Reader C.E. sent me an email castigating me for planting the following idea into al Qaeda heads, from my post of 16 Aug 2007:
Planck's Constant, Muslim Exploding PantiesI can't get on an airplane unless I remove my shoes. Suppose the shoe bomber had instead been a female wearing exploding panties? Would women boarding airplanes be required to wear their panties on the outside? But joking aside, what would the procedure be at airline check-in? "Excuse me mam, just lift your skirt for a moment?"
Photo Credit: What Gets Me Hot.
Well, excuse me, but those crazed Jihadists still got it wrong - I insisted on a female bomber. Although it looks like airport security will now be sniffing everyone's underwear.
If one wants to look at the bright side, those full-body scanners may now feel less intrusive [Update - see Mind Scanners at Airports would Bar Muslims Entry]. A few months ago the Guardian asked its readers, "Which form of airport security is more intrusive: the new x-ray scanner or being frisked?" The response? 32.7% preferred to be frisked physically than scanned electronically. I think that question should be asked again, but this time point out that frisking will involve fondling of family jewels to make sure there is no powdered clump of explosives in an underwear pouch.
Of course, this would never have happened if airports had simply read my article from 2006 suggesting a terror-proof airline (Click on image for larger view but WARNING *** NSFW ***):
OK, now I'm going to make the next prediction: nitro-glycerin stored in breast implants. Let's see how airport security handles those.