SilverWolf said:yes it is plausible but the key word you used is "could". Yes it's possible that they "could" have had a bomb , but do we have any reports of anyone seeing the bomb?
I'm not saying whether they did or didn't but if no one said they saw the bomb then lets not show shots of the bomb in the movie. We can show them saying they had one because that is substantiated by evidence but lets not go off of conjecture and then try and state that this is fact. Now if the movie is "based" on actual events as oppose to being true events then it doesn't matter.
If that's going to be your criterion (i.e., lacking any proof of any particular detail, then that cannot be included in the movie) there is precious little that CAN be in the movie. What you seem to propose is a strict documentary, not a drama based on a factual incident.