All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What am I on about with Bin Laden and Afghanistan? I thought it was pretty simple.



Ridiculous airport security measures were introduced and will remain in place. From what I understand they haven't thwarted a single terrorist plot in 20 years.



Any chemistry student will tell you that you simply cannot make a bomb with a 500ml bottle of Ballygowan and a tub of Brylcreme. What difference does it make if a laptop is in a bag or outside of a bag?

So they put measures in place 20 years ago specifically to deter terrorists from bringing explosives on planes and you wonder why there hasn't been explosives brought on planes in 20 years? And you call this ridiculous?

Believe it or but they're are people above the level of chemistry students who can make explosives that could pass the airport security which was in place per 9/11.

johnmck

_Brian wrote: »

Pubs should stay closed permanently.

It’s a great chance for us to break the drink culture.

We should only allow alcohol sales on premises where minimum 2/3 of their revenue is food and no alcohol only sales.

I think the love for the pub had left a lot of people. There was no rush back to them when they re-opened last year

Kermit.de.frog

I actually agree.

I think this is the event that might actually have broken the stranglehold through pubs alcohol has had on this society.

I think it has forced a lot of people to snap out of it tbh. I know no one who is bent on going back to a pub - they were at the beginning but not anymore.

I don't hear complaints like months a go.

That can only be a good thing imo.

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

So they put measures in place 20 years ago specifically to deter terrorists from bringing explosives on planes and you wonder why there hasn't been explosives brought on planes in 20 years? And you call this ridiculous?

Believe it or but they're are people above the level of chemistry students who can make explosives that could pass the airport security which was in place per 9/11.

Why would you waste your time and money buying an airline ticket for a few hundred quid and go through the rigmarole of attempting to bypass so much security in order to kill maybe 100 people when you could do the same with no security checks, no baggage checks and a ticket that costs maybe a tenner to get on a packed train and then walk off it again once the whistle blows, thus allowing you to do it again and again?

Do terrorists ONLY have it in for people who are flying on planes?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Among the general public? nope. But maybe in particular areas, e.g. certain hospitals may have a requirement for certain staff to have vaccinations.

What measures do you believe are permanent and why?

I don't know.


There is already talk that remote working will be made rightful to those who request it. Not that I have a problem with that. It's fine. But will that mean that your employer has the right to see you on screen (not online) doing your job and thus seeing into your house.


I think I read of a case whereby someone was brought up because of a poster on a wall. I think it was a kid in America who was attending online classes. On his bedroom wall was a poster and some teacher took "offence" and called Social Services.


I am only concerned about travel and assembly restrictions and certainly about things like curfews.


The Swiss are already looking at a referendum to overthrow the government's ability to impose lockdowns. There were riots in Amsterdam on Sunday, water cannons and all.


You keep saying that all of this is for our own good. Maybe you're right. But a lot of people disagree. If the people who are so terrified of getting sick and dying then perhaps they should all stay home in a hazmat suit and let the rest of us take our chances. If we all drop dead like canaries in a coalmine then we only have ourselves to blame and you can say "told you so" as we're being bulldozed into mass graves and incinerated.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Among the general public? nope. But maybe in particular areas, e.g. certain hospitals may have a requirement for certain staff to have vaccinations.

What measures do you believe are permanent and why?

What about travel?

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why would you waste your time and money buying an airline ticket for a few hundred quid and go through the rigmarole of attempting to bypass so much security in order to kill maybe 100 people when you could do the same with no security checks, no baggage checks and a ticket that costs maybe a tenner to get on a packed train and then walk off it again once the whistle blows, thus allowing you to do it again and again?

Do terrorists ONLY have it in for people who are flying on planes?

I don't understand the mindset of terrorists so I can't answer that.

I'm sure you are well aware there have been terrorist attacks on trains but if not you can Google it(or whatever alternative source you use for your research).

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why would you waste your time and money buying an airline ticket for a few hundred quid and go through the rigmarole of attempting to bypass so much security in order to kill maybe 100 people when you could do the same with no security checks, no baggage checks and a ticket that costs maybe a tenner to get on a packed train and then walk off it again once the whistle blows, thus allowing you to do it again and again?

You are demonstrating why airport security works.

Previously there was much less security, suicide attackers took advantage, 911 happened.
Now there is a lot of security, it's very difficult for them to attack/use aircraft

They have been using other methods, e.g. attacking trains, buses, underground, using trucks/cars as weapons.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.


There is already talk that remote working will be made rightful to those who request it. Not that I have a problem with that. It's fine. But will that mean that your employer has the right to see you on screen (not online) doing your job and thus seeing into your house.

Not true. An employer doesn't automatically have a right to see your screen and certainly not your house.

If the people who are so terrified of getting sick and dying then perhaps they should all stay home in a hazmat suit and let the rest of us take our chances. If we all drop dead like canaries in a coalmine then we only have ourselves to blame and you can say "told you so" as we're being bulldozed into mass graves and incinerated.

Again, if people want to be scared of X or Y they can. The concern over Covid is that it overwhelms our health systems.

PintOfView

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You keep saying that all of this is for our own good. Maybe you're right. But a lot of people disagree. If the people who are so terrified of getting sick and dying then perhaps they should all stay home in a hazmat suit and let the rest of us take our chances. If we all drop dead like canaries in a coalmine then we only have ourselves to blame and you can say "told you so" as we're being bulldozed into mass graves and incinerated.

What do you think would have happened if we didn't have a lockdown after Christmas?

Here is one possible outcome ...
Cases continue to rise
Hospitals would see increasing numbers of people presenting with covid
We would not have seen cases drop to 2,000 yesterday (from a peak of 8,000)
In another couple of weeks hospitals would be full of covid patients
People with covid, who would require hospital treatment, would have to stay at home
Mortality rate due to covid would increase for those unable to get a hospital bed
People with other serious medical conditions would be unable to get treatment

If this is what most people believe would happen, do you understand why they support doing something to prevent it?
What is the alternative? What is your solution?

King Mob

PintOfView wrote: »

What do you think would have happened if we didn't have a lockdown after Christmas?

Here is one possible outcome ...
Cases continue to rise
Hospitals would see increasing numbers of people presenting with covid
We would not have seen cases drop to 2,000 yesterday (from a peak of 8,000)
In another couple of weeks hospitals would be full of covid patients
People with covid, who would require hospital treatment, would have to stay at home
Mortality rate due to covid would increase for those unable to get a hospital bed
People with other serious medical conditions would be unable to get treatment

If this is what most people believe would happen, do you understand why they support doing something to prevent it?
What is the alternative? What is your solution?

The general idea is that the virus isn't that lethal or infectious and that the numbers are being faked by a worldwide conspiracy. In the conspiracy theory world, hospitals are actually empty and not busy at all.

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

So they put measures in place 20 years ago specifically to deter terrorists from bringing explosives on planes and you wonder why there hasn't been explosives brought on planes in 20 years? And you call this ridiculous?

Believe it or but they're are people above the level of chemistry students who can make explosives that could pass the airport security which was in place per 9/11.

Yes I do call them ridiculous. I'm talking about not being allowed to bring liquids onto a plane. The excuse being that you could concoct a bomb on the plane.


And if there is such a terrorist threat and airplanes must be secured then why aren't these ubiquitous and dastardly terrorists bringing their home-made bombs onto trains where there is zero security screening or metal detectors or bomb sniffing dogs?


If you were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people which would you choose to place your bomb?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Yes I do call them ridiculous. I'm talking about not being allowed to bring liquids onto a plane. The excuse being that you could concoct a bomb on the plane.


And if there is such a terrorist threat and airplanes must be secured then why aren't these ubiquitous and dastardly terrorists bringing their home-made bombs onto trains where there is zero security screening or metal detectors or bomb sniffing dogs?


If you were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people which would you choose to place your bomb?

Because a small bomb on a plane can kill everyone. A small bomb on a train may only have a limited effect.

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

I don't understand the mindset of terrorists so I can't answer that.

I'm sure you are well aware there have been terrorist attacks on trains but if not you can Google it(or whatever alternative source you use for your research).

You don't need to understand the mindset of a terrorist to answer a simple question. IF you wanted to kill a bunch of innocent people surely you would choose the easiest way. And the way least likely to get thwarted.


The whole terrorist thing doesn't make sense.

ShatterAlan

johnmck wrote: »

I think the love for the pub had left a lot of people. There was no rush back to them when they re-opened last year

A lot of people didn't go because they didn't think it was worth it to have to buy a burger just so you could have a couple of pints and then get out after 90 minutes.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And if there is such a terrorist threat and airplanes must be secured then why aren't these ubiquitous and dastardly terrorists bringing their home-made bombs onto trains where there is zero security screening or metal detectors or bomb sniffing dogs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_Green_train_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If you were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people which would you choose to place your bomb?

What a bizarre question...

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are demonstrating why airport security works.

Previously there was much less security, suicide attackers took advantage, 911 happened.
Now there is a lot of security, it's very difficult for them to attack/use aircraft

They have been using other methods, e.g. attacking trains, buses, underground, using trucks/cars as weapons.

As far as I know the airport security measures haven't foiled a single terrorist plot.

PintOfView

ShatterAlan wrote: »

As far as I know the airport security measures haven't foiled a single terrorist plot.

How do you know that?

If ISIS had people willing to be suicide bombers on a plane, and they checked it out and found it to be too difficult, how would you know that?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

As far as I know the airport security measures haven't foiled a single terrorist plot.

Your knowledge does not prove a thing. It just means that you do not know.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

As far as I know the airport security measures haven't foiled a single terrorist plot.

It's a deterrent. Terrorists are not using planes are suicide weapons anymore because they a) have difficulty getting past the new security measures, b) cabins are locked and c) (in the US) there are air marshals

The measures act as a physical stop and as a deterrent. Which is why they are there.

Likewise Covid measures are in place to reduce the spread of the virus.

Samsonsmasher

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a deterrent. Terrorists are not using planes are suicide weapons anymore because they a) have difficulty getting past the new security measures, b) cabins are locked and c) (in the US) there are air marshals

The measures act as a physical stop and as a deterrent. Which is why they are there.

Likewise Covid measures are in place to reduce the spread of the virus.

Don't forget to stay 2m away from women.

Go to public parks or go around the streets shouting at people

Ted_YNWA

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.


There is already talk that remote working will be made rightful to those who request it. Not that I have a problem with that. It's fine. But will that mean that your employer has the right to see you on screen (not online) doing your job and thus seeing into your house.


I think I read of a case whereby someone was brought up because of a poster on a wall. I think it was a kid in America who was attending online classes. On his bedroom wall was a poster and some teacher took "offence" and called Social Services.

I have had WFH capability for the past 5/6 years and have never used my webcam. There is still a right to privacy in the home here.

Companies can & do use keystroke/activity trackers to monitor what is being done on their networks by employees.

The US is a whole different ballpark when it comes to employee rights with a lot less protection to those afforded to EU workers.

ShatterAlan

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

I have had WFH capability for the past 5/6 years and have never used my webcam. There is still a right to privacy in the home here.

Companies can & do use keystroke/activity trackers to monitor what is being done on their networks by employees.

The US is a whole different ballpark when it comes to employee rights with a lot less protection to those afforded to EU workers.

So you have a stack of euro coins holding down a key and writing to a text file while you're asleep in the other room. :pac:

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Yes I do call them ridiculous. I'm talking about not being allowed to bring liquids onto a plane. The excuse being that you could concoct a bomb on the plane.


And if there is such a terrorist threat and airplanes must be secured then why aren't these ubiquitous and dastardly terrorists bringing their home-made bombs onto trains where there is zero security screening or metal detectors or bomb sniffing dogs?


If you were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people which would you choose to place your bomb?

There's actually no rule against bringing liquids on a plane. I have brought bottled water on planes many times in recent years. It just can't be brought through security so it needs to be purchased on the departure side of security.

You obviously didn't look up train bombings by terrorists like I suggested.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Your knowledge does not prove a thing. It just means that you do not know.

Well I read somewhere a couple of years ago that senior TSA staff were quizzed on this and they couldn't point to a single case. So maybe I know just a little bit more than you do in that regard.

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

There's actually no rule against bringing liquids on a plane. I have brought bottled water on planes many times in recent years. It just can't be brought through security so it needs to be purchased on the departure side of security.

You obviously didn't look up train bombings by terrorists like I suggested.

So why can't you bring it through security?


Let me guess because you could be some evil genius in a Bruce Willis movie who has access to nitro glycerine in his shed.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So why can't you bring it through security?


Let me guess because you could be some evil genius in a Bruce Willis movie who has access to nitro glycerine in his shed.

Liquids can be used to make explosives

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633538

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So why can't you bring it through security?


Let me guess because you could be some evil genius in a Bruce Willis movie who has access to nitro glycerine in his shed.

Or like, petrol?

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So why can't you bring it through security?


Let me guess because you could be some evil genius in a Bruce Willis movie who has access to nitro glycerine in his shed.

If you read the link above it's not really that hard to understand.
Maybe it's time to admit you're wrong on this one...and maybe a few other things you believe?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well I read somewhere a couple of years ago that senior TSA staff were quizzed on this and they couldn't point to a single case. So maybe I know just a little bit more than you do in that regard.

Yeah because the TSA run world airline security. It has been explained to you and either you can’t absorb reality, or you are a WUM. Which is it?

ShatterAlan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Or like, petrol?

And how do you propose blowing an airliner out of the sky with a bottle full of petrol?


You really do have a vivid imagination.




Right.


So are you going to set up a Breaking Bad style laboratory in the toilets of a plane and stay there for 40 or 50 hours to siphon off sediments, heat things with your bunsen burner, test it, the cabin crew in that 40 hour flight won't suspect a thing from the smell and your various fcukups.


Go and fine the general household liquids and equipment and the time and conditions needed to put together an explosive device that could bring down an aircraft. Reality now. Not from a movie.


Maybe a tube of Mentos and a 2 Litre bottle of Diet Coke will breach the hull of an Airbus 330. :pac:

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And how do you propose blowing an airliner out of the sky with a bottle full of petrol?


You really do have a vivid imagination.

You keep posting nonsense, there was a confirmed plot to use liquid containers to get bomb materials onboard. You keep pretending you can't imagine any dangerous materials that could be brought in disguised as liquid. Your arguments fall at the most basic of examination.

A flammable liquid and a lighter would be enough to force cabin crew to do what you want.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So are you going to set up a Breaking Bad style laboratory in the toilets of a plane and stay there for 40 or 50 hours to siphon off sediments, heat things with your bunsen burner, test it, the cabin crew in that 40 hour flight won't suspect a thing from the smell and your various fcukups.

I suspect you didn't bother reading the link
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633538

Some excerpts:

I talked to Chris Ronay(ph), who is former chief of explosives at the FBI, and he used to teach this class for investigators and he said he would stand up in front of the class with chemicals taken literally from other the sink and mix them together and set some of them off.

So you have one person bring on liquid A, chemical A. Someone else brings on chemical B, and on their own they're sort of innocuous, but then in the bathroom someone mixes them together and you have an explosive. You don't necessarily need a fancy detonator.

Security screeners have gotten much better at detecting solid explosives, while liquid explosives have proven much harder to detect. In addition, liquid explosives can be made from fairly common ingredients, including substances typically found in your garage or under your sink. Finally, a terrorist could assemble an explosive from components carried aboard a plane in separate containers or by different people -- making it even harder for screeners to spot. One person could carry ingredient A on to the plane, another ingredient B, and then they could be combined.

patnor1011

runawaybishop wrote: »

You keep posting nonsense, there was a confirmed plot to use liquid containers to get bomb materials onboard. You keep pretending you can't imagine any dangerous materials that could be brought in disguised as liquid. Your arguments fall at the most basic of examination.

A flammable liquid and a lighter would be enough to force cabin crew to do what you want.

We had a lot of car bombs compared to one plot which was proven to be actually encouraged and run by a government agency. At no point of that "terror attack" there was anyone at risk. Strangely it did not occurred again - just that notorious one. Yet we do not have dedicated force screening people trying to board buses, trains or van or cars.

patnor1011

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I suspect you didn't bother reading the link
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633538

Some excerpts:

Correct.
One who knows how can make powerful explosive from commonly bought stuff and does not even need any specialized equipment or detonators. Some substances can go off with literally touch of a feather and are quite easy to make. Anyone studying chemistry can name and make a few of them.

Even petrol with adding one simple thing can be turned to proper molotov cocktail which sticks to anything and burns through. Bottle of petrol can easily dring down a plane.

patnor1011

Back on topic it seems there is light at the end of a tunnel.
Latest Invermectin study proved it can improve - dramatically reduce covid viral load within 24 hours and literally kill off most of covid in 48 hours.
It seems we may have a cure which is way cheaper and easier to use than trying to vaccinate people with substance which require quite sophisticated and complicated means of distribution and application.

While it was known a while ago:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200406/Antiparasitic-drug-Ivermectin-kills-coronavirus-in-48-hours.aspx

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?via%3Dihub

It seems its use is gaining momentum. Looks like good news to me.

runawaybishop

patnor1011 wrote: »

We had a lot of car bombs compared to one plot which was proven to be actually encouraged and run by a government agency. At no point of that "terror attack" there was anyone at risk. Strangely it did not occurred again - just that notorious one. Yet we do not have dedicated force screening people trying to board buses, trains or van or cars.

We had active searching of vehicles during the troubles, including dog detection units and the bomb squad were heavily utilised.

Nonetheless, the airport security measures were brought in to help stop people doing bad stuff on planes, hardly a worthy conspiracy and only tentatively connected to this thread.

ShatterAlan

runawaybishop wrote: »

You keep posting nonsense, there was a confirmed plot to use liquid containers to get bomb materials onboard. You keep pretending you can't imagine any dangerous materials that could be brought in disguised as liquid. Your arguments fall at the most basic of examination.

A flammable liquid and a lighter would be enough to force cabin crew to do what you want.

Would that include a litre of 50% vodka that you can buy after security?


Take an atomizer or Channel 5 and spray it on a naked flame and you have an instant fireball.



Once you're done with torching the trolley-dollies you can smash the glass bottle and finish them off and box cutters be damned.

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Would that include a litre of 50% vodka that you can buy after security?


Take an atomizer or Channel 5 and spray it on a naked flame and you have an instant fireball.



Once you're done with torching the trolley-dollies you can smash the glass bottle and finish them off and box cutters be damned.

No doubt, but you wont be using petrol, or any other substance they haven't risk assessed.

ShatterAlan

patnor1011 wrote: »

Correct.
One who knows how can make powerful explosive from commonly bought stuff and does not even need any specialized equipment or detonators. Some substances can go off with literally touch of a feather and are quite easy to make. Anyone studying chemistry can name and make a few of them.

Even petrol with adding one simple thing can be turned to proper molotov cocktail which sticks to anything and burns through. Bottle of petrol can easily dring down a plane.

A bottle of petrol can "easily bring down a plane"?


Fcuk me. Boeing and Airbus really should get their sh1t together.



A 350/400 capacity airliner can be hit by lightning. Can be peppered by ice balls at 600mph, can plunge through air pockets dropping thousands of feet, can sustain upper atmospheric turbulence that would make a sailor puke, can actually stay aloft and balanced even if engines have failed.


But a bottle of petrol can blow this thing to atoms :pac:

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But a bottle of petrol can blow this thing to atoms :pac:

Who said anything about petrol blowing stuff up?

Why do you jump to the most extreme strawman you can think of?
Do you think this tactic is working?

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A bottle of petrol can "easily bring down a plane"?


Fcuk me. Boeing and Airbus really should get their sh1t together.



A 350/400 capacity airliner can be hit by lightning. Can be peppered by ice balls at 600mph, can plunge through air pockets dropping thousands of feet, can sustain upper atmospheric turbulence that would make a sailor puke, can actually stay aloft and balanced even if engines have failed.


But a bottle of petrol can blow this thing to atoms :pac:

That's not what was said. They mentioned bringing it down, not blowing it to smithereens. You could easily make something akin to napalm, for example, if you were so inclined with petrol and Styrofoam. Or any other of the literally millions of explosive combinations from something chemical from home poured into a coke bottle.

Your attempts to laugh off everybody's attempt to educate you on this matter are embarrassing.

ShatterAlan

runawaybishop wrote: »

You keep posting nonsense, there was a confirmed plot to use liquid containers to get bomb materials onboard. You keep pretending you can't imagine any dangerous materials that could be brought in disguised as liquid. Your arguments fall at the most basic of examination.

A flammable liquid and a lighter would be enough to force cabin crew to do what you want.

Oh, and then the passengers wouldn't do the "let's roll" move?


We're all gonna die so let's put this bird into the ground before it hits Mar-E-Lago.



A bottle of petrol bringing down a plane. :pac:


Here's one. Petrol is incendiary, Methane is explosive. So after the inflight meal we wait about an hour and collect flatus from all passengers in a massive weather balloon. Duct tape it to the side of the fuselage close to the aileron and then light a match.


Cue passengers pulling their toggs up after farting into the donation balloon and a cabin attendant with a piece of exploded rubber clamped to her head.



(CLAPPING)

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what was said. They mentioned bringing it down, not blowing it to smithereens. You could easily make something akin to napalm, for example, if you were so inclined with petrol and Styrofoam. Or any other of the literally millions of explosive combinations from something chemical from home poured into a coke bottle.

Your attempts to laugh off everybody's attempt to educate you on this matter are embarrassing.

And how would you make a crude naphtha on board a plane?


How long does it take to manufacture such a substance?

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yeah because the TSA run world airline security. It has been explained to you and either you can’t absorb reality, or you are a WUM. Which is it?

The FAA seem to have sway over your flight though, don't they?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I suspect you didn't bother reading the link
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633538

Some excerpts:

So what would be "chemical A" and what would be "chemical B", which when combined would result in a violently destructive compound capable of blowing up an aircraft?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I suspect you didn't bother reading the link
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633538

Some excerpts:

So your one page interview is just great, isn't it.


A bomb can be made from what you might fight "under the sink"...


DAVID KESTENBAUM reporting:
Among other things, they'd have to worry about the sort of bottles you might find under your sink. I talked to Chris Ronay(ph), who is former chief of explosives at the FBI, and he used to teach this class for investigators and he said he would stand up in front of the class with chemicals taken literally from other the sink and mix them together and set some of them off. And his point was that if an agent is searching a house where they think a bomber is, you know, you need to look for all kinds of things. There's not anything terribly special about a liquid explosive versus a solid explosive. Ronay said he could think of one company that used to make liquid explosives for commercial use, but he thinks it went out of business.



A bomber is, "you know". you need to look for all kinds of things.



From "other" the sink.

Trigger

Mod:Back to the topic at hand please which is Covid 19 measures, feel free to continue the discussion above in the 9/11 forum

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Oh, and then the passengers wouldn't do the "let's roll" move?


We're all gonna die so let's put this bird into the ground before it hits Mar-E-Lago.



A bottle of petrol bringing down a plane. :pac:


Here's one. Petrol is incendiary, Methane is explosive. So after the inflight meal we wait about an hour and collect flatus from all passengers in a massive weather balloon. Duct tape it to the side of the fuselage close to the aileron and then light a match.


Cue passengers pulling their toggs up after farting into the donation balloon and a cabin attendant with a piece of exploded rubber clamped to her head.



(CLAPPING)

Less of the condensending posts, discuss amicably or find somewhere else, that goes for everyone else too

ShatterAlan

Anyway, back on track.


It appears that a curfew will be introduced in Holland on wednesday.


Can the boards.ie expert virologists explain what this will accomplish?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Anyway, back on track.


It appears that a curfew will be introduced in Holland on wednesday.


Can the boards.ie expert virologists explain what this will accomplish?

Yes, less people out meeting up and socialising, therefore reducing the spread of the virus.