![]() |
Shoe bombs with no way to light them
If there are no more lighters on pax with which to ignite the bombs we are hiding in our shoes, why are we still having to remove our shoes? Is that because DHS is concerned that we can still light the fuses in our shoe bombs with the four books of matches that we carry on board?
And if they are concerned that we are hiding bombs that don't need to have a lighted fuse to make them go "boom", hence requiring the continuing shoe carnival, then why bother with banning all lighters? Or is continuing the shoe carnival an silent admission by the TSA that they know they are not keeping all lighters off planes? Or does the carnival still exist because of the plethora of non-bomb weapons that are found hidden in shoes? :confused: It's just stupidity on top of stupidity on top of stupidty. |
Originally Posted by red456
If there are no more lighters on pax with which to ignite the bombs we are hiding in our shoes, why are we still having to remove our shoes?
|
Don't forget, it makes the sheeple feel "safer" ...
|
And terrorists can still light a shoe bomb with matches. :rolleyes:
|
Who uses lighters or matches which are so 19th and 20th century? Bombs with flaming/smoking fuses are so Bugs Bunny. Sophisticated and stylish modern terrorists use electronic ignitors/detonators for their explosives. :)
Such detonators may be contstructed prior to deployment and concealed in ordinary electronics or constructed in the field from common and unsuspicious articles such as 9V or laptop batteries and low-resistance wire. |
Originally Posted by studentff
Who uses lighters or matches which are so 19th and 20th century? Bombs with flaming/smoking fuses are so Bugs Bunny. Sophisticated and stylish modern terrorists use electronic ignitors/detonators for their explosives. :)
Such detonators may be contstructed prior to deployment and concealed in ordinary electronics or constructed in the field from common and unsuspicious articles such as 9V or laptop batteries and low-resistance wire. |
We're dealing with two beasts here ... the idiots in Congress, who decided lighters were dangerous, and the idiots at TSA HQ, who feel shoes are dangerous. And the third factor, too: the TSA admin who felt they had better go ahead and ban all lighters to avoid confusion over which Congress allowed and which they denied. All idiots, of course, but different idiots nonetheless.
|
Originally Posted by studentff
Who uses lighters or matches which are so 19th and 20th century? Bombs with flaming/smoking fuses are so Bugs Bunny. Sophisticated and stylish modern terrorists use electronic ignitors/detonators for their explosives. :)
|
Everyone needs to remember that the lighter ban reallly has nothing to do with "security". It is the pet legislation of 2 Senators who's agenda is anti-tobacco and they figured it was just one more way to inconvenience those of us who smoke. :mad:
|
Originally Posted by studentff
Who uses lighters or matches which are so 19th and 20th century? Bombs with flaming/smoking fuses are so Bugs Bunny. Sophisticated and stylish modern terrorists use electronic ignitors/detonators for their explosives. :)
Such detonators may be contstructed prior to deployment and concealed in ordinary electronics or constructed in the field from common and unsuspicious articles such as 9V or laptop batteries and low-resistance wire. ... except the fuses never work for Wile E. Coyote until after the Roadrunner has gone by and Wile E. picks up the bomb to see what went wrong... :D Who needs matches? I prefer the magnifying glass and sunlight method myself... |
My favorite Onion article of all time: FAA Considering Passenger Ban
Seeking to address "the number-one threat to airline security," the Federal Aviation Administration announced Monday that it will consider banning passengers on all domestic and international commercial flights. "In every single breach of security in recent years, whether it was an act of terrorism or some other form of crime, it was a passenger who subverted the safety systems on board the aircraft or in the terminal," FAA administrator Marion Blakey said. "Even threats that came in the form of explosives inside baggage were eventually traced back to a ticketed individual. As great a revenue source as they have been, passengers simply represent too great a risk to the airline industry." |
Originally Posted by exerda
the idiots at TSA HQ, who feel shoes are dangerous.
And the third factor, too: the TSA admin who felt they had better go ahead and ban all lighters to avoid confusion over which Congress allowed and which they denied. All idiots, of course, but different idiots nonetheless. |
Originally Posted by amarain
My favorite Onion article of all time: FAA Considering Passenger Ban
Seeking to address "the number-one threat to airline security," the Federal Aviation Administration announced Monday that it will consider banning passengers on all domestic and international commercial flights. "In every single breach of security in recent years, whether it was an act of terrorism or some other form of crime, it was a passenger who subverted the safety systems on board the aircraft or in the terminal," FAA administrator Marion Blakey said. "Even threats that came in the form of explosives inside baggage were eventually traced back to a ticketed individual. As great a revenue source as they have been, passengers simply represent too great a risk to the airline industry." It's not the weapons, bombs, cuticle shears, shoes or knitting needles per se that are causing the problem. Let those items remain on the planes. We need to quit focusing on "things" and go after the real root cause of terrorism. People. Ban them from all flights and the problem is solved. This is a plain, simple and straight-forward solution that has been under our nose all the time. And it took The Onion to point it out. |
well
The higher ups will tell you that it is a "layered response." The old swiss cheese debate that was present a few weeks back. IF you take a piece of swiss cheese and put another one on top of the first one, the holes (security leaks) dont line up and the more "slices" you add the more holes you plug. So if a shoe bomb is a threat, the shoes are screened, (one layer of cheese.) Then ignition sources are removed (another layer of cheese) in the hopes that if you miss one threat, the other is found. I know it sounds cheesy! Sorry I couldnt refuse. :D
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
The higher ups will tell you that it is a "layered response." The old swiss cheese debate that was present a few weeks back. IF you take a piece of swiss cheese and put another one on top of the first one, the holes (security leaks) dont line up and the more "slices" you add the more holes you plug. So if a shoe bomb is a threat, the shoes are screened, (one layer of cheese.) Then ignition sources are removed (another layer of cheese) in the hopes that if you miss one threat, the other is found. I know it sounds cheesy! Sorry I couldnt refuse. :D
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:08 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.