Biggins

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

...I'm sure the gov's etc have way's of developing small nuclear devices, but in a backpack or briefcase? I think not.

Have you seen the links above at all especially this one: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html
or this: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

If any one country managed to do what was said was possible in 1970, they are not going to shout, say or even hint that they have done it.
In the meanwhile, I don't think they have been sitting around and saying "Aaa, lets forget about the idea" since then!

-Trek-

Scary......in that she could blow up in my face while I'm <edit>............

nucking futs

Someone call Austin Powers, we've found an upgrade for machine gun jubblies!

ocokev

This cannot be true for severial reasons.
1. Its in the Sun, if it was any way true they would have a reader competition to see who has the best implant boob bomb.
2. Its against Islamic law for a woman to wear makeup or have undergo enhancement surgery.
3. Sure the infections they would get if they had an operation in a Al Quaida cave they wouldn't last the weekend.

OutlawPete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMx8QvhULIs

Le King

WindSock wrote: »

What's their bra size? C4?

That, my friends, is comedy.

-Trek-

ocokev wrote: »

This cannot be true for severial reasons.
1. Its in the Sun, if it was any way true they would have a reader competition to see who has the best implant bomb.
2. Its against Islamic law for a woman to wear makeup or have undergo enhancement surgery.
3. Sure the infections they would get if they had an operation in a Al Quaida cave they wouldn't last the weekend.

True, it would be much safer if they had the operation here:D

FLCP

Trekmad wrote: »

True, it would be much safer if they had the operation here:D

I give you Abdullah Hassan Tali al-Asiri, aka the suicide bummer...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2646557/Suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-up-his-backside.html

various other links to the incident in the wiki article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Hassan_Al_Aseery

Gummy Panda

Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the bomb and be done with it

Dublin_Gunner

ocokev wrote: »

This cannot be true for severial reasons.
1. Its in the Sun, if it was any way true they would have a reader competition to see who has the best implant boob bomb.

Wrong, she'd be on page 3.

2. Its against Islamic law for a woman to wear makeup or have undergo enhancement surgery.

Its probably against the law to go blowing people up too though, in fairness.

3. Sure the infections they would get if they had an operation in a Al Quaida cave they wouldn't last the weekend.

You can be certain it wouldn't be done in a cave, most likely a private surgery. Or if indeed it was done in a cave, a simple tent-cum-clean room/theatre would suffice.