[gizmo686]

The type of bomb people worry about for airplanes typically are not built to code.

They do need to have some form of dedinator, and tying that detonator to a Bluetooth control seems like a design that someone might come up with.

[ai_slop_hater]

> They do need to have some form of dedinator, and tying that detonator to a Bluetooth control seems like a design that someone might come up with.

So much doesn't make sense to me. First, if for whatever reason you decided to blow up an airplane, why would you need to wait for so long, that the plane can turn around and land? Why not blow the airplane as soon as all passengers are on board, or at least when the plane is high enough in the air that when it is blown up, no body can survive the fall? It also doesn't make sense to use a Bluetooth detonator, because Bluetooth only works at short range, i.e. the detonator would have to also be on the same plane as the bomb. If you are ok with blowing yourself up as well, why not directly detonate the bomb without a remote detonator?

[netsharc]

Well, if you put the bomb as check-in luggage, it can be up to 50lbs (assuming aḷl the security checks will miss a 50 lbs bomb, but hey, in Trumpistan it's possible). Then using Bluetooth makes sense, although you'd have to test whether the signal goes through all the metal, and what if your luggage is placed way in the back and you're sitting way in the front (book a seat in the middle of the plane I guess).

True, blowing up a plane on the ground would ensure a lot of chaos, the airport would definitely be shut, affecting thousands of flights due to the ripple effect. Some years ago there was a suicide bombing at Brussels airport.

Hmm, looking forward to a visit from the men in black, because discussing about this stuff means we're plotting a terror attack, and "due to an abundance of caution" they have to check whether we're threats.

[frumiousirc]

> They do need to have some form of dedinator

And some dedotaded wam.