DarkViper on 15/3/2006 at 08:09
Woah! Epos Nix! Another cool person who hasn't posted in awhile.
Ignoring the 4 posts you've made this year, of course ;)I just noticed you in any case
Jonesy on 15/3/2006 at 08:22
Epos: They didn't do that because it failed the first time. Plus the amount of explosive that was used in the first bomb in 1993 was large enough to take up most of a Ryder van, about 1300 lbs of explosive in all. They probably didn't want to have the same ineffectual result.
The reason why the bomb didn't do much besides muck up the parking garage was due to the fact that the bomb wasn't placed inside the perimeter wall. If it had been, it might have collapsed the building, but since it wasn't, the majority of the energy struck the outside wall and didn't get any penetration.
The difference between this event and 9/11 is that on this one, you have an unsuccessful penetration of a building by a 600kg car bomb placed about 40 yards from the perimeter wall, and you have two successful penetrations by two jet airliners who takeoff weight at empty was 164,800 lb, and which also carried 23,980 gal or 90,780 L of fuel.
So, if I'm reading some people's posts correctly, they're saying that several packs of c4 would be enough to take down this building, yet jets with a kinetic force hundreds of times greater wouldn't be enough? You're talking about planes hitting with seven times the kinetic force that the 707 impact was taken into the original building design.
Take off the tinfoil hats for a second and look at the video. No other building has had to survive a fire fueled by jet fuel in addition to the initial impact of said jet, so it's quite easy to say "Oh, it was the result of the US Government, cause that's the only way this could have happened! Them and their missiles, I tell ya!"
The reason they fell was simple. Buildings are not meant to be rammed with airliners. We don't design for that. If we did, then we'd be working in windowless boxes. What happened on Sept 11th was a fatally flawed building, a poor governmental oversight of who gets on planes, and 19 dedicated hijackers willing to sacrifice their lives in order to kill some Americans. All those factors combined to create a disaster that nobody could have forseen.
End rant. Back to lurking.
Shayde on 15/3/2006 at 09:01
Prepare yourselves to flame me, but I really don't see the big deal, even after all this time.
People die all the time, from crime, terrorism and general violence of human against human. And yet 911 was this huge deal, constantly in the media even over here in Africa. I'm not trying to be insensitive and I don't think those people deserved to die, I just don't understand why this one incident of tragedy is supposed to be more upsetting to me than any other.
Is it because it happened to America?
Shug on 15/3/2006 at 09:10
It's because it happened in America, and it happened in front of a lot of people with a lot of video cameras.
That said the video makes, in my opinion, a couple of ridiculous calls without the required evidence. HOWEVER, if someone cares to explain why the buildings had lots of tiny little explosions not just in the footage but as described by firefighters, I'm eager to hear it. If the security was indeed pulled off the building in the week beforehand, and a few of the other quotes, that's just downright suspicious.
I understand Monkeysee et al going off about some of the more ridiculous theories roaming the internet but this one DOES make some points that bear further scrutiny. Even the mobile phone calls were utterly ridiculous. I'm not a "conspiracy theory" person, but if only one of the topics in the documentary was half-true, that's a basis for a bit of a geeze and a "what's going on there?"
Epos Nix on 15/3/2006 at 09:14
Quote:
I just don't understand why this one incident of tragedy is supposed to be more upsetting to me than any other.
Who told you that you had to care? Whoever it was they lied. Doesn't change the fact that some people do care though, considering the events on that day directly led to conflicts against Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 impacted more than just America, in one way or another.
Jonesy:
Sorry bud but I don't see how your post has anything to do with mine. I was merely questioning what the explosions in the subway near the Trade Center was all about.
Gingerbread Man on 15/3/2006 at 09:21
Well, to be fair, it WAS pretty mind-blowing in terms of OH HOLY SHIT. I mean, ignoring for a second the very real and tragic loss of life and the fear that it caused for months afterwards among those closely affected, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more spectacular, cinematic, straight-out-of-a-disaster-movie thing in history short of the destruction of Pompeii.
But yeah, certainly the current American president alludes to (if not directly refers to) the WTC incident in every speech he gives. It's beome the new Pearl Harbour in terms of a defining moment in American cultural and military history, an utterly iconic thing, and you can't discount the Emotion Response In a Bottle effect that reminding people of it has.
Of course, I live overtop of the dudes, so I hear their stereo louder than my own. Are the Spanish still referring to the Madrid train bombing? Do the Indians still being up Bhopal, or the Ukranians Chernobyl? I guess Bhopal and Chernobyl aren't really in the same league, as they weren't overtly aggressive things.
Purely dispassionately, why would the Americans and their allies (economic, military, and bum-kissy) miss an opportunity to remind people? It was a gigantic event, surrounded by fear and suspicion, and it has fundamentally altered their behaviour on the world stage and at home. Cynics can say it's all good propaganda and fearmongering, the others can say it's a reminder that they shouldn't be complacent and feel invulnerable just because they share this huge landmass with two particularly friendly (and relatively weak, economicaly and military speaking) countries.
And it's really only been five years. It takes most sports fans longer than that to shut up about that time their team almost made the (insert name of finals here).
Shayde on 15/3/2006 at 09:30
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Who told you that you had to care?
erm the media that constantly bombards even my distant shores. You have to admit that 911 has got more global attention than any other event in the last 5 years, even in places like S.A. where it had little to no effect on our lives.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Of course, I live overtop of the dudes, so I hear their stereo louder than my own.
That's part of my point, I'm nowhere near USA and I hear it all the time. I suppose you are right about it only being 5 years. Some of our lot still go on about Apartheid and that was over 10 years ago.
SubJeff on 15/3/2006 at 09:45
But people should be reminded of Apartheid. It was a much more serious and evil thing than 100 9/11s. 10 years is nothing. People should be talking about the utter idiocy of it 100 years from now.
9/11 is always bandied about because it has led to so many things, was as spectacualr as GBM said, and was carried out on American soil. That may not seem like a big hoohaa to many but if it had happened in JoBurg the security failure wouldn't be seen in the same way because there are less expectations (lol tv infrastructure and the World Cup). Having said that - it is just a liiittle bit overplayed.
Shayde on 15/3/2006 at 09:51
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But people
should be reminded of Apartheid. It was a much more serious and evil thing than 100 9/11s. 10 years is nothing. People should be talking about the utter idiocy of it 100 years from now.
Aaah but ARE people still talking about it? Do you have documentaries about it on your tv? Does your news report on the anniversary of the '94 elections on the 27th of April every year? Or the anniversary of the sharpville massacre perhaps?
on an unrelated note you should all go see Tsotsi, it won S.A. an oscar and is superb.
Rogue Keeper on 15/3/2006 at 09:58
WTC was touching enough, but I'm more interested about Pentagon.
