The surfaces--and the bathrooms in particular---totally true. The air? Can be an issue (there are studies)--but the filtration systems themselves are excellent. HEPA 99.7%. There are seating tricks; sit either first row economy ("Economy Plus") or last row of first class. Select the window seat and try to put your companion next to you or---fly an airline with empty seat policies (e.g. JetBlue). Don't rush to get on (although they are mostly now loading back to front anyway)--get on as reasonable late as you can--that way, all those people aren't walking by you exhaling on you.

The reason for the first row economy or last row first is: you don't want people walking by you all flight on the way to the bathrooms; you want to be the person walking by THEM (selfish but...); and the same with the window seating and the last-reasonable minute boarding.

Also, I carry a two zip locks on at the top of my carry on bag; one has three disposable gloves, Clorox or equivalent wipes, and Purell or equiv. etc. Move into seat out of aisle, then with gloves on, wipe down the latch to the overhead (you're going to touch it twice) and then every surface from the aisle to window that you touch---armrests, seat back display, seat back display surface, bulkhead, window shade, tray table locks, tray table both surfaces and edges, buckle, tang, seat controls, audio controls---no point to seat fabric--then roll the glove inside out with the wipes inside and put into the empty ZIploc as a trash bag. Usually two wipes does the job. Purell hands and settle in.

Been doing this since before the pandemic because I totally agree with you.

Airplane bathrooms are all about not touching surfaces with clean hands after you've cleaned them...they are staggeringly filthy. Infectious disease experts have been known to gag in horror at what gets swabbed from the sink handles, toilet flush, and door lock/handle lol. Paper towel is your friend--as our your forearms and elbows.

@oritteropo Thank you for your reasoned reply.
But you are wrong. My video was suppressed and not visible on ANY of the sifts 'channels'. So a downvoted video not given the chance to 'air' can be killed by a downvote.
Yes, there is no conspiracy, I'm not a nut.
Yes, I am quite obviously against down voting.
In what democracy EVER could you DOWNVOTE ????

Crushing the bottle explains the air displacement in the bottle - but how do you explain the air displacement down his throat?

I too can open my throat and pour a Pint of water down without swallowing but my mouth is tuned up and open so displaced air can escape. His mouth is closed around the mouth of the bottle. That water should be shooting out his nose - Definitely FAKE

The first part where the paper keeps the water in is true, provided no air can enter the glass the water can't fall out.

The second part where the water stays in after the paper is removed is fake, normally achieved by a transparent plastic disc (the size of the mouth of the glass) being lifted into place at the same time as the paper.

That was a very impressive speech by someone who obviously does not speak publicly (constant mic pops from the P sounds and such). And it begins to answer some questions as to why you never see home footage and the "little people" reporting on things, because if the government is going so far as to block big media it should be a small thing to block the little guys from ever gaining popularity.

As for the people not leaving, money might be an issue...but it might be of question of what's going to be left for them when they do and where is it safe to go? If it's already hitting their homes, how far do they have to go to escape it...because the fumes and acid rain coming from it can hit in land. Is leaving the state heading inland enough? Are they in trouble already because they haven't left yet? Will it kill them from the exposure they've had so far?

Plus the whole subject of, if they leave...does that mean they still have a case against BP? Or did they leave for another reason? Because officially at this point in time, no one has released a statement saying what this shit in the water/land/air can do to a person or advised them to do anything.

So if you're potentially terminally sick already and you potentially won't have a case to be made for financial reimbursement and treatment of yourself, kids, and anything you may have lost because of this....why shouldn't you make it your mission in life to fuck BP and those who made it all fall the way it did?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.
As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...
You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.
Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.


OMG, I was just making an example of a simple tabletop experiment demonstrating the basic physics of the different emissivities of different gasses.

What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.

As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...

You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.

Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.

Well, points for her eventual success. She should have worked her way from the far periphery of the abcess to the center to begin with. I am sure he is left with something his immune system took out in the end. If you ever need to do this, you can start by filling a small cup up with the super cold liquid from a canned air can and using that as a surface anesthetic.

My MBP is pretty awesome, though. It works like a charm. My MacBook Air can have the occasional minor hiccup here and there, but it, too, works to be expected: as an overpriced tiny laptop that surfs the web adequately.

On my MBP, I do most of my work as a programmer on the XP partition. I'm sorry, but there are a number of things you can do on a PC operating system you simply cannot do easily on the Mac OS. Even basic shit like... for instance, on a PC open a txt document and past in a YouTube embed code. Now save that txt document as an html file. Now open it in a browser. Alas, the video appears!

Now do the same thing on Mac. WTF!

^chilaxe:

When you're inside of a tank the pressure wave in the air can't get to ya very easily.

I guess I'll have a go at this MadLib:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

--

1. You're probably right, Mr. McCarthy.
2. You're right.
3. "Barack Obama: Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law." -http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Pres_3.htm
4. They did claim he was born there. And Dick Cheney claimed that we would be greeted as liberators. people can claim whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.
5. Is this even relevant?
6. You're right.
7. A government that is not bankrupt can't solve a bankrupt economy. Governments only create more problems. So you're right again.
8. Printing money out of thin air creates inflation. Doing so during a recession causes hyperinflation. You are correct.

>> ^chilaxe:
For those questioning it... the word 'insanity' is being used here to refer to disproven positions that deny reality to such a degree that it's useless for mainstream society to try to speak with the person.


I always hear about how true something is, but I never see any evidence for it. Can you please provide some evidence for the following:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

I'm sorry but these are valid questions, theres nothing "insane" about them. If someone can provide supporting evidence for all 8 of those points I'll personally go through and watch your entire personal queue. Given how "insane" his claims were, the evidence should be really easy to find.

Hear hear. Global warming is bullshit. Climate change, on the other hand, may very well be real. Sure, all that shit we're pumping into the air can't be good, but it's not the cause.

I wouldn't own a pickup just because gas is $4 a gallon.

Air or water are sometimes pumped underground at high pressure in order to move oil deposits around. If the air hits an underground void such as a cave, this pressurized air can be transfered very long distances to an outlet. I've heard of water wells blasting out water over seven miles away from a pressurized oil well. In this case it happened in a cave rich area of New Mexico not too far from the famous Carlsbad Caverns.

Again, the cores were simply never designed to stand completely independently of the rest of the building. Roughly analogously, a drain-pipe bolted to the side of a very tall building maybe perfectly secure and could even provide enough stability for someone to climb; however, that same drain-pipe left free-standing in an open area would collapse of its own accord.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you mention something "dissolving in mid-air". Can you clarify that for me?

From an epistemological and a platonic perspective, to be able to rationally reach the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looked considerably suspicious, one would have to be reasonably familiar with what this kind of skyscraper collapsing due to a combination of severe structural damage and widespread fires should look like. Unfortunately however, there exist no comparable examples for us to evaluate. Prior to 9/11, the only time the vast majority of us will have seen a high-rise building collapse is due to a controlled demolition, so it's perfectly natural to draw such a cognitive association.