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

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.

aido79

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?

Will it be permanent? If not then what's the relevance to this thread?

PintOfView

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

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

I imagine the authorities in Holland will expect a curfew to contribute to bringing down the number of new covid cases.

What do you think it will accomplish? and why do you think they are doing it?

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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


How long does it take to manufacture such a substance?

I never said you could, again your reading comprehension skills are letting you down. My point is that there are any number of liquid chemical combinations which you could easily use, or more importantly: THREATEN to use, to bring a plane down, thereby negating your dismissive approach to someone sneaking bottles of potentially explosive material on-board.

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?

Just Holland? What about the rest of the Netherlands?

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

Will it be permanent? If not then what's the relevance to this thread?

Whether it's permanent or not isn't what I asked. My question was what will a 21:00 to 0430 curfew accomplish?


Now you can sound off like a broken record and just say it will do this, that and the other. With bars and clubs and restaurants closed at this time anyway then how is a curfew in some way shape or form supposed to help?


Incidentally, the curfew doesn't apply if you are walking a dog.



A dog walker is immune to covid but a non-dog walker is a public health threat?



I await the justification for that.

GT89

Surely it's a bit ridiculous introducing a curfew. A curfew means more people out during the day for shopping and the like meaning less social distancing surely.

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Whether it's permanent or not isn't what I asked. My question was what will a 21:00 to 0430 curfew accomplish?


Now you can sound off like a broken record and just say it will do this, that and the other. With bars and clubs and restaurants closed at this time anyway then how is a curfew in some way shape or form supposed to help?


Incidentally, the curfew doesn't apply if you are walking a dog.



A dog walker is immune to covid but a non-dog walker is a public health threat?



I await the justification for that.

This is a thread about all covid19 measures being permanent. If you don't think this will be permanent why mention it on this thread and not any of the other covid threads?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Whether it's permanent or not isn't what I asked. My question was what will a 21:00 to 0430 curfew accomplish?

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/yes-curfews-can-help-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-heres-how#What-are-curfews?

Dohnjoe

A pattern definitely emerging here

Why..

• Masks
• Lockdown
• Curfews
• Photos of hospitals empty
• Vaccine
• Less flights
• Contact tracing
• Ventilators
• Etc

Then belligerently rejecting answers and explanations. "I don't get it, you can't explain it to me, therefore something is going on I can't be bothered to explain"

GT89

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/yes-curfews-can-help-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-heres-how#What-are-curfews?

Staying at home is not good for your health. Going for a long walk is probably the best thing you could do you for your mental and physical health in these awful times.

arccosh

GT89 wrote: »

Staying at home is not good for your health. Going for a long walk is probably the best thing you could do you for your mental and physical health in these awful times.

just going to skirt around the point altogether then, yeah?