NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/21/2007-09-21_mit_student_arrested_at_logan_airport_wi.html

MIT student arrested at Logan airport with fake bomb
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Friday, September 21st 2007, 10:57 AM


A sophomore at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was surrounded by troopers carrying submachine guns and arrested after showing up at Boston's Logan Airport wearing a phony bomb, made partly from Play-Doh, strapped to her chest.

"She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," State Police Maj. Scott Pare told a reporter. "And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

Star Simpson, a nineteen-year-old from Hawaii, cobbled together a computer circuit board, wires, and the Play-Doh into a contraption that she wore in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt, Pare said.

"In this day and age, the threat continues to be there," he said. "She certainly jeopardized her own safety by bringing this to the airport, as well as the safety of everybody around her."

Simpson was allegedly at the airport to pick someone up. No motive for the fake bomb has been determined.

Simpson was arrested around 8 a.m. at Logan International Airport's Terminal C, home to United Airlines and JetBlue, and was charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a hoax device. She was scheduled to be arraigned later today.Sometimes, people try to pull pranks that lead others into believing that there's an actual emergency. I'm beginning to believe that they just value their own amusement above the safety and peace-of-mind of the people around them. There are probably a plethora of pranks where the same sentinemt applies; this one just happens to get media attention because it's peripherally terrorism-related.

What series of thoughts led Ms. Simpson to believe that this even remotely resembled a Good Idea? This was a foolhardy thing to do even before the September 11 attacks. Nowadays, the Police Major is right: she's lucky she's not dead. Even worse, imagine her poor parents coming in to the morgue to identify her body because the cops thought she was wearing a bomb and shot her because she hesitated or panicked in response to police orders. Can you imagine that conversation?

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

We're all lucky, because if she had been shot because she hesitated it would've started up yet another damned argument on NationStates about how all police officers are power-hungry abusing maniacal murderers, which many of us are getting really tired of seeing.

At least she's okay...but still...for life's sake, she was an MIT student!

There's pranks, and there's suicide by cop pranks. This is the latter. I doubt even LG would do something that crazy.

There's pranks, and there's suicide by cop pranks. This is the latter. I doubt even LG would do something that crazy.

Never be to sure.

There's pranks, and there's suicide by cop pranks. This is the latter. I doubt even LG would do something that crazy.

The fake bomb didn't even squirt people or anything? No ransom note demanding peanut butter cups delivered by naked cop courier?

No. If I'm going to risk my life for a prank, it's gotta at least be funny. :p

It seems that if someone were to bring a bomb in, they'd made it you know... not so damn obvious. But that's just me...

Never be to sure.

His wife (a cop) hasn't shot him yet right?

The fake bomb didn't even squirt people or anything? No ransom note demanding peanut butter cups delivered by naked cop courier?

No. If I'm going to risk my life for a prank, it's gotta at least be funny. :p

LG, for a clown's way to go, that's just downright disappointing. I expect you to traumatize hundreds if not thousands of people with your final prank. A squirting fake bomb and silly ransom note? That's just kindergarten clowning.

I find your lack of clownery....disturbing.

you are never too smart to do something stupid.


here she is, an mit student. which means she is damned smart.

and there she was with a fake bomb strapped to her body. which is a damned stupid thing to do.

its a good thing to keep in mind that no matter how smart and sophisticated we think we are, we can still be morons.

LG, for a clown's way to go, that's just downright disappointing. I expect you to traumatize hundreds if not thousands of people with your final prank. A squirting fake bomb and silly ransom note? That's just kindergarten clowning.

I find your lack of clownery....disturbing.

I was critiquing her lack of even a most basic attempt, and not exampling mine.

We both know I'd go out in style. :)

It should be pointed out that this is the female encroaching into areas of stupidity previously considered the sole preserve of men.

At least she's okay...but still...for life's sake, she was an MIT student! an proof that wisdom and intelligence are seperate values.

His wife (a cop) hasn't shot him yet right? but we really don't know what goes on in their bedroom...


and frankly, I don't want to know.

It should be pointed out that this is the female encroaching into areas of stupidity previously considered the sole preserve of men.

Feminism has reached the next tier! It's a proud proud day! :)

A little internet research suggests that this girl's vest was not a "fake bomb" at all. She's apparently a robotics student and was wearing the vest earlier that day for a career fair as an example of "wearable technology." It sounds like she just didn't think about how non-MIT students would perceive it before she went to the airport.

Worst idea ever?

Pretty much, yeah.

A little internet research...

What the hell kind of NSGer are you?!? :mad:

I'm just wondering how a fake bomb can in any way be imagined to endanger the lives of the public... other than the wearer of course, who is liable to get shot by an over zealous police officer.

A little internet research suggests that this girl's vest was not a "fake bomb" at all. She's apparently a robotics student and was wearing the vest earlier that day for a career fair as an example of "wearable technology." It sounds like she just didn't think about how non-MIT students would perceive it before she went to the airport.
Now THAT would make a hell of a lot more sense. Poli, can you show us your research that points to this?

I'm just wondering how a fake bomb can in any way be imagined to endanger the lives of the public... other than the wearer of course, who is liable to get shot by an over zealous police officer.

I'm posting this because it is more relavent a response than you might think.

...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jIjS1fBMg

What the hell kind of NSGer are you?!? :mad:

Oops, sorry. I'll try again:

OMG she should be shot, along with all Christians/Muslims/atheists! Guns are either the best things ever or Satan in metal form! I hate/love the term "USian"! My friend's neighbor's aunt's boss's cousin once met a feminist who was a jerk/nice, which proves that feminism is evil/perfect in every way! And just to prove my point, here's a gratuitous LOLcat.


Better? :p

Oops, sorry. I'll try again:

OMG she should be shot, along with all Christians/Muslims/atheists! Guns are either the best things ever or Satan in metal form! I hate/love the term "USian"! My friend's neighbor's aunt's boss's cousin once met a feminist who was a jerk/nice, which proves that feminism is evil/perfect in every way! And just to prove my point, here's a gratuitous LOLcat.


Better? :p

It's a start. *mollified*

Now THAT would make a hell of a lot more sense. Poli, can you show us your research that points to this?
She was an MIT student? Either scenario is likely given that fact, but since there wasn't an explanation available automatically, I tend to believe Poli's makes the most sense because the MIT people making political points would have a card that had their point on it and would turn it over to the police, the press, and their second cousins.

What the hell kind of NSGer are you?!? :mad:God. She changed reality to suit her argument.

Now THAT would make a hell of a lot more sense. Poli, can you show us your research that points to this?

Her personal webpage no longer seems to be loading, but here's a blurb discussing some of the stuff on it: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/09/fake-bomber-has-an-mit-web-page.php. I can't find the article I read stating that she'd just come from career day (I probably could if I wasn't at work, but I can only spend so long goofing off before somebody notices :p ) - the AP article mentions that she was wearing the vest for career day, but gives no more information on the subject.

She was an MIT student? Either scenario is likely given that fact, but since there wasn't an explanation available automatically, I tend to believe Poli's makes the most sense because the MIT people making political points would have a card that had their point on it and would turn it over to the police, the press, and their second cousins.

She specified that research showed the scenario Poli outlined, therefore she can show us the research she did that pointed to this.

Her personal webpage no longer seems to be loading, but here's a blurb discussing some of the stuff on it: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/09/fake-bomber-has-an-mit-web-page.php. I can't find the article I read stating that she'd just come from career day (I probably could if I wasn't at work, but I can only spend so long goofing off before somebody notices :p ) - the AP article mentions that she was wearing the vest for career day, but gives no more information on the subject.

Ah, there we are. Thank you, Poli.

This is more than enough for me. My belief in the intelligence AND wisdom of MIT students is partially restored!

the police are stating she claimed it was "art".

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_us/fake_bomb

Her personal webpage no longer seems to be loading, but here's a blurb discussing some of the stuff on it: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/09/fake-bomber-has-an-mit-web-page.php. I can't find the article I read stating that she'd just come from career day (I probably could if I wasn't at work, but I can only spend so long goofing off before somebody notices :p ) - the AP article mentions that she was wearing the vest for career day, but gives no more information on the subject.

Is this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2-8Em1L5oDKpru3KXghmCB32tCw) the article you're talking about?

Star Simpson, 19, had a computer circuit board and wiring in plain view over a black hooded sweat shirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport.

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."

...

The battery-powered rectangular device had nine flashing lights, Pare said. Simpson also had Play-Doh in her hands, he said.

The phrases "Socket to me" and "Course VI" were written on the back of sweat shirt, which authorities displayed to the media. Course VI appears to be a reference to MIT's major of electrical engineering and computer science.

The phrases "Socket to me" and "Course VI" were written on the back of sweat shirt, which authorities displayed to the media. Course VI appears to be a reference to MIT's major of electrical engineering and computer science.
That totally proves she was a terrorist - trying to teach people about science and sockets :rolleyes:

That totally proves she was a terrorist - trying to teach people about science and sockets :rolleyes:

Oh, come on. Consider the situation:

A person walks in with what looks like some sort of electronics with something else--something possibly resembling plastic explosives--tied to their back, at an airport that had seen at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, in a place otherwise somewhat afraid of terrorism. I would be at the very least extremely suspicious.

And if it is a bomb, you can't let the person trigger it. You have to stop them immediately or else you'll have much more than one dead person. They handled the situation very well, in my opinion, as did she.

Oh, come on. Consider the situation:

A person walks in with what looks like some sort of electronics with something else--something possibly resembling plastic explosives--tied to their back, at an airport that had seen at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, in a place otherwise somewhat afraid of terrorism. I would be at the very least extremely suspicious.

And if it is a bomb, you can't let the person trigger it. You have to stop them immediately or else you'll have much more than one dead person. They handled the situation very well, in my opinion, as did she.I for one am just glad that the police were not engaging in the practice racial profiling. Equal rights are extremely important.
I'm taking a leap of faith that the girl was white. I can't actually check as my internet connection is has died and would probably lose a speed test to a 14k modem.

I for one am just glad that the police were not engaging in the practice racial profiling. Equal rights are extremely important.
I'm taking a leap of faith that the girl was white. I can't actually check as my internet connection is has died and would probably lose a speed test to a 14k modem.

I seriously doubt racial profiling would have mattered in this instance. It's one thing to be racist and check random people who look vaguely suspicious by having backpacks or suitcases in a particular fashion or something just because they're Hispanic or black.

It's another thing entirely to stop someone who has a visible electronics device with flashing lights strapped to their chest...I'd stop anyone like that no matter who they were.

Her name was Star Simpson, and she's a native of Hawaii...I'm going to guess that she's at least half Hawaiian.

Art? After the bomb scares over light bright aqua teen hunger force props I wouldn't even try this with an etchasketch taped to my chest.

I'm posting this because it is more relavent a response than you might think.

...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jIjS1fBMgAs I said in another (in white text), my internet connection is dying and in need of a triple heart bypass. But anyway, I just finished downloading and watching that clip.

Very funneh. I kept thinking of LG on plane that's falling out of the sky and has decided to play a prank - namely swaping people's oxygen mask supply of oxygen with laughing gas. If you're gonna go, you might as well have a smile on your face.

A little internet research suggests that this girl's vest was not a "fake bomb" at all. She's apparently a robotics student and was wearing the vest earlier that day for a career fair as an example of "wearable technology." It sounds like she just didn't think about how non-MIT students would perceive it before she went to the airport.

When I heard it on the news, she was carrying the Play-Doh and could not explain why she had it...

and it was assumed, I would think, to be plastic explosive.

I'm just wondering how a fake bomb can in any way be imagined to endanger the lives of the public... other than the wearer of course, who is liable to get shot by an over zealous police officer.

Bullets don't tend to magically stop when they miss the target -- others would have been endangered had the police fired.

I'd think a psych evaluation is in order -- she's obviously a few cards short of a full deck.

People overreact in such fear. Again, it didn't look anything like a bomb. A real bomb is a belt or something that doesn't have lights flashing and wires sticking out.

I'd think a psych evaluation is in order -- she's obviously a few cards short of a full deck.

If she had not made it for the sake of art and then simply didn't give it consideration as to how it might be perceived by others, I would agree.

In this case I don't because she obviously just didn't think about that. That doesn't warrant a psych evaluation. Some common sense and a lesson ingrained, yes, but not an evaluation since it's a perfectly normal type of thing to do, to not think about something like that.

Sel Appa: Yet to the untrained eye it would appear at the very least to be extremely suspicious, especially since your definition relies upon industrial standards. In this case, it would obviously have been a home cobbled device and as such would not be held to standards.

That would only apply to the wires bit though...the blinking lights certainly wouldn't be there unless it was part of an active timer.

People overreact in such fear. Again, it didn't look anything like a bomb. A real bomb is a belt or something that doesn't have lights flashing and wires sticking out.

wires sticking out?
http://www.gordon.army.mil/tsc/DEVICES/new%20devices/New%20Devices%20Browser/images/BOMB%20VEST.jpg

http://eyeball-series.org/bombs/suicide-bomb7.jpg

and flashing lights? some bombs are remote triggered. so a cell phone could be the flashing lights.
http://www.sftt.us/hl5t.jpg

Now granted it's an overreaction, but would you rather an over reaction like this (and thank god in this case, she complied and cooperated) or a lax security system that would allow one bomb to get through.

Art is a cover plot for a stupid prank that could have gotten her very, very, very dead. I kind of wish she would have been shot for being so overbearingly stupid. Some people are just really dense...

They should have tazed her for good measure.

"DON'T TAZE ME 'BRO !!!"

Art is a cover plot for a stupid prank that could have gotten her very, very, very dead. I kind of wish she would have been shot for being so overbearingly stupid. Some people are just really dense...

That's disgusting, plus you do realize if that had happened, this would've been held up as an example of police brutality...not to mention the sheer uproar it would cause, the emotional harm to her parents and friends...

No...if it WAS a prank, the lesson is learned more than enough by the experience she did go through. If not a prank--and I am willing to believe her on the art thing--then she learned a valuable lesson nevertheless.

They should have tazed her for good measure.

"DON'T TAZE ME 'BRO !!!"

Uh, no. Tazering is extremely painful and almost certainly overused as it is. I've been tazered as part of a demonstration of a tazer's capabilities...believe you me, that is NOT fun. Not at all. Far from it...it is excruciating.

Kyr, she's from MIT. MIT.

Even Paris Hilton understands the unwritten. "Don't Go To Airport With Large, Flashing, Bomb-Looking Thing In Your Hands" rule.

Kyr, she's from MIT. MIT.

Even Paris Hilton understands the unwritten. "Don't Go To Airport With Large, Flashing, Bomb-Looking Thing In Your Hands" rule.

I am aware of that. I can also see, however, how someone could put together something as art and then think nothing of the fact that it could possibly be mistaken as something else when one headed elsewhere.

Certainly, she needed a lesson in critical thinking about everything, and she received that in the form of this scare. The way I see it, she learned something and ultimately no one was hurt, and thus the incident was beneficial in the end.

Kyr, she's from MIT. MIT.

Even Paris Hilton understands the unwritten. "Don't Go To Airport With Large, Flashing, Bomb-Looking Thing In Your Hands" rule.

actually, you can't claim that. Paris Hilton didn't understand "Illegal to drive with a suspended Licence" :p

My first question when reading is was, was she high when she did this?

actually, you can't claim that. Paris Hilton didn't understand "Illegal to drive with a suspended Licence" :p

Paris didn't know she broke the law. Watch the courthouse footage. It was apparent by her facial expressions she didn't give a damn about the whole proceeding and was thinking about her little puppy or some other B-movie to star in. :P

While we're here, does anyone have any clue why a student from MIT, of all places, let alone a college student, didn't realize carrying a computer hardware board strapped to a battery and Play-Dough (D'oh!... :P) with flashing lights wasn't in the least bit suspicious?

I doubt that she thought about it and presumed it wasn't suspicious...what I suspect happened was that she just didn't think about it at all...the possibility didn't even cross her mind.

Uh, no. Tazering is extremely painful and almost certainly overused as it is. I've been tazered as part of a demonstration of a tazer's capabilities...believe you me, that is NOT fun. Not at all. Far from it...it is excruciating.

Not to mention send a jolt of 30000 or so volts through someone who might potentially be wearing plastic explosives is never a brilliant idea.

Not to mention send a jolt of 30000 or so volts through someone who might potentially be wearing plastic explosives is never a brilliant idea.

Indeed.

It seems that if someone were to bring a bomb in, they'd made it you know... not so damn obvious. But that's just me...

You'd count on anyone involved in on-the-beat security to make a distinction between a fake bomb and a real one? You are one brave, brave person.

Perhaps Star Simpson was thinking that same thought -- "of course it's art -- NObody wanting to actually set off a bomb to cause significant damage would wear it in such an obvious manner."

Security can't afford to think like that. The "art" excuse is one that I hope backfires on her. She should be charged with whatever nuisance statute covers such incredibly bad judgment. No artistic principle and no amount of expression should overcome the common sense of what NOT to appear to be doing in an airport, especially in the age of terrorism.

People overreact in such fear. Again, it didn't look anything like a bomb. A real bomb is a belt or something that doesn't have lights flashing and wires sticking out.

Again, security doesn't have the luxury of taking time to guess whether or not it's an art piece or a legitimate threat. When you're in security -- serious security like at airports -- all you THINK about are threats. It wasn't an overreaction. It was the right reaction.

Kyr, she's from MIT. MIT.

Even Paris Hilton understands the unwritten. "Don't Go To Airport With Large, Flashing, Bomb-Looking Thing In Your Hands" rule.

Uh...she didn't get "Must Not Drive Without License." But you're right about Star -- I can't get behind any assertion of ignorance on her part.

I doubt that she thought about it and presumed it wasn't suspicious...what I suspect happened was that she just didn't think about it at all...the possibility didn't even cross her mind.

I think it crossed her mind and she got the attention she wanted. Sometimes people, especially young smart people, decide to test the boundaries deliberately, just to "see what would happen". I cannot fathom someone meeting the entry requirements at MIT not knowing that airport security does NOT fuck around with jokes or anything like jokes -- even if she'd never been in an airport or flown before.

She now has a story she can tell her fauxhemian flatmates about. She should be charged.

When I heard it on the news, she was carrying the Play-Doh and could not explain why she had it...

and it was assumed, I would think, to be plastic explosive.



Bullets don't tend to magically stop when they miss the target -- others would have been endangered had the police fired.

I'd think a psych evaluation is in order -- she's obviously a few cards short of a full deck.

The same news, of course, that is calling it a fake bomb. Maybe people need to get something in their head - just because it has electronics, it is not a fake bomb.

In this case, it was a homemade name badge. She did not, as the media were claiming, refuse to answer questions. She answered that it was art - which it was. She was wearing it basically permanently, wherever she happened to be going.

Finally, the play-dough thing. I often carry around something to fiddle with - a few legos, some blu-tac, etc. It's useful when you're trying to think. It's quite possible she simply hadn't thought about it.

Those calling for her shooting or tasering. What the hell? You really think that we should randomly shoot anyone considered to be suspicious? She was asked to explain what she was wearing, she answered, she went out of the airport, and was arrested outside. It was determined she was not a threat.

Why should we shoot somebody known not to be a threat? Why should we charge them? For a hoax bomb to be one, they must be claiming it's a bomb. Ditto with a fake bomb.

A better news headline would be 'MIT student arrested at Logan airport with electronic name-badge'. On the other hand, that would miss out on most of the random terrorist accusations: 'arrested with fake bomb strapped to her body' sounds a whole lot scarier than 'arrested with electric name badge on their hoody', and makes the police reaction seem a little more accurate - namely, way over. Especially such comments as 'she's lucky she isn't dead' and 'this is an example of the threat we all face after 9/11'.

Paris didn't know she broke the law. Watch the courthouse footage. It was apparent by her facial expressions she didn't give a damn about the whole proceeding and was thinking about her little puppy or some other B-movie to star in. :P

While we're here, does anyone have any clue why a student from MIT, of all places, let alone a college student, didn't realize carrying a computer hardware board strapped to a battery and Play-Dough (D'oh!... :P) with flashing lights wasn't in the least bit suspicious?

Either she needs that psych evaluation or she thought she'd get away with this prank by playing stupid-innocent.

even if she'd never been in an airport or flown before.

She lived in Hawaii. Unless she took a slow boat, I'm pretty sure she's negotiated airports before.

She IS lucky she isn't dead. And as for complaining about overreaction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

I know she is lucky she isn't dead, and I know about the case in London.

I consider London a colossal overreaction, and I don't think that 'she's not dead, so what is she complaining for' is a valid comment.

She is an American citizen. She should not be treated this way, and the police should have some sense as to an appropriate reaction. I can almost stay with them even up to responding with armed officers. I can't after that. The device was not a hoax or fake bomb, and was not intended to cause harm or alarm. Therefore no charges should be made.

The same news, of course, that is calling it a fake bomb. Maybe people need to get something in their head - just because it has electronics, it is not a fake bomb.

In this case, it was a homemade name badge. She did not, as the media were claiming, refuse to answer questions. She answered that it was art - which it was. She was wearing it basically permanently, wherever she happened to be going.

Finally, the play-dough thing. I often carry around something to fiddle with - a few legos, some blu-tac, etc. It's useful when you're trying to think. It's quite possible she simply hadn't thought about it.

Those calling for her shooting or tasering. What the hell? You really think that we should randomly shoot anyone considered to be suspicious? She was asked to explain what she was wearing, she answered, she went out of the airport, and was arrested outside. It was determined she was not a threat.

Why should we shoot somebody known not to be a threat? Why should we charge them? For a hoax bomb to be one, they must be claiming it's a bomb. Ditto with a fake bomb.

A better news headline would be 'MIT student arrested at Logan airport with electronic name-badge'. On the other hand, that would miss out on most of the random terrorist accusations: 'arrested with fake bomb strapped to her body' sounds a whole lot scarier than 'arrested with electric name badge on their hoody', and makes the police reaction seem a little more accurate - namely, way over. Especially such comments as 'she's lucky she isn't dead' and 'this is an example of the threat we all face after 9/11'.

She IS lucky she isn't dead. And as for complaining about overreaction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

*snip*

I hope they throw the book at this moron.

http://alex.halavais.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/mooninite.jpg

OMFG!!!1!!! bom!!!!!!

seriously, her 'bomb' looks not at all like a bomb in the slightest.

http://alex.halavais.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/mooninite.jpg

OMFG!!!1!!! bom!!!!!!

seriously, her 'bomb' looks not at all like a bomb in the slightest.

Except, that's not what she was wearing.

Paris didn't know she broke the law. Watch the courthouse footage. It was apparent by her facial expressions she didn't give a damn about the whole proceeding and was thinking about her little puppy or some other B-movie to star in. :PLet's not get into the whole "what Paris Hilton doesn't know" thing. that would produce a thread in the hundred thousand post count... :p

While we're here, does anyone have any clue why a student from MIT, of all places, let alone a college student, didn't realize carrying a computer hardware board strapped to a battery and Play-Dough (D'oh!... :P) with flashing lights wasn't in the least bit suspicious?... a brain/body disconnect?

She is an American citizen. She should not be treated this way, and the police should have some sense as to an appropriate reaction. I can almost stay with them even up to responding with armed officers. I can't after that. The device was not a hoax or fake bomb, and was not intended to cause harm or alarm. Therefore no charges should be made. and how was she treated?
how do we know it's not a hoax? by what she said?
now I will admit that her cooperation should be taken into account, and ws to say what actually will happen when the trial hits. but at least her case will be taken to trial and not discussed at her funeral.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/21/2007-09-21_mit_student_arrested_at_logan_airport_wi.html

Sometimes, people try to pull pranks that lead others into believing that there's an actual emergency. I'm beginning to believe that they just value their own amusement above the safety and peace-of-mind of the people around them. There are probably a plethora of pranks where the same sentinemt applies; this one just happens to get media attention because it's peripherally terrorism-related.

What series of thoughts led Ms. Simpson to believe that this even remotely resembled a Good Idea? This was a foolhardy thing to do even before the September 11 attacks. Nowadays, the Police Major is right: she's lucky she's not dead. Even worse, imagine her poor parents coming in to the morgue to identify her body because the cops thought she was wearing a bomb and shot her because she hesitated or panicked in response to police orders. Can you imagine that conversation?

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Great. That was stupid. And this will annoy millions, as Logan will probably tighten their security even more. I'll probably never be able to go on vacation without driving up to Manchester.

The same news, of course, that is calling it a fake bomb. Maybe people need to get something in their head - just because it has electronics, it is not a fake bomb.

In this case, it was a homemade name badge. She did not, as the media were claiming, refuse to answer questions. She answered that it was art - which it was. She was wearing it basically permanently, wherever she happened to be going.

*snip*

Those calling for her shooting or tasering. What the hell? You really think that we should randomly shoot anyone considered to be suspicious? She was asked to explain what she was wearing, she answered, she went out of the airport, and was arrested outside. It was determined she was not a threat.

Why should we shoot somebody known not to be a threat? Why should we charge them? For a hoax bomb to be one, they must be claiming it's a bomb. Ditto with a fake bomb.

*snip*


I don't know how many times this must be said, but this will be the last time for me. Do you HONESTLY think that EVERYone who wishes to detonate a bomb in an airport is going to yell out "I HAVE A BOMB"? The point is that security doesn't have the time to sit there and hash out whether or not the thing with wires and lights and Play-Doh is a fake or not. You say "known not to be a threat" -- how, exactly, can that be known before security gets there? If security is notified by some Joe Citizen who is NOT a bomb afficionado, they MIGHT just alert security by saying something like "holy shit, IS THAT A BOMB?!?"

The airport, and airport security especially have signs up that even SAY, effectively, "no jokes, we mean it". She's from Hawaii, she's been on at least one plane and therefore through at least two airports. Ignorance -- even that spectacular -- is no excuse.

Not to get unnecessarily paranoid, but doesn't "It's Art" then become a viable subterfuge for a real bomb? Shit, all they have to do it make it look fake, right? So then everyone can say "oh, look, it's another piece of art like back in Septem-*BOOM!* I'll say it one more time -- airport security cannot fuck around if there's even a remote possibility of that damned thing being real. It's NOT a place to mess around in, and she should have known that.

And NOBODY is calling for her shooting or tasering. They've said "she's lucky she WASN'T...". They've also said that it's fortunate that she reacted calmly and explained herself instead of getting all First Amendment on the guys with the guns. I am a complete supporter and defender of the right to free speech and expression, but there are exceptions to that law. If "shouting fire in a crowded theater" when there's no fire counts, then so does this. It is not art to generate false suspicion of terrorist activity in an airport. It's incredibly foolish.

Either she needs that psych evaluation or she thought she'd get away with this prank by playing stupid-innocent.

She lived in Hawaii. Unless she took a slow boat, I'm pretty sure she's negotiated airports before.

That's why I said "even if"...just in case she hadn't been, but I figured she'd been on at least one flight.

I haven't seen any video of the woman, so I can't discern what she might or might not have been thinking, but if she's been through at least two airports (as her presence in Massachusetts and her prior residence in Hawaii would indicate), then she knows better. She should be charged.

Except, that's not what she was wearing.

yeah, hers is even less bomb-like. if it hadn't been for the visible 9 volt battery, nobody would even have looked twice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/09/22/amd_simpson_sweatshirt.jpg

Do you HONESTLY think that EVERYone who wishes to detonate a bomb in an airport is going to yell out "I HAVE A BOMB"?

i honestly think that functionally nobody wishes to detonate any bombs in the united states, given the ease of building them and the ridiculous ease of hitting extremely crowded places without any danger of being stopped. since it essentially never happens, i think we can scale back the paranoia just a little bit.

i honestly think that functionally nobody wishes to detonate any bombs in the united states, given the ease of building them and the ridiculous ease of hitting extremely crowded places without any danger of being stopped. since it essentially never happens, i think we can scale back the paranoia just a little bit.

And then when it happens, you will be the first one complaining about a lack of security.

yeah, hers is even less bomb-like. if it hadn't been for the visible 9 volt battery, nobody would even have looked twice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/09/22/amd_simpson_sweatshirt.jpg

also missing the play-doh that was on there.

Can anyone explain to me why airport security always tightens up after "successes"?

I mean, one would imagine that if threats of any kind are being averted, then it's not necessary to increase security.

I do muchly prefer the European airports. I remember bringing a teddybear that happened to have some electronics inside of it that would make it purr. Obviously that showed up on the way through security and they asked me about it. So I showed it to them and they all had a good laugh and I continued on my way.

I'm willing to bet that in the US (or maybe even the UK), they wouldn't laugh at something as silly as a laughing teddybear.

This is even less of a threat, as it's not a functional electronic device.

And then when it happens, you will be the first one complaining about a lack of security.

highly doubtful. you still haven't figured out what i am like after all this time corny?

listen, the only way to for sure stop anybody from ever, for example, setting off a bomb in a shopping mall or on a bus or on the subway or at mt rushmore is going to require such a massive overwhelming surveillance and police state that it'll make stalin look like an upstanding member of the aclu. the reason that we aren't treated to a constant string of bombings at any of our various public places is that we lack bombers*

*excepting our mainly incompetent nazi fuckheads. and goddamn are we lucky that they are incompetent boobs, since they also appear to have access to all sorts of scary scary shit. we've shifted resources away from watching them to watch the boogey man instead and so its only been the combination of sheer luck and nazi-stupid that has prevented a couple of major chemical weapons attacks

also missing the play-doh that was on there.

it wasn't actually on the do-it-yourself lite-brite on her hoodie. and i gots a dollar says it was blue and looked, basically, a hell of a lot like a lump of play-doh.

seriously people, we as a culture need to calm the fuck down.

Can anyone explain to me why airport security always tightens up after "successes"? it's not tightened, but security would be scrutinized whether a reported failure or success. so it's not that security is tightened, but it spotlighted.

I mean, one would imagine that if threats of any kind are being averted, then it's not necessary to increase security. if a threat is averted, then that means the threat is still present.

I do muchly prefer the European airports. I remember bringing a teddybear that happened to have some electronics inside of it that would make it purr. Obviously that showed up on the way through security and they asked me about it. So I showed it to them and they all had a good laugh and I continued on my way. and I had to turn on my laptop/MP3 player/Diskman/Shaver/etc to prove it's not a cleverly disguised bomb or other contraband.

I'm willing to bet that in the US (or maybe even the UK), they wouldn't laugh at something as silly as a laughing teddybear. I wouldn't make that bet. you'ld loose.

This is even less of a threat, as it's not a functional electronic device.then why the lights and batteries.

guess it was a functional electronic device. (granted the function was fashion)

listen, the only way to for sure stop anybody from ever, for example, setting off a bomb in a shopping mall or on a bus or on the subway or at mt rushmore is going to require such a massive overwhelming surveillance and police state

I stopped reading after this point for one does not need a police. Surveillance yes. I do not mind cameras on every corner of every street. It is not an invasion of privacy as you are out in public.

it wasn't actually on the do-it-yourself lite-brite on her hoodie. and i gots a dollar says it was blue and looked, basically, a hell of a lot like a lump of play-doh.

seriously people, we as a culture need to calm the fuck down. we are calm. if you notice, she wasn't shot on sight.

it's not tightened, but security would be scrutinized whether a reported failure or success. so it's not that security is tightened, but it spotlighted.[quote]

Actually, last I checked, liquids aren't permitted. Despite liquids rarely having been used and the few times they have, they were thwarted.

If that's not tightened, I dunno what is.

[quote]if a threat is averted, then that means the threat is still present.

It also means current security has adequate means and doesn't need more, but less of an ability to avert similar threats, for the sake of ease, convenience and freedom.

and I had to turn on my laptop/MP3 player/Diskman/Shaver/etc to prove it's not a cleverly disguised bomb or other contraband.

I've never had to do that. I feel sorry for you.

I wouldn't make that bet. you'ld loose.

Oh really?

I suppose I can take a teddybear that has electronics inside of it through US security then.

then why the lights and batteries.

guess it was a functional electronic device. (granted the function was fashion)

Flashing lights =/= bomb. I could actually understand that they were sceptical of my teddybear, considering the device looked like a tube inside of the teddybear. However, here it was plain as day that this was not a bomb and the security at that airport need a crash course in distinguishing bombs from simple light circuits.

yeah, hers is even less bomb-like. if it hadn't been for the visible 9 volt battery, nobody would even have looked twice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/09/22/amd_simpson_sweatshirt.jpg
lmfao. Bomb my ass. It's a broke ass breadboard, a 9 volt, and some masking tape. My flash drive better qualifies as a bomb.

I stopped reading after this point for one does not need a police. Surveillance yes. I do not mind cameras on every corner of every street. It is not an invasion of privacy as you are out in public.

cameras on the street corners won't be able to stop dedicated bombers. you'd need the cameras in everyone's homes and garages, and you'd need people keeping track of every move everyone makes, every item they buy, their psychological profiles, who they hang out with, etc. and even then, you'd need security screening like they have at airports everywhere, checkpoints on the roads, etc. otherwise there are just too many opportunities - things that go boom are too easy to make from all sorts of materials and open targets are a dime a bajillion.

you either need a super-police state (and if we start really heading towards that, count me among the armed resistance) or you need to work on making as few people want to blow shit up as possible. the second choice doesn't even seem to require all that much work, given how few people want to do so now despite our decades of atrocious national behavior and our injustices.

lmfao. Bomb my ass. It's a broke ass breadboard, a 9 volt, and some masking tape. My flash drive better qualifies as a bomb.

*tackles you and shoots you in the head*
he had a flash drive - sounds explosive to me!

Flashing lights =/= bomb. I could actually understand that they were sceptical of my teddybear, considering the device looked like a tube inside of the teddybear. However, here it was plain as day that this was not a bomb and the security at that airport need a crash course in distinguishing bombs from simple light circuits.

What does a bomb look like?

Actually, last I checked, liquids aren't permitted. Despite liquids rarely having been used and the few times they have, they were thwarted. actually that is not a success, but finding a plan that utilized a different sort of explosive compound. remember the person hiding explosives in his shoe?

and check again. those restrictions have been changed.

It also means current security has adequate means and doesn't need more, but less of an ability to avert similar threats, for the sake of ease, convenience and freedom. we caught one Burgler so families can now leave their doors unlocked and their possessions out.

sorry, but as long as people pull stunts like this, it keeps the need for such hightened security in mind. you want less security that would inconvience you? then convince the fuckers out there to think before they act.

When Maria Moncayo, who worked at the information counter, asked Simpson what the device was, she walked away without responding, according to the police report. Moncayo then called police.

now, if it was an art statement, why didn't she tell the information person what it was?


I've never had to do that. I feel sorry for you. I wasn't inconvienced. infact, some of the guards and nearby passengers were impressed by my diskman sized DVD player.


Oh really?

I suppose I can take a teddybear that has electronics inside of it through US security then. gee... my neice walked through with a Tickle Me Elmo. that would have more electronics than your laughing teddybear. of course they had to activate it to show what it was, but she still went in.

Flashing lights =/= bomb. I could actually understand that they were sceptical of my teddybear, considering the device looked like a tube inside of the teddybear. However, here it was plain as day that this was not a bomb and the security at that airport need a crash course in distinguishing bombs from simple light circuits.
you did not say bomb. you said it wasn't a 'functional electronic device'.

What does a bomb look like?

Well, apparently they don't have circuit boards, or wires, or anything that looks like clay. And they aren't wired into clothing, either, and no one would try to bring one into a public place.

*tackles you and shoots you in the head*
he had a flash drive - sounds explosive to me!

*examines flash drive*

it's worse than that... there's Brittny's VH1 performance on there as well as many of her songs in MP3 format.

he was obviously suicidal. :p

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html

Here, have a less biased source.

Anyway.

Pictures of the device have already been posted. If a bomb squad officer thinks that is a bomb, they should be sacked. As others have said, that's a cheap breadboard, a 9v battery, and some LEDs.

People upthread have called for her shooting and tasering - posts #40 and #39, iirc.

Security were notified and responded - fine, that's good. Having then worked out what it was, and that it was not in any way a bomb or a fake bomb, they should have then said 'sorry' and let her go. Not thrown her in the cells, demanded $5000 bail, and announced the intention to charge her with making a hoax bomb, which the device was not.

A bomb needs some sort of pressure vessel. This had none. That's enough of a hint.

There was no play-doh on the device, although she was apparently holding some.

Finally, I thought that we had this little thing in America called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Meaning that until it is proven she was aiming to cause a panic and make a hoax bomb, it is accepted that she was not.

Just because something happens, does not mean it was a targeted prank, that it was intended to make fools of airport security, or anything of the sort. My money is on it being an absent-minded tech student who forgot to take it off, not someone deliberately wearing it to prank the airport.

What strikes me about some of the police comments is that they are weighted to make people think she had a fake bomb - 'had she tried to hide the explosive' would be a good example. The disconnect from reality continues in other comments, for instance, that this is 'a reminder of the terrorism threat confronting the civil aviation system'. As it wasn't a terrorist attack, how can it be a part of the threat?

And for a proper closing, she did in fact answer when asked by the employee, so you should probably stop repeating that.

Pictures of the device have already been posted. If a bomb squad officer thinks that is a bomb, they should be sacked. As others have said, that's a cheap breadboard, a 9v battery, and some LEDs. unfortunatly, they still had to check it out.

People upthread have called for her shooting and tasering - posts #40 and #39, iirc. yes and others responded to that. it is disgusting to call for such actions.

Security were notified and responded - fine, that's good. Having then worked out what it was, and that it was not in any way a bomb or a fake bomb, they should have then said 'sorry' and let her go. Not thrown her in the cells, demanded $5000 bail, and announced the intention to charge her with making a hoax bomb, which the device was not.actually, no. they had to determine her reason. pulling off such hoaxes is a serious offense. same as calling 911 with a prank call. of course I expect her to walk free or with a slap on her wrist, but they can't just let it go with a sorry on their part.

A bomb needs some sort of pressure vessel. This had none. That's enough of a hint. unfortunatly, you can only assume that until you examine the outfit.

There was no play-doh on the device, although she was apparently holding some. four to six ounces. and since it was not easily identifyable as play-doh, it is also apparent that it was not in any reconizable container. thus it cannot be assumed that it was play-doh.

Finally, I thought that we had this little thing in America called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Meaning that until it is proven she was aiming to cause a panic and make a hoax bomb, it is accepted that she was not. Hence the Trial.

Just because something happens, does not mean it was a targeted prank, that it was intended to make fools of airport security, or anything of the sort. My money is on it being an absent-minded tech student who forgot to take it off, not someone deliberately wearing it to prank the airport. yep. and it seems like only the people here are making a fuss about it. she doesn't seem to be upset or angry. she cooperated and is going through the process.

What strikes me about some of the police comments is that they are weighted to make people think she had a fake bomb - 'had she tried to hide the explosive' would be a good example. The disconnect from reality continues in other comments, for instance, that this is 'a reminder of the terrorism threat confronting the civil aviation system'. As it wasn't a terrorist attack, how can it be a part of the threat? because a prank is a prank. we can think her innocent, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't go through the processing.

And for a proper closing, she did in fact answer when asked by the employee, so you should probably stop repeating that.
Edit. Saw where it said that simpson said that it was artwork, but it states that not as "the clerk said". but more like "Simpson then told the reporter she said it was artwork."

but either way, it still boils down to the trial.

four to six ounces. and since it was not easily identifyable as play-doh,
I demand to know how something isn't easily identifiable as play-doh. Didn't the bright, garish color not tip anyone off?

I demand to know how something isn't easily identifiable as play-doh. Didn't the bright, garish color not tip anyone off?

I thought the whole point of playdoh was for it to be identified as other things? Wait, are we talking about Play-Doh playdoh or genericized playdoh?

I demand to know how something isn't easily identifiable as play-doh. Didn't the bright, garish color not tip anyone off?

... you do know that Play doh does come in white, brown, and other colors that are NOT bright nor garish. And that one can mix the colors together to get a different color.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110336/Graphics/stepone.jpg

unfortunatly, they still had to check it out.

yes and others responded to that. it is disgusting to call for such actions.

actually, no. they had to determine her reason. pulling off such hoaxes is a serious offense. same as calling 911 with a prank call. of course I expect her to walk free or with a slap on her wrist, but they can't just let it go with a sorry on their part.

unfortunatly, you can only assume that until you examine the outfit.

four to six ounces. and since it was not easily identifyable as play-doh, it is also apparent that it was not in any reconizable container. thus it cannot be assumed that it was play-doh.

Hence the Trial.

yep. and it seems like only the people here are making a fuss about it. she doesn't seem to be upset or angry. she cooperated and is going through the process.

because a prank is a prank. we can think her innocent, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't go through the processing.


Edit. Saw where it said that simpson said that it was artwork, but it states that not as "the clerk said". but more like "Simpson then told the reporter she said it was artwork."

but either way, it still boils down to the trial.

They responded correctly in checking out the outfit, determining it wasn't a threat, etcetera.

Having done so, they should have then let her go. Is it not possible for you to grasp that this might, just might, not have been intended to cause a fuss or as a prank? That it's possible that somebody would be wearing it anyway, and didn't think about it before going to the airport?

It's not like this was specially created just for going to the airport - she had made it some time before, and wore it a lot. Why does there have to be a sinister motive?

They responded correctly in checking out the outfit, determining it wasn't a threat, etcetera.

Having done so, they should have then let her go. Is it not possible for you to grasp that this might, just might, not have been intended to cause a fuss or as a prank? That it's possible that somebody would be wearing it anyway, and didn't think about it before going to the airport?

It's not like this was specially created just for going to the airport - she had made it some time before, and wore it a lot. Why does there have to be a sinister motive?
Because breadboards, when mixed with play-doh, LEDs, and 9 volt batteries, have been known to destroy city blocks. When I first read this thread I was thinking she had like a motherboard attached to her and it would have made sense to believe it was a bomb, but no, it's a fucking breadboard wired to be a cheap fucking shirt light up. They obviously didn't know what a breadboard even was so they couldn't have assumed it was being used as the circuit board on a bomb; so what made them jump her? A 9-volt battery dangling from her shirt and some LEDs? Obviously they are using the '70s spy movie formula for detecting bombs - all bombs have a series of lights that flash in a continuous wave as they are preparing to go off. Maybe I should go buy one of those LED based light up shirts at ThinkGeek then stroll into an airport then when I get busted for having a "bomb," I sue their god damn asses for whatever I can find.

This was an MIT student?

Maybe that venerable institution has let its acceptance criteria get a little lax...

It's a bit of a catch-22; on the one hand you wouldn't expect a potential terrorist to wear something looking like a bomb in plain view. So naturally, that's exactly what you should expect them to do. Twinkling LEDs is just another clue that she's trying to throw you off. The less it looks like a bomb, the more likely it is.
:rolleyes:

Clearly, if I were a terrorist, I would never consider putting a thin layer of blue play-doh over my plastic explosives when I wear them in plain view..
Of course the terrorists are going to wear them in plain view where everyone will jump/shoot them before the get anywhere. :rolleyes:

I demand to know how something isn't easily identifiable as play-doh. Didn't the bright, garish color not tip anyone off?Clearly, if I were a terrorist, I would never consider putting a thin layer of blue play-doh over my plastic explosives when I wear them in plain view..

I'd sell tickets to that. Because of course, you can't sue them for doing their jobs properly, and of course announcing your intention to walk into an airport with a hoax bomb specifically to sue them when they arrested you surely wouldn't bring down the hammer.
If a shirt with a flashing picture on it (made into the shirt, not rigged), counts as a bomb, they deserve to get sued for overzealousness.

Because breadboards, when mixed with play-doh, LEDs, and 9 volt batteries, have been known to destroy city blocks. When I first read this thread I was thinking she had like a motherboard attached to her and it would have made sense to believe it was a bomb, but no, it's a fucking breadboard wired to be a cheap fucking shirt light up. They obviously didn't know what a breadboard even was so they couldn't have assumed it was being used as the circuit board on a bomb; so what made them jump her? A 9-volt battery dangling from her shirt and some LEDs? Obviously they are using the '70s spy movie formula for detecting bombs - all bombs have a series of lights that flash in a continuous wave as they are preparing to go off. Maybe I should go buy one of those LED based light up shirts at ThinkGeek then stroll into an airport then when I get busted for having a "bomb," I sue their god damn asses for whatever I can find.

I'd sell tickets to that. Because of course, you can't sue them for doing their jobs properly, and of course announcing your intention to walk into an airport with a hoax bomb specifically to sue them when they arrested you surely wouldn't bring down the hammer.

What does a bomb look like?

Well, it can look like clay for one.

Or liquid.

Or pretty much anything.

Flashing lights and batteries don't make a bomb. Being able to spontaneously reach a flash point and combust with immense amounts of energy released does.

Honestly, just having a bit of "dirt" (see dynamite) on your bag and bringing anything that can turn into a "hammer" is far more effective. Swinging your hammer onto it will be more effective than sending electricity through it.