Bomb Hoax? Fckd up world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pointedem

We live in a Society.

---

You have completely and utterly missed my point.
You also missed the Southpark reference. (google "underpants gnomes")

I like the emotional argument though. You may not have much of point, but when you talk about families being ripped to pieces it does add some visual flavor to your yelling. You even took the time to look up a wikicite for primacord! As a reader I appreciate that. It shows that you're a "big man" who takes things "seriously" and knows a lot about weapons and other instruments of violence. Good for you!:yourock: Unfortunately it had little to do with what I was talking about. But hey... points for trying.

Lets walk through this slowly, I'll hold your hand.
To begin, I was talking about "what's the appropriate charge for being an idiot and not realizing that a simple 10th grade electronics set-up would freak the TSA out." You seem to be more concerned with "what's the appropriate charge for sneaking a bomb onto a plane and blowing people up." These are different situations and should be treated differently. If you disagree, please raise you hand now because man(!) have we got a lot to talk about.

So let's talk about what she was charged with, and whether her actions merit that charge.
1) She was stupid.
2) They are charging her with having a "hoax device."
3) I do not know the elements of the charge of "hoax device" but I would imagine that there is some sort of intent requirement.
4) By "intent requirement" I mean that you must intend to hoax someone.
5) This girl did not intend to confuse, hoax, or mislead anyone. There was no intent on her part to mislead the TSA into thinking that she had a bomb.
6) Let's go back to point #2, they're charging her with having the intention, and taking steps towards, making people think she had a bomb.
7) Review point 5 for clarity.
-------------------------------

If you think that you should be charged for merely confusing the TSA, whether or not that was your intention, the gonehuckin' should have been charged. Sure, he had no intention of pretending his hunk of gold was a bomb, but he scared the TSA and thats all that matters according to your logic.

Follow-up question: If someone actually has a hoax device, like something that was meant to really look like a bomb - maybe they acted like it was a bomb - should they be charged with the same crime as this girl? Or should they be charged with a worse crime?
-------------------------------

My point about resources was this:
Gonehuckin' argued that charging her, whether or not the charges had merit, was appropriate because "Significant resources where used in her case".
... BUT ...
No extra resources were expended in her case. Those cops would have been on duty whether or not that girl showed up that day. They would have drawn pay for that day of work. Whether or not she arrived at the airport dressed like a jackass had no effect on the amount of $$ or other resources that the gov't expended on that day.
In fairness, since this event, the TSA has probably spent a lot of extra resources on press conferences, press handlers, spin doctors and all that jazz. But that's their own damn fault and was probably done for the reasons that Razorslug and summit pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will

So let's talk about what she was charged with, and whether her actions merit that charge.
1) She was stupid.

---

Ignorance is not an excuse. Do not protect morons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will

2) They are charging her with having a "hoax device."
3) I do not know the elements of the charge of "hoax device" but I would imagine that there is some sort of intent requirement.
4) By "intent requirement" I mean that you must intend to hoax someone.

---

hoax-noun
1. something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.
–verb (used with object)

It is not the job of the police or TSA to determine intent. That job is for the courts. It is called due process, and I'm glad it exists. If there was no intent, the DA will not be able to prove it and she will be released of the charges. The TSA guys just grabbed someone who was wearing something that looked suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will

5) This girl did not intend to confuse, hoax, or mislead anyone. There was no intent on her part to mislead the TSA into thinking that she had a bomb.
6) Let's go back to point #2, they're charging her with having the intention, and taking steps towards, making people think she had a bomb.
7) Review point 5 for clarity.

---

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THIS? You are not her. You have not heard all of the evidence. You do not know. Nobody except her truly knows. Sit down and shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will

If you think that you should be charged for merely confusing the TSA, whether or not that was your intention, the gonehuckin' should have been charged. Sure, he had no intention of pretending his hunk of gold was a bomb, but he scared the TSA and thats all that matters according to your logic.

---

The difference is in the INTENT to deceive. A couple of items in a bag that look funny in the x-ray machine vs. wearing something that makes you look like a suicide bomber are two different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will

Follow-up question: If someone actually has a hoax device, like something that was meant to really look like a bomb - maybe they acted like it was a bomb - should they be charged with the same crime as this girl? Or should they be charged with a worse crime?

---

No, but they'll probably get convicted. Remember, charged /= guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will

My point about resources was this:
Gonehuckin' argued that charging her, whether or not the charges had merit, was appropriate because "Significant resources where used in her case".
... BUT ...
No extra resources were expended in her case. Those cops would have been on duty whether or not that girl showed up that day. They would have drawn pay for that day of work. Whether or not she arrived at the airport dressed like a jackass had no effect on the amount of $$ or other resources that the gov't expended on that day.
In fairness, since this event, the TSA has probably spent a lot of extra resources on press conferences, press handlers, spin doctors and all that jazz. But that's their own damn fault and was probably done for the reasons that Razorslug and summit pointed out.

---

Expending resources = doing anything above the minimum. The amount of paperwork this has generated could bury a small city. And yes, the TSA PR department resources that have been drawn off to handle this count.

This is scary.

As anyone who knows the first thing about electronics will immediately tell you, that is a breadboard with a battery on it. To be a bomb you need to have explosive material. There is no room to hide explosive material on a breadboard.

However, there is lots of room to hide explosive material inside things like, for instance, notebook computers, even operable ones that currently pass security.

To everyone who says "she deserves it, she should know better": let's think about it for a minute.

First, she went to the airport to pick up a friend, not to get on a flight. Getting on a flight with such a sweatshirt would have been very naive, but that's not what she did.

Second, Star Simpson goes to MIT, where she is surrounded 100% of the time by extremely smart people, all of whom know what breadboards are and could probably tell you what the circuit does just by looking at it. If she was smart enough to get into MIT, she probably spent much of high school in classes with kids and teachers who were also very smart. It would not necessarily occur to her that the thing she made, whose function is very obvious to her and everyone she knows and interacts with on a daily basis for the last several years, would be somehow taken as a bomb.

Last, you have been trained by the constant propaganda of fear to automatically blame the victim any time anyone says "SECURITY" or "TERRORISM", just like a little trained circus dog. Take a long, honest look at yourself and how you've reacted here. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Just when I thought nobody else could post anything dumber......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

This is scary.

As anyone who knows the first thing about electronics will immediately tell you, that is a breadboard with a battery on it. To be a bomb you need to have explosive material. There is no room to hide explosive material on a breadboard.

---

You missed the part of the story where they mentioned that she was holding a putty like substance (later determined to be play-doh) in plain view. C4 Looks like play-doh.

Play-doh
http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...cs/steptwo.jpg

C4
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/images/prodimgs/C4.jpg

Her Shirt (hey, what's on the backside of the breadboard?)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit...g_news/mit.jpg

Suicide Bomber Vest (the electronics aren't that complex. A simple breadboard could handle everything this suit does)
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...01020_1_p2.jpg

I still believe that the cops acted in the public's best interest in taking her down quickly, and asking questions later. I also believe that the courts will clear her of the charges. Was taking her down with machine guns drawn and stating that they nearly killed her necessary or good policy? No, but keep in mind airport security is one step above rent-a-cops. They don't get to do anything, and on the one chance that they do, they'll go completely overboard. My advice? Don't give them a reason. Looking like a bomber is a damn good reason.

And Spats, you don't need to go past security to bomb an airport. Just the fact that she was in the terminal was enough.

Intelligence != common sense

common sense = not doing stupid things

The look up was for you, Will
Actually-family works with High Explosives for a living. Been doing it for over 30 years. I could tell you more about detcord then you could imagine.
Stay in your bubble, you seem pretty comfy there. It cracks me up that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you've convinced yourself you are the authority on the matter. The armchair QB is in full effect on this one.

and Spats- Speaking of detcord, she could have been wrapped with the shit, the 'breadboard' could have been the detonator. Or maybe 10 other types of HE that are expensive as shit, and could have been under her clothes;that would have killed the closest 100 people to her. Edit: DJsapp beat me to it.


I like Brice's take. Your (will) naive option is what kills me. With the bombings/suicide bombings in London, Thailand, Spain and India, what makes you so fucking certain that she is incapable of carring a suicide bomb to Logan international? Is that really out of the realm?.. a target terrorists would certainly love to destroy. Did that turn out to be the case? NO. But you must be the densest person on this board to not comprehend why she almost got her ass shot.

Try this one. Mention "bomb" on your next flight. Do you actually have a bomb? I hope not. Are you going to get fucked? Most likely. Not that complicated.


You must be a beater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

Just a couple pictures:
C4 Plastic Explosives
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/images/prodimgs/C4.jpg

Her outfit, add some silly putty IN HER HANDS
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit...g_news/mit.jpg

I think TSA actually did something right for a change. This chick is a fucking moron and should get what's coming to her.

---

You know, You are right! Her head does kind of look like C4 plastic explosives.

Girl = Stupid

Our country = filled with pussies

One of the 9/11 planes took off from Logan. They are very much aware of this fact and it's now one of the most secure airports in the world.

The chick was stupid, but no one got hurt. This shows restraint on the part of security, not overreaction. How the fuck do they know that the chick with wires on her isn't a suicide bomber? Answer: They don't.

And what's with the play-doh? She's smart enough to know it looks like plastique. And how about ignoring the first security guard? I'd bet good money she was looking to get a reaction but got a lot more than she bargained for.

She should pay some sort of hefty fine or do some serious community service and then it should be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

This is scary.

As anyone who knows the first thing about electronics will immediately tell you, that is a breadboard with a battery on it. To be a bomb you need to have explosive material. There is no room to hide explosive material on a breadboard.

---

I didn't realize you worked with explosives for a living, we should have had some good conversations last time I met you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

However, there is lots of room to hide explosive material inside things like, for instance, notebook computers, even operable ones that currently pass security.

---

Or loose fitting "Black Hooded Sweatshirts"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

To everyone who says "she deserves it, she should know better": let's think about it for a minute.

First, she went to the airport to pick up a friend, not to get on a flight. Getting on a flight with such a sweatshirt would have been very naive, but that's not what she did.

---

What part of the airport did the most recent airport bombings occur in? I'm pretty sure that the arrival curb is not within security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Second, Star Simpson goes to MIT, where she is surrounded 100% of the time by extremely smart people, all of whom know what breadboards are and could probably tell you what the circuit does just by looking at it. If she was smart enough to get into MIT, she probably spent much of high school in classes with kids and teachers who were also very smart. It would not necessarily occur to her that the thing she made, whose function is very obvious to her and everyone she knows and interacts with on a daily basis for the last several years, would be somehow taken as a bomb.

---

Which is a fatal flaw exhibited by most intellectuals who are bound for mediocrity in the real world...The assumption that the rest of the world can think like them and does so. This will be a lesson perhaps in learning how to interact with "simple" people, which is a pretty valuble skill for an intelligent person to have. This is not, however, an excuse, it is called ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Last, you have been trained by the constant propaganda of fear to automatically blame the victim any time anyone says "SECURITY" or "TERRORISM", just like a little trained circus dog. Take a long, honest look at yourself and how you've reacted here. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

I'm not ashamed, this girl would make me nervous via the combination of electronics with exposed wires, interesting choice of hairstyle (attention whoring hair style I might add), and what appeared to be explosive material in her hands.

DJSapp commented on the similarity in appearence of C4 and play-doh. I can expand from vast personal experience that almost ALL modern explosives of any strength and composition bear a very striking resemblance in both appearence and texture to play-doh.

The other two posters who keep saying "That doesn't look like a bomb." Well please, indulge us with your expertise. What does a bomb look like? Oh, that's right, it's a bundle of red sticks with an alarm clock attached, right?

OMFG! It's high explosives! EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!


dipshits: if you want to get attention for you or your cause a bomb looks like the most obvious "bomb like device" you can imagine. If you want to kill people it is as non-descript as possible. It's entirely possible to meet the goals of your group, or nutcase self, without possessing anything actually energetic.

I for one think we shouldn't have airport security. Its pretty easy to kill people, you don't really need airplanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey

I for one think we shouldn't have airport security. Its pretty easy to kill people, you don't really need airplanes.

---

Brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey

I for one think we shouldn't have airport security. Its pretty easy to kill people, you don't really need airplanes.

---

WHAT?

No seriously... WHAT?

You're fucking joking right? tell me you're fucking joking! I've steered away from ribbing you like everyone else on this board loves to do, but this could very well push me over the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey

I for one think we shouldn't have airport security. Its pretty easy to kill people, you don't really need airplanes.

---

Actually, I have thought for a long time that airport security is a joke, and we'd be better without it. The entire system relies on everything being metal or going through x-ray.

Example: Bin Laden wants to get on a plane with a C4 bomb

1. C4 does not set off metal detectors. Hide it in your pants/butt/etc. You don't need much to punch a hole in the side of a plane at 35,000'
2. C4 requires a detonator. Many require very little metal and be carried through security without tripping anything. Think along the lines of a model rocket fuse, a small wire with a heating element and flammable material should do the trick. Again, keep it on your person.
3. Get a power supply. A laptop battery or a couple of 9V from the airport gift shop will do just fine
4. Get some wire. Headphones are given out on a lot of planes, so it's only fitting that they bring themselves down.

Congrats! You got a bomb past a high schooler! TSA didn't notice.

The skies are not any safer from a determined person. They're only safer from morons. And all those cuban hijackers in the 1970's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belgian

I've steered away from ribbing you ...

---

It's beginning to bother him. Have a heart - throw a dog a bone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

1. C4 does not set off metal detectors. Hide it in your pants/butt/etc.

---

I knew those puffersniffers were there just to annoy me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

The skies are not any safer from a determined person. They're only safer from morons. And all those cuban hijackers in the 1970's.

---

Exactamundo. The current security measures, and those put in place 9/11, were designed to make the flying publice feel safe. Not be safe. Feelsafe.

If you are happy paying a stupid tax, so be it. I'm not.

Determined hijackers/terrorists can, and eventually probably will, defeat our security. Short of destroying the freedom of travel or making free travel available only to the rich we have no choice but accepting this. So do, move on, and realize you are more likely to die on the roads or ski slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

The amount of paperwork this has generated could bury a small city.

---

Couldn't they just tase her and be done with it?
'course that would generate, like, a million blogposts and thousands of new internet sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

I knew those puffersniffers were there just to annoy me.

---

Heh. It's funny, I almost went through one of those until I walked to the shorter line through the regular detector right next to it. It's even more humorous at the airports that have them, but don't use them. They're too slow, and take extra people to run, therefore we won't use them because TSA doesn't have the budget since they blew it all on the new fancy detector. Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Couldn't they just tase her and be done with it?

---

Tase her? What kind of a pussy are you? They have access to fricking machine guns!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

Determined hijackers/terrorists can, and eventually probably will, defeat our security.

---

So because it's possible someone could concoct a device using an iPod and plastic explosives, they should just do away with security altogether? Personally I feel safer knowing there's a decent chance that the guy sitting next to me doesn't have a gun or hunting knife in his carry-on. I realize there's no way security can thwart everything, but I think they need to try to do what they can. If I have to pay a little extra for my ticket and leave for the airport 30 minutes earlier I think it's worth the trade off.

Uhhh Ohhhh - YOU are on THE LIST now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

Actually, I have thought for a long time that airport security is a joke, and we'd be better without it. The entire system relies on everything being metal or going through x-ray.

Example: Bin Laden wants to get on a plane with a C4 bomb

1. C4 does not set off metal detectors. Hide it in your pants/butt/etc. You don't need much to punch a hole in the side of a plane at 35,000'
2. C4 requires a detonator. Many require very little metal and be carried through security without tripping anything. Think along the lines of a model rocket fuse, a small wire with a heating element and flammable material should do the trick. Again, keep it on your person.
3. Get a power supply. A laptop battery or a couple of 9V from the airport gift shop will do just fine
4. Get some wire. Headphones are given out on a lot of planes, so it's only fitting that they bring themselves down.

Congrats! You got a bomb past a high schooler! TSA didn't notice.

The skies are not any safer from a determined person. They're only safer from morons. And all those cuban hijackers in the 1970's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Uhhh Ohhhh - YOU are on THE LIST now.

---

I've been on the list for a long time. Tell me something I don't know.

edit: and AD, if that's all you're worried about, then how about we roll security back to the mid 80's level where all carry on's were x-rayed, everyone went through a metal detector, and non-flyers could meet and say goodbye at the gate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

edit: and AD, if that's all you're worried about, then how about we roll security back to the mid 80's level where all carry on's were x-rayed, everyone went through a metal detector, and non-flyers could meet and say goodbye at the gate?

---

That isn't all I'm worried about, but my point is, just because you can't thwart every potential security breach doesn't mean you should just give up on the ones you can thwart.