How are terrorists using the internet to make bombs?

[SoiCowboy]

My thesis. (http://www.geocities.com/locinca/SoiCowboy.pdf)

What do you think?

Edit: Whoops. OK, does that work?

[sgmgrumpy]

Link don't work:confused:

[marct]

Hi SoiCowboy,

Interesting. I noticed that you mentioned that most of the material was from the 80's and 90's. Does that include the material coming off the latest sites as well? Also, what sort of material is actually available on the tactics of use, outside of the videos? Have you found specifics on employment, etc.?

Also, is this published? I'm writing an article on virtual warfare right now and I'd like to reference this piece.

Marc

[SoiCowboy]

Does that include the material coming off the latest sites as well?

Most of the materials is from the 1960s to the 1980s. It ranges from survivalist stuff to technical manuals. It got uploaded into text files by the first BBSs in the 1990s and the information has been degrading in quality since then. I used Internet Haganah (http://tinyurl.com/2surwf) and google translator to look at Irhabi sites. Al Qaeda in Maghreb was the one I looked at the most since it had the Al Qaeda brand name. It has since been taken down but they didn't appear to be the sharpest tools in the shed. Instructions like, don't use your real name, don't use your real town, use a proxy being said over and over again. Smart people would already being doing that and not need telling. As for the latest material, most terrorist literature is parasitical. They rarely come up with their own stuff. They tend to plagiarise and just insert religious statements all over the place. I only looked at three or four of their own in house pdf's from different places. There's only so much Islamic mumbo jumbo I can handle.

Also, what sort of material is actually available on the tactics of use, outside of the videos?

Beyond videos, dvds and a handful of posts on boards, I haven't come across much written material. I guessed that its cheaper, quicker and easier to burn a DVD and show through images than write a file. Added advantage is that you don't have to worry about the readers literacy and that soon near enough everyone is going to be near an internet cafe.

Have you found specifics on employment, etc.?

I made an assumption on employment. Newspapers report terrorists are captured in XXX, and among their materials were DVDs of bomb making material downloaded off the internet. Terrorists in the area suddenly have become twice as effective at making bombs. Iraqi bomb making videos are available for download from torrents. Whether those three dots actually join up is another thing. I haven't come across anything like "Hi I'm a terrorist, I downloaded this DVD, put it to use, and here's my results!" but then again I haven't been on any of their password protected members only BBSs. Judging by Irhabi007 and others, they love to boast about getting one over on the crusaders/infidels/etc.

Also, is this published? I'm writing an article on virtual warfare right now and I'd like to reference this piece.

The thesis gets published September-ish. Feel free to reference now.

[marct]

Hi SoiCowboy,

The thesis gets published September-ish. Feel free to reference now.

Excellent. Can you either post or pm me the proper reference?

Marc

[SoiCowboy]

PM sent.

For some reason I can't edit my first post.

This is the final edition, all polished up. (http://tinyurl.com/ypvwfe)

[marct]

Hi SC,

PM sent.

For some reason I can't edit my first post.

This is the final edition, all polished up. (http://tinyurl.com/ypvwfe)

Weird - hmmm. Anyway, I got the PM and thanks for posting the latest version.

[SoiCowboy]

Still can't edit.

Last one, with bibliography. (http://tinyurl.com/3dcghp)

Thanks for your help.

[Stan]

Still can't edit.

Last one, with bibliography. (http://tinyurl.com/3dcghp)

Thanks for your help.

She still doesn't work, all I get is a 'megaupload' page with typical pop ups.

Do we need to register and login ?

[RTK]

She still doesn't work, all I get is a 'megaupload' page with typical pop ups.

Do we need to register and login ?

You weren't kidding when you said you were thick on that other thread....:D

Look at the top. There should be a three letter code. type it into the blank to the left of the "Download" button.

BTW, I spent twenty minutes on that page trying to figure out how to download.:D

[Stan]

You weren't kidding when you said you were thick on that other thread....:D

Look at the top. There should be a three letter code. type it into the blank to the left of the "Download" button.

BTW, I spent twenty minutes on that page trying to figure out how to download.:D

Okay, now I get it, along with 'wait 38 seconds or continue with premium downloads and your visa card number'. Could you give me yours, mine's dead :D

It's now been 2 minutes and the $69.99 special is still friggin there !If I wasn't on a 12 hour shift, I'd have had a beer and smoke by now.

Thanks anyway RTK :rolleyes:

[RTK]

Okay, now I get it, along with 'wait 38 seconds or continue with premium downloads and your visa card number'. Could you give me yours, mine's dead :D

It's now been 2 minutes and the $69.99 special is still friggin there !If I wasn't on a 12 hour shift, I'd have had a beer and smoke by now.

Thanks anyway RTK :rolleyes:

After the prerequesite 45 seconds, hit the second download button that appears. Then you'll be reading. I'm gonna have to e-mail this thing to you soon so you won't go postal in Estonia.

[RTK]

I'd use the full up URLs for websites you're sourcing. Additionally, use a common bibliographical format. For instance, for movie quotes I don't think using the fictional character's name as a source is correct. Also, you have opinions footnoted (ie. #74) which is not correct.

Interesting thoughts, though I'm not sure what the "so what" factor is here.

[Stan]

After the prerequesite 45 seconds, hit the second download button that appears. Then you'll be reading. I'm gonna have to e-mail this thing to you soon so you won't go postal in Estonia.

You've obviously never met an Ethnic Russian Postal worker in Estonia :cool:

Remember the films with Russian migrant workers in gray dresses, a few missing teeth and fuzzy mustaches (the female workers RTK) ?

Slapout can tell you where some of them are...in the South...Lower Alabama (LA) :eek:

[Stan]

The bottom line is this. A lot of the information on bombs online is rubbish. Terrorists tend to make two types of bombs; ANFO and AP. The instructions are easy to find, the materials easy to get, and the manufacturing very simple.

I would have to disagree with that. The vast majority of IEDs has not been Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO). Such a device requires far too much raw material and no place to hide a 50 gallon drum along a dirt road.

Where I am and have recently been, most have been modified projectiles without fuses, or simple command detonated IEDs with extracted HEs from projectiles.

[slapout9]

Remember the films with Russian migrant workers in gray dresses, a few missing teeth and fuzzy mustaches (the female workers RTK) ?

Slapout can tell you where some of them are...in the South...Lower Alabama (LA) :eek:


Yea baby:) Don't they call them potato mama's?

[RTK]

Slapout can tell you where some of them are...in the South...Lower Alabama (LA) :eek:

I've seen more than a few of them in Western Kentucky. Which is another reason I will retire to the Colorado Springs area.

[selil]

Can i just put it on my website and let y'all download it? Or is that like farting in public? I've got unlimited bandwidth...

[SoiCowboy]

Sorry about the hassle with megaupload. Yeah, selil, feel free to host it.

Thanks for the heads-up Stan, I'll add that. I was thinking more of terrorism worldwide and using IED and bomb interchangeably (whether that's right or not).

RTK, my 'so what' factor is me trying to say three points. That a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve, that Iraq is the most important thing happening for making bombs, and that other groups are copying the Iraqis using the internet.

[selil]

SoiCowboy your document is located here (276KB, pdf) (http://cit-dept.calumet.purdue.edu/liless/media/SoiCowboy_Final.pdf)

[Stan]

Thanks Sam, it works and I no longer need RTK's credit card :D

SoiCowboy,
I need to do some research, but during our last course with the METs SO13 and SO15 earlier this year, the stats for ANFO were less than 20 percent. Large devices or incidences such as The Oklahoma Bomber Mcveigh require far more background and, to say the least room for the IED (you need a lot because correctly mixed ANFO has barely 75% of commercial grade TNT's explosive force). Furthermore, ANFO is extremely unstable and sensitive to electrostatic discharge (ESD).

Comp. B and C (aka C4) (military grade explosives used in artillery shells and demolitions) are very stable or insensitive, and relatively easy to come by, especially in Iraq.

I'll get off my soapbox now :D

[SoiCowboy]

No, I'm glad for your input.

Was the Mets stats just for England or worldwide? Are they classified?

I was under the impression that ANFO is fine as long as the blasting cap and booster were kept separately from the main device and only assembled on site.

Of course if you have it all rigged together ready to go I can see how an electric current would detonate it.

Do you need any special knowledge to detonate C4 beyond needing a detonator and booster?

[Stan]

No, I'm glad for your input.

Was the Mets stats just for England or worldwide? Are they classified?


The materials we have are marked FOUO, but I only have paper versions as they could not legally send us e-versions. The book's about 7 inches of paper. The training we performed together was mostly post blast and anti-terrorism. The stats were collected together with NATO and other LEs and are world-wide figures.


I was under the impression that ANFO is fine as long as the blasting cap and booster were kept separately from the main device and only assembled on site.

Of course if you have it all rigged together ready to go I can see how an electric current would detonate it.


Actually, even high grade ANFO will not explode with just a detonator (a bit stronger version of the movie favorites 'blasting cap"), and you will also need a good primary explosive source (like TNT) (booster as you put it) to create the "explosive train". You're right, better assemble things on site or those pesky ESDs will get ya :D

Do you need any special knowledge to detonate C4 beyond needing a detonator and booster?

Nope, almost none at all. You can even take a piece and light it with a match, heat your rations, or throw it in a fire and just watch it burn. But, don't go stompin' out the fire or hit it with a hammer :rolleyes:

No primary explosive is needed - just a good detonator - carefully push it into the C4 (or make a hole like the detonator wells on Claymores), apply 9 to 12 VDC (Ooops, forgot, get far away first and use plenty of WD1 wire), and there you go.

C4 unlike in the movies is not the high explosive most would think, it's only about 1,3 times stronger than commercial grade TNT. It is however the military's favorite, as you can do just about anything with it and it won't detonate (save putting a detonator in it).

[SoiCowboy]

Would it be fair to say that ANFO is the bomb of choice for beginner bombers and truck bombers?

I'm going to go away and read up more now. Thanks again.

[Stan]

Would it be fair to say that ANFO is the bomb of choice for beginner bombers and truck bombers?

I'm going to go away and read up more now. Thanks again.

In short, yes, the vehicle borne ANFO IED is still the choice for young terrorists, but it’s growing harder to make something of sufficient size (tractor-trailer) and not attract attention buying tons of fertilers, etc.

Secondly, the terrorist must be able to negotiate the beheamoth through town safely in order to reach his target. In my warped opinion, if you set the skills bar too high, the bubba may begin to wonder why he’s going to meet his maker :D

As I recall, the first ANFO IED was a mere accidental creation of the IRA in the early 70s. We would later learn that the new generation of car bombers were coincidently all graduates of CIA and/or Pakistani Intelligence schools. Some say the Saudis financed the Mujahedin trainees who later would terrorize the Russians in Kabul.

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time :rolleyes:

There some good reading out there that may just surprise you (well before the internet):

You have shown no pity to us! We will do likewise. We will dynamite you!
Anarchist warning (1919)
Buda's Wagon (1920)

Preliminary Detonations (1948-63), "Reds' Time Bombs Rip Saigon Center".

Regards, Stan

[RTK]

RTK, my 'so what' factor is me trying to say three points. That a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve, that Iraq is the most important thing happening for making bombs, and that other groups are copying the Iraqis using the internet.

I'm not trying to slap you down, it's just that after a long day of molding LTs I tend to be short and to the point.

I think if the above stated concept is the thesis than you can probably go a little further to develop it. And, again, I'd use the full URLs so one can see the variety of sources that you've used instead of cross-referencing each and every one.

[SoiCowboy]

RTK, its no worries here. I like short and to the point. Will do on the urls.

Stan, I wasn't thinking about 18 wheelers, more like dumpsters and beer trucks that can get away with being large and in a town center. As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

[Jedburgh]

...a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve....
I strongly disagree with this statement. By pre-OEF/OIF standards, doctrine has been developing at an amazing speed. Most importantly, entirely new FMs, TMs & TCs have been developed (for subjects that were never previously addressed in doctrine - especially regarding the IED threat, and on SSE, which is closely related), and the drafts put out to the key stakeholders out in the field with relative rapidity. It still takes a while for the drafts to be worked and re-worked (inital draft, draft, final draft, final approved draft, etc.) into final approved doctrine - but that is due nearly as much to the evolving nature of the threat as it is to administrative processes required for the doctrine to be approved and published for implementation.

And, despite your statement in the paper, you ain't gonna find most of these on GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org.

[Stan]

Stan, As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

Certainly true, but then forensic science has also come a long way. This may not hold true in Iraq, but look how quickly a forensic post blast found Yousef (sp?) in the 93 WTC bombing, or better yet, how quickly McVeigh & Nichols were caught.

The Tube bombings took a bit more time, but again forensic science also caught up with them.

I'll still check around for some current stats as promised.

I'll close with echoing what Jedburgh posted:

Such sites as GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org are at best references and barely touch the surface. While you may find the chemical combinations and terms for explosives, much like the IRA in the early 70s, you won't find out just what percentage translates to hghly unstable. Those manuals are all classified, tried and true.

I don't know what the DOJ is doing, but I do know that the Army is not behind the curve.

[SoiCowboy]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

[Tom Odom]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

Try a bit more finesse on whether you are talking doctrine or TTP. Doctrine by definition is longer term. TTP--my business--is short term and often pushes doctrine in front of it like a bow wave. That has been very true for the past 5 years. You are correct that some doctrinal quarters are less amenable to change and indeed I still hear tensions expressed between "real War" and "COIN stuff". Sometimes the tensions between the doctrine side and the TTP side erupt into full disputes.

The other issue is manning. The old days where every proponent had a stable of doctrine writers is no more; they are short staffed and working priorities. In this regard, TTP chasers like me fill in the needs.

Best

Tom

[Jedburgh]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.
The TRADOC DCSINT Handbook series are not doctrine. They are essentially reference materials that provide background on select subjects along with limited lessons learned. CALL materials are also not doctrine - however, they focus on capturing valuable TTPs and lessons learned that often are later translated into doctrine. "Doctrine" that addresses the IED threat in the Army will be found in published Field Manuals (FMs) and Training Manuals (TMs), with a few other designations not mentioned.

[SoiCowboy]

Well there we are then. I'm using the wrong terms and I stand corrected.

[Jedburgh]

If you're not aware of it, this one has been around for a few years. It was down for quite a while, but it appears to be running again:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum: A Weapon of Mass Instruction (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/index.php)

[SoiCowboy]

Thanks. Well aware of them. They're more technical than the average pyro, though they still come across as a bunch of elitists.

[Stan]

Thanks. Well aware of them. They're more technical than the average pyro, though they still come across as a bunch of elitists.

The link to the forum is dead, or experiencing problems. So, off to the home page for Rogue Science or the Chem Lab "Thunder in a Test Tube (http://www.roguesci.org/chemlab/energetic_materials.html)" for a quick look.

At first glance not too technical, but even after my many years, I won't be trying any of these home-made cocktails without at least a 9 suit and helmet.

This paragraph immediately got my attention:

There must be danger, there must be excitement, and there must be passion to ignite the spark of scientific curiosity in the next generation. We face a dark world where all that could be dangerous is destroyed, and all who seek to learn are persecuted for what they might do. What may, what might, what could, the ignorant fear only dreams and vague possibilities, veiled threats, and hypothetical scenarios. Explosives harm very few people, and are the most important industrial tools in the world. Without explosives there would be no modern world.

The author has not been kept up to date, or rarely reads the papers :wry:

[SoiCowboy]

You've got to remember that a lot of the stuff comes from the same mindset of the militias in the 1990s after Waco and Ruby Ridge; that federal government is omniprescient, omnipotent and 1984 is a very real near future.

In the forum they've got the basic peroxide based stuff like AP and HMTD down pat. Mid range stuff like ANFO/ANNM and PETN is pretty well covered as well. From there its pretty much reader beware.

By technical, I mean they pretty much use the scientific symbols and discuss chemistry as opposed to buy this, that and the other from walmart and mix them.