Bomb Scare

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:33 am

Grand Fromage wrote:
Zakharra wrote:All a bomb needs is some batteries, wiring, explosives and a detonator. Who's to say a bomb can't look like this picture?
The lack of explosives or anything that could possibly be confused with explosives is a pretty decent indication.

As we all know, it is impossible to hide explosives under your shirt, or to even put holes in a shirt where said wires could be threaded. Physically impossible, Einstein proved it.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:36 am

Grand Fromage wrote:lol yeah education is for pussies amirite

who needs that darn learnin stuff anyhow, shut up and eat your bible son!

At least if I decide to do something I can stick to it for more than a week. Maybe if the cops had some education they'd know the difference between a couple LEDs and a nine volt battery and a bomb.

How far away can you tell the difference? Just curious where you're setting the bar here; at arms length this may be obvious, but at camera range? 20 feet even?

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:40 am

Don't tase me, bro!

Anyway, here's why this is stupid.

When we set up security which is, in large part, specifically to thwart bombings, I would think one of the minimum requirements would be that the security people are aware of what a bomb is. It would seem useful to be able to tell the difference.

Perhaps they could use this as a crash course. Bomb:

Not bomb:

A prominently displayed breadboard with some blinking LEDs is not a bomb. Now, even back in the good old days, it was a bad idea to do anything suspicious in an airport and she should've known better. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some bare minimum level of competence in our supposed security forces. Time and time again, they have demonstrated that TSA is made up of idiots who can barely dress themselves, let alone protect anyone.

If we're going to fuck around with security, let's A) not make it ridiculously excessive and B) get people with a couple of brain cells to rub together running it. That's all I ask.

Also some flexibility and rational thought would be nice. Not everything needs to be A HUGE EMERGENCY BIG DEAL WE TREAT ANYONE WITH A MATCHBOOK THE SAME AS WE WOULD SOMEONE TRYING TO ROLL A SMALL NUCLEAR DEVICE THROUGH CUSTOMS.

NESchampion wrote:As we all know, it is impossible to hide explosives under your shirt, or to even put holes in a shirt where said wires could be threaded. Physically impossible, Einstein proved it.

See, your key word there is "hide", not "display prominently with blinking lights to draw attention to it".

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:42 am

Yeah, um, see, it wasn't suspicious. Because it didn't look anything like a bomb. Nothing. Like. A. Bomb.

And, um, it was on the outside of her shirt. Now, I'm just guessing, here, but I don't think suicide bombers usually display their bombs on the outside of their clothing.

I'm still just guessing, but I don't think people with transmitters wear them on the outside of their shirt.

I'm still just guessing, but I don't think bombers usually carry plastique in their hand.

So no, not suspicious. Strange, sure, but strange != suspicious.

The TSA is, and always has been, incompetent. This is just highlights that unfortunate reality.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:51 am

mxlm wrote:Yeah, um, see, it wasn't suspicious. Because it didn't look anything like a bomb. Nothing. Like. A. Bomb.

And, um, it was on the outside of her shirt. Now, I'm just guessing, here, but I don't think suicide bombers usually display their bombs on the outside of their clothing.

I'm still just guessing, but I don't think people with transmitters wear them on the outside of their shirt.

I'm still just guessing, but I don't think bombers usually carry plastique in their hand.

So no, not suspicious. Strange, sure, but strange != suspicious.

The TSA is, and always has been, incompetent. This is just highlights that unfortunate reality.

Better safe than sorry.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:53 am

They didn't play it safe. Remember what the coppers were saying? They were a hairsbreadth away from shooting an innocent woman for no good reason. Scratch no good reason, replace with 'because the security people haven't the faintest idea what a bomb is'.

That's playing it safe? No. That's playing it stupid.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:21 am

Who says a bomb has to look like what has bene posted? The explosives can be held/placed elsewhere. It does not have to be right next to the batteries or detonators as long as there are wires connecting it to them.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:32 am

You're shifting the goal posts.

No one has asserted that a bomb must look like the photo GF posted.

We have asserted that 'breadboard + LEDs + battery taped to the outside of hoodie' doesn't look anything like a bomb, and that any competent security personnel should know that.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:48 am

mxlm wrote:You're shifting the goal posts.

No one has asserted that a bomb must look like the photo GF posted.

We have asserted that 'breadboard + LEDs + battery taped to the outside of hoodie' doesn't look anything like a bomb, and that any competent security personnel should know that.

A point, but there's no reason one can't look like that. They can look like most anything.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:07 am

This is turning into a circular argument. See the above posts by myself and GF.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:52 am

I don't agree with everything the two of you are saying. A bomb CAN be made to look like that. There's no standard way a bomb has to look like. A homemade bomb with plasticv explosive can look like anything. Depending how big you want the explosion to be.

We have asserted that 'breadboard + LEDs + battery taped to the outside of hoodie' doesn't look anything like a bomb, and that any competent security personnel should know that.

Yet you are asserting that is it not a bomb. The fact is that you do not know. for sure. It could have been one.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:29 am

I don't agree with everything the two of you are saying. A bomb CAN be made to look like that. There's no standard way a bomb has to look like. A homemade bomb with plasticv explosive can look like anything. Depending how big you want the explosion to be.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why anyone with the talent to make plastique look like a breadboard would then proceed to, y'know, actually make the plastique look like a breadboard, put lights on it, and WEAR IT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEIR CLOTHING.

DarkHin · Post by **DarkHin** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:14 am

You know, Zak's right. ANYthing could be a bomb. Okay, we need to strip search everyone. In fact, you must be naked to fly because, you know, anything can be a bomb.

Actually, maybe it'd be safer if we didn't fly. Then there's no way anybody can bring a bomb on a plane. So we'll ban all flight because of course there's no way to really be sure there'll never be a bomb on a plane. I mean, i guess nothing in life is certain. I guess the best way to deal with the uncertainty of life is to act completely ridiculously in order to give ourselves a false sense of certainty and safety. Makes sense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ca ... th_by_rate

We need to be more worried about diarrheal diseases than terrorism (which is only a fraction of intentional injuries).

ThinkTank · Post by **ThinkTank** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:36 am

Mord · Post by **Mord** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:28 am

In Norway this situation would have been diffused with a simple.

"Could you please remove that silly thing on your shirt? It might fool someone and cause a problem."