Originally posted by Paddy
View Post
- 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
-
So lets ban cars and trains as well. Sorted.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.' -
Or 700+, if it's one of those new super gigantic jobs.Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostOne of these nutty, islamic jihad types only needs to get lucky once to blow 200 - 300 people out of the sky.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
Hmm, indeed, but I find the whole thing a little suspicious. The guy’s dad, who was well known and respected at the US Embassy in Lagos, warned the septics about his son. They had his name on lists of terror suspects but only did anything shortly before the plane arrived in Detroit.Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostOne of these nutty, islamic jihad types only needs to get lucky once to blow 200 - 300 people out of the sky.
Abdulunderpants supposedly studied engineering for some time; he should therefore have had the skills to figure out that his firecracker wouldn’t have caused much damage.
The news channels showed films of a supposed simulation of a similar device in aeroplanes; in those films a huge chunk of aeroplane was thrown into the nearby countryside and we were told that 80 grams of the explosive could have blown the plane out of the sky. In reality, 80 grams couldn’t cause much more damage than a flatulent Mexican.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Well alright, but it wasn't exactly a huge explosion.Originally posted by zeitghostEr, they did pop some rivets.
And that was more or less it.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Pentaerythritol tetranitrate PETN in this case. V powerful explosive, but such a small amount wasn't really very impressive.Originally posted by zeitghostI suppose it depends what it's 80gms of.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostOne of these nutty, islamic jihad types only needs to get lucky once to blow 200 - 300 people out of the sky.
CIA Started that trick
and another one"A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- What does the non-compete clause consultation mean for contractors? Feb 19 07:59
- To escalate or wait? With late payment, even month two is too late Today 07:26
- Signs of IT contractor jobs uplift softened in January 2026 Yesterday 07:37
- ‘Make Work Pay…’ heralds a new era for umbrella company compliance Feb 16 08:23
- Should a new limited company not making much money pay a salary/dividend? Feb 13 08:43
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Feb 12 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42

Comment