CIA "inadvertantly" leaves bombs on a live school bus

[seanD]

Of course they claim there was no danger, because what else would they say. That they screwed up and the kids were in danger but they were lucky nothing detonated?

The CIA accidentally left inert explosives on a suburban Washington school bus for days after a training session, it acknowledged this week.

After a “routine training exercise” with police dog units at a Loudon County, Va., school last week, training explosives were “inadvertently” left behind in one of the buses, the CIA said in a statement.

The device was not discovered until the bus underwent a routine check on Wednesday. By that point, it had ferried more than two dozen elementary and high school students to and from school on Monday and Tuesday, Loudon County Public Schools spokesman Wayde Byard told multiple media outlets.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-va-school-bus

Whatever...

[mikewhitney]

Wow.
The CIA agents failed.
The dogs failed.
The dogs trainers failed.
The school district failed -- what are they doing allowing CIA to use real explosives on school buses?

How's your trust level for the government's protection of the people?

[seanD]

Wow.
The CIA agents failed.
The dogs failed.
The dogs trainers failed.
The school district failed -- what are they doing allowing CIA to use real explosives on school buses?

How's your trust level for the government's protection of the people?

Just as a hypothetical, and this question is directed to anyone willing to respond (though I doubt I'll get much response), what do you think would have happened if the bomb detonated (it hit a pot hole, was in an accident, somehow became overheated, etc.) killing the kids? Do you think CIA would have taken responsibility?

[Jedidiah]

No.

[rogue06]

No.

Me neither. So who would they try to assign the blame to? The feds are loathe to acknowledge Islamic terrorism even exists so I doubt that they would say they were responsible.

[rogue06]

Just noticed that they were described as "inert explosives" which many times means a dummy bomb. Likely something that contained chemicals that bomb-sniffing dogs are trained to detect but not something that could conceivably explode.

[mikewhitney]

Just noticed that they were described as "inert explosives" which many times means a dummy bomb. Likely something that contained chemicals that bomb-sniffing dogs are trained to detect but not something that could conceivably explode.

I noticed that before I posted. Maybe the article just had misled things a bit by also adding that there was "no detonator or triggering mechanism" -- which only would be relevant if it were a threat with those included. The article also kept using terms like 'explosive' and 'bomb' without saying why it was considered inert.

Maybe the CIA staff got this bomb back in their hands and walked away casually until out of sight -- then panicked because it was a real bomb -- notwithstanding the official report.

[seanD]

MW, you beat me to it. Perhaps rogue should have read the actual article. Inert as in no detonator, hence the reason they claim it wasn't a threat.

[seanD]

No.

Can you just imagine the repercussions of such a mistake?

[rogue06]

MW, you beat me to it. Perhaps rogue should have read the actual article. Inert as in no detonator, hence the reason they claim it wasn't a threat.

Inert doesn't mean without a detonator. In case you are unaware, a detonator is an explosive device in and by itself.

[shunyadragon]

Of course they claim there was no danger, because what else would they say. That they screwed up and the kids were in danger but they were lucky nothing detonated?



Whatever...

Not a real bomb. Maybe there was an alien conspiracy to take out a living transformer school bus. Maybe an April fool joke.

[seanD]

If the material wasn't explosive, then there's no story.

Here's another story that reports the agency claiming the material was "incredibly stable," which I take to mean that the material is in fact an explosive. If the material is not an explosive then you don't need to bring up the fact there was no detonator or that it was "incredibly stable." You just say it wasn't explosive material.


Washington Post reports that it was in fact "explosive material," C4 material to be exact...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...cf6_story.html

So with those suffering cognitive dissonance, your argument will just have to be that it's not a big deal that explosives were left in a school bus because it would not have ignited under any conditions unless it had a detonator.

[rogue06]

If it was indeed C-4, then yeah, it is a problem. But they are correct about it being incredibly stable. You can shoot it with full automatic weapon fire. You can put it on an anvil and slam it with a sledge hammer. You can set it on fire (I've actually heard of people using it as fuel to cook over). And it won't explode. It needs a relatively strong blasting cap to detonate.

[seanD]

And I wonder if anyone has an explanation why CIA was even involved in this on a local domestic level. Don't they typically deal with international affairs and do they not have special training facilities to prevent situations such as this?

[Adam]

Even the Washington Post issue is dated April 1. Looks like the Julian writing for the originally posted The Hill "Hattem" good. April Fools!