Originally Posted by
DenverBrian
You lost me here. A team of suicidal bombers was on every 9/11 plane. In those cases, they were using the planes as their bombs; today, knowing they're thwarted in that aspect of terrorism and also knowing that these liquid/plastique explosives are notoriously hard to get to go "boom" in a plane, I can easily imagine a team of suicidal bombers on a single plane.
While the FAMs are busy with decoy #1, his two partners in coach work up the real bombs.
Or...if bomber #1's bomb doesn't work just right, bombers #2 and #3 are backup.
To not be able to imagine scenarios and work to plug them is about as stupid as stupid can be.
People get lost and/or claim to have been lost when they willfully confuse themselves and/or others by mixing up things, as done above.
"Suicidal bomber as passenger" is distinct from suicidal hijacker(s) (such as those that were on the 9/11 planes). Those smart enough to have mental clarity shouldn't be lost. The "underwear bombing" and "shoe bombing" attempts are a different kind of approach to creating mayhem than a 9/11 kind of attack and as such they should not be confused for one another.
Stupid confusing of phrases and imagination run amok -- which is about as stupid as stupid can be -- lead to these kind of ridiculous "security" reactions that are not intelligently plugging anything.
FAMs have no effective way to preventing suicidal bombers from lighting up on planes, yet the response to suicidal bombers as passengers attempting their thing is to ramp up the FAMS -- that is a stupid response too. [FAMs are a somewhat more effective way to preventing hijackers from commandeering a plane but FAMs may also be tools for hijackers to commandeer a plane.]
Originally Posted by
LuvAirFrance
Trivial point, but I read somewhere it was a pipe not a cigarette.
From attempted shoe bombing --> no attempted shoe bomb --> no shoe bomb
From threat --> threatening joke --> joke --> serious comment challenging stupidity of accusation and questioning the accusers' ability to properly apply judgment
From cigarette --> pipe --> pipe tobacco
From sparking up a flame to smoke on this plane --> no sparking up a flame to smoke on the plane?
These differences aren't trivial.