people are still pretty raw from 9/11
so i understand why the authorities over reacted

better over react than under

Nothing sends a message to terrorists like shutting down a city to disarm something that could theoretically be a bomb after it has been sitting there for two weeks.

That message: We don't even have to do anything anymore, everyone's successfully terrorized. But if we DO decide to do something, as long as we can get it done in less than two weeks, they'll never catch it.

i dunno if you've notice, but boston's a pretty big city

This reminds me of that incident with Sony and the graffiti.

This makes me think of the time in the early twentieth century when a ‘War of the Worlds’ radio broadcast caused mass hysteria.

Bombs don't flick you off.

Why should those guys have to answer questions to the media about the situation? The media will only twist and contort their responses. It's a ridiculous situation. These things were placed in three other cities, and nothing happened there. I think someone just over-reacted.

ozoneocean
Life and death? Yeah… in a Batman cartoon maybe. :)
That's the only place where those things could possibly be bombs. I could just see the joker planting those things! In fact that'd be a brilliant little cross-over and probably a wonderful way to make fun of those morons who got so panicked by this, as well as being an even better way to advertise it!

I think I'm going to steal that Joker idea.

But Ozone, consider that over the summer terrorists tried to blow up planes with everyday liquids and gels. It's not like they do things that we expect. So people are a little on edge. I suppose in Australia things look different.

meda twistes a lot of thing like that litte gril and the adds were she talked about god and how the goverment thingks games are bad and adult carttons but they only showed a clip not it all so they made her sound like a deavile not makeing fare a pont . allso if it was all over the place sandy and no one looked cared so. it porably was just some one put there foot in and eavry one panicked and didnot check records

I would disquise bombs as toys. Sweet little toys, or maybe a children't lunchbox. An EZ bake oven would probably be the right size.

ccs1989
But Ozone, consider that over the summer terrorists tried to blow up planes with everyday liquids and gels. It's not like they do things that we expect. So people are a little on edge. I suppose in Australia things look different.

This is different though CCS.

Consider: With the size, dimensions, and construction of the things, if they did have any explosive material on them, in the places they were positioned (under bridges, high on building walls etc.), it would be impossible for them to cause any harm.

i.e. They would have had to have a LOT more volume to fit enough, material on them to damage the structures they were attached to in any significant way…
-destroying an aeroplane with a bomb is a lot easier than damaging a building ;)
-As I keep saying: at their size they could only be incendiary devices or antipersonel weapons, only able to strike a couple of targets from a very limited rage- all that means that if they were in fact bombs the positions they were placed would have rendered them completely harmless because they're out of reach of any targets.

Result: you're smelling like piss and desperately need a change of pants lol!

There's NO REASON that the marketers of this cock-up shouldn't have notified the authorities. Of course, the answer to this would be “it's easier to get forgivness than ask permission.”

Sure, people overreacted. Sure they look ‘freindly" and ’simple'. But SO WHAT? Just because something looks like it's not a threat doesn't mean it's not. Conversely, Has turner marketing now given bomb design ideas to terrorists?


And I disagree with the volume argument. Just because something that small wouldn't damage a structure, per se, a small amount of c4 or nitro would do a lot of damage to nearby civilians.

SpANG
And I disagree with the volume argument. Just because something that small wouldn't damage a structure, per se, a small amount of c4 or nitro would do a lot of damage to nearby civilians.

How? It's all the way up on a wall?

Heh, in a Mission Impossible movie maybe… The amount of damage it could do to a building would be pathetic. As for people, it's too far out of the way, with a broad range of only a few meters = one or two possible victims.

Face it: it's silly.
To be effective hurting people they'd need to have been in the middle of a pathway where lots of people are gathering… Or on the front entrance of a big shop like Wal-mart or Macdonalds. Think about it.

But yes, they should have let someone know and have gotten permission. As Sandy says; there are rules about advertising!

why would they advertise where no people would be around?

The reason they didn't get permission is because the mooninite is flipping people off, theres no way that would've been allowed. and sub, they were where lots of people could see them, they were placed around the most trafficked parts of the city, thats why it was so crippling when BPD shut those streets down. One was on a sign above a comic shop for crissakes

don't people go on smoking breaks on the roof?

Like second/third floor maybe, but no higher than that. Theres a video of them putting 'em up on youtube, they had like a 12 foot pole.

ozoneocean

SpANG
And I disagree with the volume argument. Just because something that small wouldn't damage a structure, per se, a small amount of c4 or nitro would do a lot of damage to nearby civilians.

How? It's all the way up on a wall?

Heh, in a Mission Impossible movie maybe… The amount of damage it could do to a building would be pathetic. As for people, it's too far out of the way, with a broad range of only a few meters = one or two possible victims.

Face it: it's silly.
To be effective hurting people they'd need to have been in the middle of a pathway where lots of people are gathering… Or on the front entrance of a big shop like Wal-mart or Macdonalds. Think about it.

If I really want to get into it, I can argue that it could just be an igniter, with the actual explosives/propellents behind the wall. My point is, just because we are in possesion of all the facts now doesn't mean we would not react the exact same way before. Or at the very least stay clear.

Sure, it's silly to you. But how many of the general public think have your intricate knowledge of explosives and weaponry? (note to self: keep an eye on ozone);)

yea it could be one of those things if the police moves it, the whole building comes down from the C4 on the bottom of the building.

Ok, ok, the speculation is quite fun really, it's nice and hypothetical. ^_^
Again though, if you're going to have the real explosives inside then why have an easily dismantleable (made-up word lol!) pretty sign up there? Tim McVee had a better method: just blow up the building.

Hahaha, I've got no intricate knowledge, you know me, I'm just a know-it-all who likes to act as if he knows everything about everything because I only know little bits about most things. :)
Ozoneocean: piss and wind.

I reckon this topic might have earned a place in the debate and discussion forum now.

nah, you'll start getting your blood pressure up as people start getting off topic
hahaha

This hits harder on me because I live really close to Boston. Anyway, I support my city. There, plain'n simple. It was a marketing scheme gone wrong.

Red_Tide
This makes me think of the time in the early twentieth century when a ‘War of the Worlds’ radio broadcast caused mass hysteria.

Yeah! I thought the same thing. And no one ever prosecuted H.G. Wells.

I mean, I don't really like the idea of cartoon characters flipping me off as I walk down the street…I would not say that this was a good marketing campaign. I mean, obviously, since it was completely misinterpreted. But even so!

And what really gets me is that Turner paid out $2 million over this thing. One million went to affected parties…fair enough.

The other million went to Homeland Security. I cannot think for the life of me WHY a federally funded agency is benifiting with a million in the hole from this. It just makes no sense!

MiniMyth
Yeah! I thought the same thing. And no one ever prosecuted H.G. Wells.

That's because he'd been dead quite a few years… You mean Orson Wells- no relation. ;)

Heh, that moron agency just make terrorists have wet dreams. Shows them how much they truly own the place if that can happen,

*cough, cough* Orson…Wells….yes. Yes I did mean him. >_>

And I agree. And where on earth does Homeland Security get off on getting all that money? How can that possibly be legal?

MiniMyth
*cough, cough* Orson…Wells….yes. Yes I did mean him. >_>

And I agree. And where on earth does Homeland Security get off on getting all that money? How can that possibly be legal?

Oh, please. GWB and co. took out 11 million from the Washington DC Homeland Security budget to help fund his NINE decadent Inaugural Balls in 2005.

The whole party is corrupt. That's news?

True dat. But I think it'd be a whole nother level of corruption when it started bleeding into largely unacciciated private sectors…even beyond the freakin' Halliburton thing.

However, after looking into it, I should note that the information I quoted was not entirely accurate.

“The money includes $1 million to Boston and neighboring cities Somerville and Cambridge, plus the MBTA, Massport, state police and the U.S. Coast Guard to cover for the costs of responding to the incidents. Turner will pay another $1 million to Boston, Somerville, Cambridge and the state to fund homeland-security awareness programs and other initiatives. This will settle all civil and criminal liability for Turner and its guerrilla marketing agency, Interference Inc.”

One of the parties that benefits is the coast guard, which is technically part of Homeland Security. But that's still not the same thing as the department getting $1 mil.

This is money that could be used for education or to help people get health care.

Boston should include cartoon recognition in its police training tape.