That wasn’t the relevant point. He was addressing the claim that the advertisements in other cities were not on infrastructure like they were in Boston, to explain why Boston freaked out and the other cities didn’t. And that’s false.
The relevant point was the listed locations of the advertisements, which is the exact same kinds of places that the advertisements in Boston were placed at.
Because the transit crew told the cops, and the cops investigated. And, unlike Boston, the cops in Seattle recognized the advertisements as harmless.
You’re not making the Boston authorities look any better here, by constantly pointing out that no other authority in these other cities did not issue a mass bomb alert upon encountering these things. In other words, EVERYONE but Boston’s “experts” were right, and Boston was wrong.
How does this speak to the expertise of the Boston authorities again?
Whether or not it’s a bomb hoax is a matter for the courts to decide, now that charges have been filed. I wouldn’t have used the term myself, but I make allowances for the fact that the mayor was pissed and kind of ranting. But at this point we’re reduced to quibbling about the imprecision of a famously inarticulate mayor’s language.
This is a very salient point, I would like to hear Sal address it. Either the other bombs squads are incompetent and endangered the public through their inaction, or Boston demonstrated hysterical paranoia. Which is it Sal?
Bullshit. It wasn’t a bomb hoax. A child of six could see that. There isn’t a chance in a million any judge with more than two functioning brain cells is going to rule that it was a bomb hoax. If he does, then he is simply wrong.
Well at least my posting got some responses.
Yes, you’re right folks. Something like a remote bomb trigger is a mechanism of such infinite complexity that it would be beyond the scope of mere mortals even to imagine such a contrivance. :rolleyes:
Well it seems another hot topic in this debate is whether the 2 clowns who planted the “LiteBrites” are guilty of anything. Some “Dopers” have brought up the question of intent. I’ll re-post a link from a few pages back. Stolen traffic signs.
Oh I’m sure some Dopers will say it’s an unwarranted comparison. But heck - what do you folks think? Does the ‘stolen traffic sign’ incident have any similarity to what occurred with the “LiteBrites” bomb scare? I think it does.
I agree that it’s unlikely, but as I said, not impossible. Imagine the following scenario: suppose it comes out in court that one of the device-planters made jokes to his friends beforehand about the devices being taken for bombs. At that point the fellow will be a lot hotter water than he is in presently.
Elucidate? I’ve spent eight pages elucidating. I don’t know what you mean by “bomb squad inaction.” They acted, and I think properly. And there was no hysterical paranoia in Boston.
They found two (fake) pipe bombs, just after 1pm. They looked nothing lie what you posted. I’m not sure what “more” you think I’m talking about.
As the moon bombs were being dealt with, the pipes were found. One in a hospital, and one on a major bridge. Is it really hard to see that if there was a general feeling of panic already, the new discoveries would heighten the tension?
I don’t think there’s any comparison at all, any more than there would be if a person forgot their lunchbox in a crowded park and the bomb squad evacuated the park thinking it was an explosive.
There were no deaths in Boston as a result of this, nor did any of the advertisements cover, replace, or otherwise involve the removal or concealment of street signs.
That’s not what people said in response to your post. No one claimed that sucha scheme would be impossible, they just pointed out that it would be stupid. It’s needlessly complicated, doesn’t give you any advantage over a conventional explosive device, and increases the odds of the device either being found before detonation, or malfunctioning and not going off at all.
Well, for one thing, stealing traffic signs would be theft, so you’ve got an actual crime there to charge them with. Further, removing traffic signs has the rather obvious outcome of people not obeying the sign (because it’s not there anymore) and getting into an accident (which is why the sign was there in the first place.) I don’t think that “massive bomb scare that shuts down the entire city” is an obvious outcome from “putting up lighted signs.” And the fact that, in all of the cities where these signs were placed, only one of them had a massive bomb scare would seem to bear that out.
So, no, I don’t think there are very many parrallels between the two cases.
You’ve spent a good part of your posts accusing other posters of presuming to know more than professional bomb squads. Now that we have two widely different responses by bomb squads in several cities to the same devices, it is entirely reasonable to be curious about which response you find appropriate, and what you think of the professionalism in those bomb squads that didn’t react like Boston’s. Now it is apparent you find answering that would expose the weakness of your argument, and so you are taking the fifth. So be it, but let’s hear no more about “you guys think you’re better than the bomb squad”, 'kay?
Fear Itself, I misread your previous post – twice, even. I finally figured out what you are getting at. And my answer is, the situations were different. From the Boston Globe: “In six of the nine other cities where the Turner Broadcasting System guerrilla ads were installed, they were not placed on or near major highways, bridges, or transit hubs, as they were in Boston. Law enforcement officials in other cities and in Boston said yesterday that the difference helps to explain the vastly different responses.”
Moreover, police departments in other cities agreed with the actions taken in Boston. From Atlanta: “I think Boston reacted the way they did because someone noticed the devices and rightly thought that they might be dangerous,” Atlanta Police spokesman Joe Cobb said in a telephone interview. “I would think that we would have reacted similarly.”
From Chicago: “Just by the appearance of the wires and the lights, it’s enough to alarm someone into thinking that it could possibly be an explosive device,” said Chicago police spokeswoman Monique Bond…"
In short, the circumstances were different, and I’m sure sheer chance played a role.
Speaking of the two clowns who did the device-planting and then smirked their way through their court appearance and “press conference”, some more info is emerging:
And as a by-the-way, this is one of those instances where my use of the “edit” function has screwed up the space-time continuum, as astute observers will note. I do apologize. And no, there’s no money in it for anyone.
