CH
I know that Michael. What's your point? Opening the parcel doesn't trigger the bomb.
Does it tell you the package is going through East Midlands airport?
'Could' is a thought-terminating word unless you're going to follow-up with an assessment of the probability of it happening. Yes, the device could bring down a plane, but success depends on many variables - the type, amount and condition of explosive used, reliability of the detonator which is usually poor, its position on the plane which affects both the ability to receive a signal and the explosion's impact on the fuselage, terrorists knowing what flight their package will be on, route of plane, location of package. It's just ridiculous. On a scale of one to 100, the likelihood of this going to plan was about two.
It wouldn't concern millions of other people around the world though.
In a very large warehouse, the explosion would have been lucky to take out a handful of people, at the most.
A UPS man comes to the door and goes "Parcel for you" - you usually open the parcel before finding out its something you didn't order.
I know that Michael. What's your point? Opening the parcel doesn't trigger the bomb.
Ever heard of parcel tracking? You log on to the internet, type in a code and you get a fairly accurate idea of which stage of the journey your parcel is at. Sometimes you even see the name of the person who unloaded it from the van.
Does it tell you the package is going through East Midlands airport?
It is likely however it could have brought down a plane.
'Could' is a thought-terminating word unless you're going to follow-up with an assessment of the probability of it happening. Yes, the device could bring down a plane, but success depends on many variables - the type, amount and condition of explosive used, reliability of the detonator which is usually poor, its position on the plane which affects both the ability to receive a signal and the explosion's impact on the fuselage, terrorists knowing what flight their package will be on, route of plane, location of package. It's just ridiculous. On a scale of one to 100, the likelihood of this going to plan was about two.
You'd be concerned.
It wouldn't concern millions of other people around the world though.
Also Chie, the parcel travels through package hubs around the world where up to 500 people work. Had it been powerful enough it could have taken out a hefty proportion of them.
In a very large warehouse, the explosion would have been lucky to take out a handful of people, at the most.
MW
In a very large warehouse, the explosion would have been lucky to take out a handful of people, at the most.
Yes, a large warehouse with LBOs and Artic drivers everywhere. Offices usually one floor above.
Also Chie, the parcel travels through package hubs around the world where up to 500 people work. Had it been powerful enough it could have taken out a hefty proportion of them.
In a very large warehouse, the explosion would have been lucky to take out a handful of people, at the most.
Yes, a large warehouse with LBOs and Artic drivers everywhere. Offices usually one floor above.
CH
Yes, plenty of heavy goods and machinery to absorb the blast in an environment so spacious that it might as well be in the open air.
'One floor above' gives an impression of being three metres above the warehouse floor, which we both know is silly, and they'd occupy a tiny corner of the building anyway, if at all.
Anyway the point was it was never going to happen and the media over-reacted.
Yes, a large warehouse with LBOs and Artic drivers everywhere.
Yes, plenty of heavy goods and machinery to absorb the blast in an environment so spacious that it might as well be in the open air.
Offices usually one floor above.
'One floor above' gives an impression of being three metres above the warehouse floor, which we both know is silly, and they'd occupy a tiny corner of the building anyway, if at all.
Anyway the point was it was never going to happen and the media over-reacted.
Last edited by Chie on 31 October 2010 9:58pm
MI
Richie, your statements here are, even by your standards, truly astonishing in their idiocy, breathtaking simplicity, and generalisation. You are NOT an expert on international terrorism, nor are you an expert on the potential damage footprint of bombs. Your cavalier approach to "one or two lives" being an acceptable death toll shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism, and attempts to logicise the apparent chaos in the mind of the extremist. You are in no way qualified to comment at all on the potential damage this plot could have caused.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
CH
I didn't say the story was un-newsworthy. I said the media blew it out of proportion and acted irresponsibly by perpetuating fear in a case where none would have otherwise have occurred, because as I said, the plot was hopeless.
Why do you, Chie, think 'potential' is such a ridiculous concept, and just because something
didn't
happen, that the potential for it to happen is considered un-newsworthy?
I didn't say the story was un-newsworthy. I said the media blew it out of proportion and acted irresponsibly by perpetuating fear in a case where none would have otherwise have occurred, because as I said, the plot was hopeless.
JO
I didn't say the story was un-newsworthy. I said the media blew it out of proportion and acted irresponsibly by perpetuating fear in a case where none would have otherwise have occurred, because as I said, the plot was hopeless.
Okay... I didn't realise that was what you were saying (or at least, I had forgotten since I'd read what you orignally said). However, I am interested in hearing how you think this should have been covered?
Why do you, Chie, think 'potential' is such a ridiculous concept, and just because something
didn't
happen, that the potential for it to happen is considered un-newsworthy?
I didn't say the story was un-newsworthy. I said the media blew it out of proportion and acted irresponsibly by perpetuating fear in a case where none would have otherwise have occurred, because as I said, the plot was hopeless.
Okay... I didn't realise that was what you were saying (or at least, I had forgotten since I'd read what you orignally said). However, I am interested in hearing how you think this should have been covered?
BR
Can you not just say that you disagree with the poster and give your reasons for that disagreement, rather than insulting him?
Richie, your statements here are, even by your standards, truly astonishing in their idiocy, breathtaking simplicity, and generalisation. You are NOT an expert on international terrorism, nor are you an expert on the potential damage footprint of bombs. Your cavalier approach to "one or two lives" being an acceptable death toll shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism, and attempts to logicise the apparent chaos in the mind of the extremist. You are in no way qualified to comment at all on the potential damage this plot could have caused.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
Can you not just say that you disagree with the poster and give your reasons for that disagreement, rather than insulting him?
MI
Can you not just say that you disagree with the poster and give your reasons for that disagreement, rather than insulting him?
Where did I insult Chie? I made a perfectly valid critical observation on the validity of his arguments and viewpoint, indicating where I thought his shortcomings were.
Besides, who asked you? Have you got something to add to the discussion, Skyboy?
Richie, your statements here are, even by your standards, truly astonishing in their idiocy, breathtaking simplicity, and generalisation. You are NOT an expert on international terrorism, nor are you an expert on the potential damage footprint of bombs. Your cavalier approach to "one or two lives" being an acceptable death toll shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism, and attempts to logicise the apparent chaos in the mind of the extremist. You are in no way qualified to comment at all on the potential damage this plot could have caused.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
Please credit the average viewer with a little more intelligence than the average Sun reader. Most will realise the seriousness of this situation without being scared, and most will realise the rarity of this kind of event without resorting to your sort of blaseness.
Can you not just say that you disagree with the poster and give your reasons for that disagreement, rather than insulting him?
Where did I insult Chie? I made a perfectly valid critical observation on the validity of his arguments and viewpoint, indicating where I thought his shortcomings were.
Besides, who asked you? Have you got something to add to the discussion, Skyboy?
CH
That's right, Michael. Nothing is true unless you've heard it said on the BBC. Do not think or question. You are not qualified to do anything except make a cup of tea and stare at your TV.
No, they will say what could happen, without saying what the actual probability of it happening is, or at least might be.
I would like them to not use thought-terminating statements such as "with enough explosive to bring down a plane" without emphasising that:
1. Al-Qaeda has a track record of poor detonators.
2. The bomb was designed to be remotely detonated by mobile phone and the problems presented by that.
3. A successful attack would depend heavily on the bomb's position inside the plane.
4. Home secretary has said the terrorists would not have known the whereabouts of the package during its journey.
5. The toner cartridge by my estimation can accommodate probably 250g of explosive.
6. Planes have landed safely despite substantial damage in the past (in fact one landed safely only the other day after a 2ft-square hole appeared in its side at 31,000ft).
I have heard either nothing or very little being made of these very important factors over the last three days.
True, the explosive could bring down a plane. But not this bomb, and not on this flight.
Richie, your statements here are, even by your standards, truly astonishing in their idiocy, breathtaking simplicity, and generalisation. You are NOT an expert on international terrorism, nor are you an expert on the potential damage footprint of bombs. Your cavalier approach to "one or two lives" being an acceptable death toll shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism, and attempts to logicise the apparent chaos in the mind of the extremist. You are in no way qualified to comment at all on the potential damage this plot could have caused.
That's right, Michael. Nothing is true unless you've heard it said on the BBC. Do not think or question. You are not qualified to do anything except make a cup of tea and stare at your TV.
At least the news channels attempt to quantify their claims by bringing in consultants and experts to judge the situation. Whatever the nature of speculation on the part of the journalists, the experts will ratify and/or debunk these possibilities.
No, they will say what could happen, without saying what the actual probability of it happening is, or at least might be.
Okay... I didn't realise that was what you were saying (or at least, I had forgotten since I'd read what you orignally said). However, I am interested in hearing how you think this
should
have been covered?
I would like them to not use thought-terminating statements such as "with enough explosive to bring down a plane" without emphasising that:
1. Al-Qaeda has a track record of poor detonators.
2. The bomb was designed to be remotely detonated by mobile phone and the problems presented by that.
3. A successful attack would depend heavily on the bomb's position inside the plane.
4. Home secretary has said the terrorists would not have known the whereabouts of the package during its journey.
5. The toner cartridge by my estimation can accommodate probably 250g of explosive.
6. Planes have landed safely despite substantial damage in the past (in fact one landed safely only the other day after a 2ft-square hole appeared in its side at 31,000ft).
I have heard either nothing or very little being made of these very important factors over the last three days.
True, the explosive could bring down a plane. But not this bomb, and not on this flight.
MW
Yes, plenty of heavy goods and machinery to absorb the blast in an environment so spacious that it might as well be in the open air.
'One floor above' gives an impression of being three metres above the warehouse floor, which we both know is silly, and they'd occupy a tiny corner of the building anyway, if at all.
Anyway the point was it was never going to happen and the media over-reacted.
When was the last time you've been in a delivery and logistic's warehouse? Most of the new ones have the offices with a mezzanine overlooking the work floor about 4.5 meters above with glass windows.
Yes, a large warehouse with LBOs and Artic drivers everywhere.
Yes, plenty of heavy goods and machinery to absorb the blast in an environment so spacious that it might as well be in the open air.
Offices usually one floor above.
'One floor above' gives an impression of being three metres above the warehouse floor, which we both know is silly, and they'd occupy a tiny corner of the building anyway, if at all.
Anyway the point was it was never going to happen and the media over-reacted.
When was the last time you've been in a delivery and logistic's warehouse? Most of the new ones have the offices with a mezzanine overlooking the work floor about 4.5 meters above with glass windows.
Last edited by Mike W on 1 November 2010 12:34am