||-CHARLIE BRAVO 70-||
-
cool huh~
*slicks hair back*
*sucks chupa chup*
ps: how many bottles? maybe i can get it for ur CNY? Circumstances dependable though -
see see? u further reinforced the stereotype that all goateed muslims are terrorists! and violent!Originally posted by fudgester:*takes out the shotgun*
*shoots the mouse*
Scratch one rodent.
-
Oh no! So how?Originally posted by alexkusu:see see? u further reinforced the stereotype that all goateed muslims are terrorists! and violent!
-
mmmmm... *counts*.....
-
hmm
a 911 documentary is on tv
they are saying pentagon was not hit by a plane...inconsistent damage, etc etc etc, computers, shelves, etc were still intact -
erm...go play in a blender or sth?Originally posted by fudgester:Oh no! So how? 
-
That's an urban legend which has already been debunked.Originally posted by alexkusu:hmm
a 911 documentary is on tv
they are saying pentagon was not hit by a plane...inconsistent damage, etc etc etc, computers, shelves, etc were still intact
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm -
u watching the Freedom Channel is it ?Originally posted by alexkusu:hmm
a 911 documentary is on tv
they are saying pentagon was not hit by a plane...inconsistent damage, etc etc etc, computers, shelves, etc were still intact
how the building was detonated after the crash.. and how Pentagon satelite images before the attack showed paintings at how n where impact is.~ -
Further quesOriginally posted by fudgester:
where's the surveillance footage of the crash? It said of all the cameras operating at the time, only one camera was on. And pentagon is supposed to be the nerve of the military forces.
Where's the plane wreckage?
Surely the fuel would have burned up and caused further damage right? Why did federal officers confiscated camera footage frm a nearby petrol station ? -
The pics before the wall collapse showed a hole of around 16 feet. How does a 737 fit in that hole? ANd the walls has not collapsed. There is no wreckage..no seats, no wheels, no fuselageOriginally posted by BadzMaro:u watching the Freedom Channel is it ?
how the building was detonated after the crash.. and how Pentagon satelite images before the attack showed paintings at how n where impact is.~ -
the documentary is produced by http://thepowerhour.com/
-
And I heard maro is a premature ejaculator. Is that true?
-
1. Security could have been lax. I remember reading about some 22-year old contract worker who made of with top-secret nuclear technology documents from Los Alamos using her thumbdrive. You'll be amazed at how lax the Yanks can be with security.Originally posted by alexkusu:Further ques
where's the surveillance footage of the crash? It said of all the cameras operating at the time, only one camera was on. And pentagon is supposed to be the nerve of the military forces.
Where's the plane wreckage? Surely the fuel would have burned up and caused further damage right? Why did federal officers confiscated camera footage frm a nearby petrol station ?
Besides, if they had wanted to cover it up, they would have simply said that ALL cameras were not working.
2. As the Snopes article mentioned, the intense heat of the burning jet fuel would have melted the aircraft chassis to scrap. It's just like the crash into the Twin Towers - everyone thought that a small plane had collided into the first tower as the hole made at impact was pretty small.
I suggest reading the Snopes article thoroughly for more details.
3. Of course security footage from civillian sources would have to be confiscated as part of the investigation into the attack. They would want to know details such as the angle and speed of approach of the incoming aircraft. The best way of knowing such details would be through analysis of the tape which may have caught the aircraft in its approach to the Pentagon.
It's not too much of a stretch for the local law-enforcement people to subpoena the petrol station owners for the surveillance camera tape. -
fudgester, ur a potential aircraft engineer right? in your own opinion, what do you think?
-
Yanks.. normally trusting and they announce thier presence and not very selfish when it comes to technology in certain fields... but exploited.. so now the getting hella paranoid.Originally posted by fudgester:1. Security could have been lax. I remember reading about some 22-year old contract worker who made of with top-secret nuclear technology documents from Los Alamos using her thumbdrive. You'll be amazed at how lax the Yanks can be with security.
Besides, if they had wanted to cover it up, they would have simply said that ALL cameras were not working.
2. As the Snopes article mentioned, the intense heat of the burning jet fuel would have melted the aircraft chassis to scrap. It's just like the crash into the Twin Towers - everyone thought that a small plane had collided into the first tower as the hole made at impact was pretty small.
I suggest reading the Snopes article thoroughly for more details.
3. Of course security footage from civillian sources would have to be confiscated as part of the investigation into the attack. They would want to know details such as the angle and speed of approach of the incoming aircraft. The best way of knowing such details would be through analysis of the tape which may have caught the aircraft in its approach to the Pentagon.
It's not too much of a stretch for the local law-enforcement people to subpoena the petrol station owners for the surveillance camera tape. -
What I think? That program you just watched is just propagating an urban legend. The conspiracy theory that you watched on TV sounds compelling, but science tells me otherwise.Originally posted by alexkusu:fudgester, ur a potential aircraft engineer right? in your own opinion, what do you think?
I admit that it does seem somewhat suspicious that an aircraft can impact a building at such a low altitude when piloted by a novice pilot, but it's not impossible, either. Besides, as the snopes article mentioned, it hit the ground just prior to hitting the Pentagon walls.
That's the main reason why the damage is far less extensive than we would all expect - much of the kinetic enegy of the aircraft was dissipated before it even hit the Pentagon. Besides, the reinforced construction materials used in renovating the Pentagon would have absorbed a lot more energy, thereby limiting the damage further.
In addition, the reinforced walls may have caused the wings to simply snap into the hole created by the main body of the aircraft upon impact. I don't know the exact strength of the reinforced walls, but 24-inch thick reinforced concrete is definitely very, very tough. The steel reinforcement in those walls would have allowed it to absorb large amounts of energy upon impact via ductile fracture.
So... the conspiracy theory's interesting, but I don't accept it. -
he he..Originally posted by fudgester:What I think? That program you just watched is just propagating an urban legend. The conspiracy theory that you watched on TV sounds compelling, but science tells me otherwise.
I admit that it does seem somewhat suspicious that an aircraft can impact a building at such a low altitude when piloted by a novice pilot, but it's not impossible, either. Besides, as the snopes article mentioned, it hit the ground just prior to hitting the Pentagon walls.
That's the main reason why the damage is far less extensive than we would all expect - much of the kinetic enegy of the aircraft was dissipated before it even hit the Pentagon. Besides, the reinforced construction materials used in renovating the Pentagon would have absorbed a lot more energy, thereby limiting the damage further.
In addition, the reinforced walls may have caused the wings to simply snap into the hole created by the main body of the aircraft upon impact. I don't know the exact strength of the reinforced walls, but 24-inch thick reinforced concrete is definitely very, very tough. The steel reinforcement in those walls would have allowed it to absorb large amounts of energy upon impact via ductile fracture.
So... the conspiracy theory's interesting, but I don't accept it.
i am cool with pentagon..
but what about the collapse of the tower.. in such a way its like properly blasted. OR maybe its designed to fall in a way to reduce collateral..
anyways la.. conspiracy's will never end.. malaysia also got so many conspiracy in the Mongolian woman murder.. he he -
well, just something to think about and discuss i guesss, but not worth investing more than needed into it.
maro, wat mongolian murder? u mean at KL? -
The collapse of the Twin Towers can be explained through an investigation of the way the planes crashed into them and what happened in the immediate aftermath.Originally posted by BadzMaro:but what about the collapse of the tower.. in such a way its like properly blasted. OR maybe its designed to fall in a way to reduce collateral..
When the plane smashed into the tower, it pretty much destroyed the load-bearing walls in the floors that it crashed into. At the same time, temperatures in those floors would have been extremely high due to the large amounts of jet fuel being burnt. It doesn't help that there was plenty of other combustible material as well - furniture, carpeting, and sadly speaking, human bodies. The extreme high temperatures of the burning jet fuel could easily have been enough to set human bodies alight (the human body combusts at around 1000 degrees Celsius).
The prolonged inferno would have then easily weakened or even melted the steel reinforcement of the load-bearing walls that were not damaged in the initial impact, causing them to eventually fail. Once enough load-bearing walls have collapsed, there would be insufficient support holding up the weight of the top floors, causing them to collapse like a pack of cards - which is exactly what that happened.
That also explains why the South Tower collapsed first even though it was hit second. It was hit at a lower floor than the first tower, meaning that there was much more weight to be supported by the load-bearing walls. It would take fewer load-bearing walls to fail before the whole upper structure gives way. -
I wont ask about 'the plane's tail entry point'
in other news, i was making lamb curry and i burned my mom's brand new pot
see what u two make me do? im so naive and easily influenced by peer pressure -
Great level of intelligent discussion goin guys!
-
yup.... at the KL one..Originally posted by alexkusu:well, just something to think about and discuss i guesss, but not worth investing more than needed into it.
maro, wat mongolian murder? u mean at KL? -
when did it happened? was she a prostitute?Originally posted by BadzMaro:yup.... at the KL one.. -
how about the re-inforced steel supposed to withstand temperatures up to 2000 degreess celcius. Actually i do believe about the heat.. just that how fast it collapsed .. and the manner it collapsed. But anyways.. who cares.. he he... i am on the Conspiracy theroy of the Mongolian murder !Originally posted by fudgester:The collapse of the Twin Towers can be explained through an investigation of the way the planes crashed into them and what happened in the immediate aftermath.
When the plane smashed into the tower, it pretty much destroyed the load-bearing walls in the floors that it crashed into. At the same time, temperatures in those floors would have been extremely high due to the large amounts of jet fuel being burnt. It doesn't help that there was plenty of other combustible material as well - furniture, carpeting, and sadly speaking, human bodies. The extreme high temperatures of the burning jet fuel could easily have been enough to set human bodies alight (the human body combusts at around 1000 degrees Celsius).
The prolonged inferno would have then easily weakened or even melted the steel reinforcement of the load-bearing walls that were not damaged in the initial impact, causing them to eventually fail. Once enough load-bearing walls have collapsed, there would be insufficient support holding up the weight of the top floors, causing them to collapse like a pack of cards - which is exactly what that happened.
That also explains why the South Tower collapsed first even though it was hit second. It was hit at a lower floor than the first tower, meaning that there was much more weight to be supported by the load-bearing walls. It would take fewer load-bearing walls to fail before the whole upper structure gives way. -
By the way, if the WTC attacks had been a government conspiracy as well, they would have easily loaded the cargo holds of the aircraft with high explosives to further guarantee that the buildings would collapse. As it is, the buildings actually had a fair chance of standing up - it was only because that there was enough combustible fuel to melt the steel reinforcements that the buildings collapsed.
Believe it or not, the WTC was actually designed to be able to take the impact of a crashing jumbo jet. However, the architects and engineers didn't really consider the impact that burning jet fuel can have.
Steel reinforcement being able to take up to 200 deg Celsius? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, steel melts at temperatures between 1500 - 2000 degrees, depending on the alloy composition. And it doesn't even need to melt in this case - all that is required is for the steel to weaken (steel starts to lose its strength at around 700 deg, if I recall correctly). And in addition, as I mentioned earlier, it's not much of a stretch to see that high temperatures of over 2000 deg can be reached in the immediate vicinity of the crash.
And also, it would have been more likely for them to want to INCREASE collateral damage had it been a government conspiracy. This would then further increase world sympathy towards them and make the justification for the War on Terror far easier. And it's not like there was no collateral damage at all - 7 World Trade Center collapsed a little while later from the seismic shock of the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Besides, to assume that the US government would want to strike the economic heart of America and potentially bring the American economy down on its knees just to justify a war on terrorists doesn't make sense. For the US to want to go after the terrorists, they would have to have the resources to do so - and resources can only come with a strong economy.
It's just like how it makes no sense that Roosevelt allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to occur in 1941 to justify a war with the Japs. It just doesn't add up that he would want to risk America's greatest weapon against the Japanese - the US Pacific Fleet - in order to go after them.