• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Last night BBC2; How safe are our skies?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Last night BBC2; How safe are our skies?

    Did anyone see this? It was all about that Abdulunderpants chap who tried to blow up his balls and an aeroplane bound for Detroit last December.

    Lots of information about airport security and the failures of intelligence, but what I found most interesting was the experiment where the intended explosion was simulated. I sat there somewhat infuriated by the fact that the experiment seemed to be set up to cause even more damage than Abdulunderpants would have caused, the explosive being placed on a dummy’s knee, next to the fuselage wall and not in his pants, and that they used a bare fuselage without cushioning effects from the interior walls. All this, to my mind, made any explosion more damaging than what our flaming jockstrap friend would have caused. And then came the explosion; the effect on the structure of the plane was barely greater than a powerful sauerkraut fart and the effect on the inside hardly more significant than someone just getting up and punching the neighbouring passengers.

    Now then, given that after the incident governments wheeled out all sorts of ‘experts’ to tell us that he could have blown the aircraft out of the sky and even showed supposed test films showing the effects of a similar device with aeroplanes exploding in spectacular ways, and given the succession of lies about WMDs, electricians running onto tube trains carrying wired up jackets, scientists slashing their wrists without bleeding and now the successfully disproved claim that a pathetic little firework could have blown up an aeroplane, who are we to be afraid of?
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    #2
    Everyone.

    But most of all ourselves.
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      Did anyone see this? It was all about that Abdulunderpants chap who tried to blow up his balls and an aeroplane bound for Detroit last December.

      Lots of information about airport security and the failures of intelligence, but what I found most interesting was the experiment where the intended explosion was simulated. I sat there somewhat infuriated by the fact that the experiment seemed to be set up to cause even more damage than Abdulunderpants would have caused, the explosive being placed on a dummy’s knee, next to the fuselage wall and not in his pants, and that they used a bare fuselage without cushioning effects from the interior walls. All this, to my mind, made any explosion more damaging than what our flaming jockstrap friend would have caused. And then came the explosion; the effect on the structure of the plane was barely greater than a powerful sauerkraut fart and the effect on the inside hardly more significant than someone just getting up and punching the neighbouring passengers.

      Now then, given that after the incident governments wheeled out all sorts of ‘experts’ to tell us that he could have blown the aircraft out of the sky and even showed supposed test films showing the effects of a similar device with aeroplanes exploding in spectacular ways, and given the succession of lies about WMDs, electricians running onto tube trains carrying wired up jackets, scientists slashing their wrists without bleeding and now the successfully disproved claim that a pathetic little firework could have blown up an aeroplane, who are we to be afraid of?
      Yeah, I was surprised that they didn't add any interior to the aircraft. Not sure about the knee business, perhaps he did transfer it to his knee in the toilet? I was only half watching.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
        Yeah, I was surprised that they didn't add any interior to the aircraft. Not sure about the knee business, perhaps he did transfer it to his knee in the toilet? I was only half watching.
        As I understood the news, the guy's undies were on fire and his pubic area was injured; not exactly consistent with placing the explosives on his knee. If it was indeed in his undies, his thighs would have provided a considerable cushioning effect. I have the impression the beeb did their best to replicate the attack with optimal conditions for a complete explosion and maximum damage, and failed to even loosen any rivets.
        And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

        Comment


          #5
          Propaganda

          Comment


            #6
            Watch newswipe from Monday

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...s_2_Episode_1/
            Coffee's for closers

            Comment


              #7
              why not make everyone change into paper overalls for flight and collect clothes when they arrive?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by singhr View Post
                why not make everyone change into paper overalls for flight and collect clothes when they arrive?
                Why not make them all wear orange jumpsuits and hoods and chain their arms and legs together?
                While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by doodab View Post
                  Why not make them all wear orange jumpsuits and hoods and chain their arms and legs together?
                  Or why not just use a few sniffer dogs

                  They use them to check your luggage for drugs on the way back into the country

                  Or maybe the government is more concerned with the actual problem of drug smuggling, rather than the very tiny problem of planes being blown up
                  Coffee's for closers

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by doodab View Post
                    Why not make them all wear orange jumpsuits and hoods and chain their arms and legs together?
                    Why not stop lying to us about threats that are frankly so laughable that Mr Abdulunderpants would be better off placed in a care home for retarded 3 year olds than slammed up for the rest of his life for being a clueless twit?
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X