 |
Dingle
Gay for Mugtoe
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 10618 |
9/11 - A day for reflection
I've been told repeatedly that I'm supposed to spend today reflecting and remembering, so I've been doing just that. Specifically, I've been reflecting on the trajectory of the airplanes as they hit the WTC, and how the rag-heads failed to maximize the potential of the attack.
Consider the following diagram: 
fig. 1.1
It's fairly obvious where the sand niggers fucked up. The actual initial damage and mortality was minimized due to the trajectory of the impact. Secondary mortality was achieved by preventing people above the impact from escaping, and ultimately perishing in the collapse, however, the relatively high location of the impact minimized secondary mortality by allowing 70-90% of the occupants to escape before the collapse.
My proposal involves altering the trajectory and location of impact by nose-diving the airplanes towards the base of the building, as illustrated in fig. 1.1. Such an impact would not only dramatically increase the initial damage caused by the impact, but would also increase secondary mortality by 500-1500%.
In addition to the increased initial and secondary mortality, the TSIF mortality can potentially be boosted. TSIF mortality (The Sky Is Falling) is caused by falling buildings and debris. A low, angular hit would tend to cause the buildings to tip over rather than collapse straight down. The result would increase the TSIF range to many city blocks, rather than the area immediately surrounding the buildings. Obviously, this would be a bonus.
In conclusion, I feel the camel jockeys executed the attack extremely poorly, and if implemented my proposal would yield an estimated mortality bonus of 20,000-60,000 lives.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
09-11-2002 11:34 PM |
|
|
| |
|
buddha's penis
has it all
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9470 |
this thread is going to be deleted by the department of homeland security. dingle's tactical genius cant be allowed to flow free.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 12:05 AM |
|
|
| |
|
morgana
THE Bitch
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7234 |
with planes that size, you have to account for the height of the buildings surrounding the wtc.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 12:14 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Cranium Fornication
Old No. 7 is my vice..
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Land of Entrapment
Posts: 660 |
Couple things Dingled00d....
1) The mortality rate was so low because of the TIME they decided to impact. There were only about 14k people total in both buildings at the time of attack.. If they would have scheduled it differently so that the impacts happened say at noonish they would have had the buildings packed with workers(30-35k people) and the lunch tourist crowds (another 10Kish people)..
2) With a downward angle that great you are risking more of a deflection of the plane instead of a penetration which is what you needed to bring down the towers. I do agree that they should have hit it lower to maximize collateral damage.
3) The pentagon.. who's dumbass idea was that??
4) Hey at least we got to start saying "Let's Roll" again
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 12:45 AM |
|
|
| |
|
slight
long pig
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3149 |
Did you consider that maybe they wanted to send a message, rather than wanted specifically to kill a lot of innocent people? If I understand the mindset, the number of lives lost is inconsequential in their opinion.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 01:09 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Cranium Fornication
Old No. 7 is my vice..
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Land of Entrapment
Posts: 660 |
Being an American I can pretty much tell you what they thought and what their mindset is.. yea they could have planned it better.. Habib and Habob the two pilots screwed up..
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 01:45 AM |
|
|
| |
|
slight
long pig
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3149 |
eh?
how do you figure the pilots screwed up?
did they mean to *not* destroy the wtc?
i'd call it a huge success.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 04:15 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Cranium Fornication
Old No. 7 is my vice..
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Land of Entrapment
Posts: 660 |
yikes sorry you didn't get the sarcasm and undertonned joke within that post.. I'll make some pretty pictures so you can understand.... 
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 04:32 AM |
|
|
| |
|
skalie
the honourable
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15427 |
The timing was immaculate, also the aim.
The whole thing was about press coverage, thus the choice of an early morning strike to get maximum exposure in Europe, Africa and Asia as well as Stateside.
Pop one up high to get the camera's rolling, then go for the finale, the shot to the stomach.
I really don't believe that the intention was to kill as many people as possible, I also think that it was a surprise to everyone involved to see the towers collapse.
Would not a half destroyed tower leave an even vivider image?
Is vivider a word?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 05:01 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Cranium Fornication
Old No. 7 is my vice..
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Land of Entrapment
Posts: 660 |
It certainly would have screwed up the cleanup effort to have to deal with an unstable building..
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 05:05 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Indigo
Fluffy Bunny
Registered: Nov 2001
Location:
Posts: 996 |
Skalie and slight, i firmly disagree that the intentions were not to kill as many people as possible but rather JUST for attention based on the choice of targets and on public statements by Osama Bin Laden prior to the attack.
that is the core difference between what they call "mass destructive terrorism" and previous terror theories in the 70s and 80s...the attempts by Aum Shinrikyo, the OKla. City bombing, Khobar towers even...they negated the old idea that "terrorist don't want a lot of people dead they just want a lot of attention." This did it on an even grander scale. People studied the trend through the 1990s and there is a large body of academic and real world literature on it. Now, however, the discussion has really ceased to be academic.
And dingle--tacky as ever.
re: pentagon, evidence shows that it was a second choice target--the first choice was the capitol.
only good comment in here was on the time of day--doing it in the morning ensured the best press coverage and it also decreased the number of people that would be in the tours.
My friend worked triage in NY--and the worst part of it was not lack of equipment--not lack of volunteers, but lack of injured--it highlighted the fact that they were all dead--there was no one to save.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 05:22 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Dingle
Gay for Mugtoe
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 10618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Indigo
...And dingle--tacky as ever....
does that mean we can hook up?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 06:07 AM |
|
|
| |
|
philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002 |
Indigo, can you provide me with a link to this literature? You have mentioned this 'mass destruction' theory before to me and it seems to be grounded entirely on some rather loose assumptions and seems to assume it is somehow 'new'.
First, it tends to cite as its theoretical proof, largely successful terrorist attacks as opposed to cocked-up ones. The point here is that there have been many botched terrorist attempts since 1960 (particular in this country) that had the spoecifc aim of mass destruction but fucked it up due to poor planning etc etc. Take Canary Wharf in 1996. This suggests that in fact, the goal of mass destruction has been around for a long time, but simply has not managed to be as successful in the past.
Second it seems to ground itself in a theory based on the 'size' of the target. Thus a terrorist that chooses a 'small' target is not considered a 'mass destruction' terrorist, even if, in the error of the target he does create destruction on a massive scale. Take Omagh. Interstingly, the Canary Wharf attack in 1996 was targetted at a 'big' tower that was 45 storeys high, and the Provos have made it clear the intention was to bring it down but they failed. Would that make it 'mass destruction terrorism'? Or were they still only 'trying to get attention'?
I'll be honest, I do not buy this so-called 'new terror theory' because first there are example of incidents that do not fall into it yet could easily have done so in the past 30 years. Second it seems to be seeking a new theory to explain an already existing problem. The problem for me is that there are numerous examples of terrorist attacks in the last 30 years that have caused mass destruction, but get excluded from this theory because they are somehow 'different', often it would seem purely on the basis of 'when' they happened. The IRA bombing of the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton is a classic example of such an incident. In this sense it seems the examples are very specifcally chosen to fit the theory, whilst the anomolies that suggest the theory is wrong are ignored.
Last edited by philjit on 09-12-2002 at 06:57 AM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 06:47 AM |
|
|
| |
|
slight
long pig
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3149 |
All I am saying, is that given the method, time and place of the attack, the message was clearly 'Fuck you, and fuck your capitalism' rather than 'Fuck you, and fuck your populace.' There are easier, less spectacular and more effective ways to kill a lot of people, if that is your goal.
It is not rational, or even possible to wish genocide on a multi-ethnic people such as you have in the U.S. It IS rational to wish to throw the governing system of those people into chaos.
It's not that I do not understand the joke in this thread CF, i just think the premise it sits on is a deep misconception about your enemy.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 07:19 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Dingle
Gay for Mugtoe
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 10618 |
but Phil, do you like my proposal?
slight/indigo - the number of lives lost directly influences the publicity an event gets.
morgana - even accounting for the relatively small buildings immediately surrounding the WTC (the tallest being what? 50 stories?) , any moron could manage to hit below the 50th floor at a 45 degree angle.
wonderaz - yes we won
Cranium Fornication - good point on the time of day, on average id guess a TYPICAL workday starts at 9-10 AM. perhaps the best time to hit wouldve been 10:30ish, you know even the tardy people have arrived and nobody has left for lunch yet.
As far as deflection, with an object of that size packed with that much fuel traveling at that speed i dont think deflection is a possibility at ANY angle.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 07:59 AM |
|
|
| |
|
J E B Stuart
Administrator
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16979 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dingle
. . . morgana - even accounting for the relatively small buildings immediately surrounding the WTC (the tallest being what? 50 stories?) , any moron could manage to hit below the 50th floor at a 45 degree angle. . . .
. . . As far as deflection, with an object of that size packed with that much fuel traveling at that speed i dont think deflection is a possibility at ANY angle.
I'm interested in Smug's take on this (he has a background in physics, yes?). I don't understand why you'd be willing to go so far out on a limb with your broad stance on deflection. For example, there are instances of people having been shot in the head with a 22-caliber weapon, but because of the angle, the slug ricocheted off the skull, rather than penetrating it. I know this isn't a bullet you're talking about, but unless someone shows me otherwise, I'm inclined to think similar considerations apply, i.e., velocity, mass, angle, etc.
Amen.
__________________
" Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background of countless minor scenes and interiors, (not the official surface courteousness of the Generals, not the few great battles) of the Secession war; and it is best they should not—the real war will never get in the books." ~ Walt Whitman
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 08:14 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26538 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dingle
morgana - even accounting for the relatively small buildings immediately surrounding the WTC (the tallest being what? 50 stories?) , any moron could manage to hit below the 50th floor at a 45 degree angle.
A couple things though:
1. We're not talking about the immediate surrounding area of the WTC. We're talking about the skyline of Manhattan.
2. Even if the 10 blocks surrounding the WTC were all composed of buildings less than 50 stories high (which I doubt), we're talking about a 747. It's not a car, you can' t just jerk the wheel and hit what you want (and try traveling down a highway doing 100 mph and hitting a specific telephone pole that you suddenly see). Ever try to avoid hitting a deer when going at fast speeds? BAM, it's there, before you even know it is, despite it having been sitting there clearly in your path for minutes. Even if you knew well beforehand that a deer would be in the road before you, at high speeds, you wouldn't be able to effectivly maneuver around it. Think of the speed of a jet plane, and you're not talking a half a mile to manuver effectivly, you're talking a lot of distance to get on a solid trajectory. And I would assume that the Manhattan skyline doesn't allow for much precesion at high speeds and really low altitudes (perhaps if you had the extreme skill and planning required, you could go at a high altitude and dive into a perfect trajectory into a specific area, you might be able to do it, but I doubt that any pilots flying these jets could do it, much less a couple of yahoos that took some training courses).
3. Passenger planes don't turn very sharply as far as I'm aware. You can't just jerk the controls at a 45 degree angle and then seconds later your flight is headed smoothly that direction. We're not talking an RC car here. It's a fucking jet plane. This means that, for one, it is going really, really fucking fast, and two, it is really, really large and bulky. You don't see many 747s in airshows, do you?
I can't see any way that a 747, under the circumstances, could have possibly done what you mentioned. Wonderaz and Smug could surely shed more light on it, but really.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 08:33 AM |
|
|
| |
|
J E B Stuart
Administrator
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16979 |
quote:
Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
. . . I can't see any way that a 747, under the circumstances, could have possibly done what you mentioned. Wonderaz and Smug could surely shed more light on it, but really.
Does this mean you and I have stumbled onto a tag-teamin' semi-ditto? 
Amen.
__________________
" Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background of countless minor scenes and interiors, (not the official surface courteousness of the Generals, not the few great battles) of the Secession war; and it is best they should not—the real war will never get in the books." ~ Walt Whitman
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 08:41 AM |
|
|
| |
|
slight
long pig
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3149 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dingle
slight/indigo - the number of lives lost directly influences the publicity an event gets.
So if no one died at all, it would be no big deal?
I think there is a great parallel between the two justice systems which reflects what I'm talking about.
They cut the hands off thieves, you put thieves in prison. Now, you look at their system of justice and see it as primitive and barbaric, and it is primitive - 7,000 years old at least. But you cannot deny it is cheaper on the community and more effective in preventing crime than your own system. Where you punish the mind that concieved the crime, they irreversably remove the device with which the crime was commited.
That said, they did not destroy the American people, they destroyed the World Trade center. Understand that they felt justified in doing this and you will go some way to understanding the crime which they are accusing your Country of. Also understand that while most people will condemn their actions because of the minimised loss of lives, the perception of a crime that the America is commiting against the rest of the World is by no means limited to Islamic fundamentalists.
Over here, the general sentiment of most of the people I have talked to about it was 'Sure, what they did was wrong, but at least they hit the Americans in the right place.'
And as to the people who did die... they were all on the top floors right? Now, I dont know for sure, never having been there, maybe someone can tell me... on which floors did the fattest of the fat cats have their offices?
I can't see how they could have said things more simply and clearly, and yet a lot of people still dont hear it.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 09:12 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Dingle
Gay for Mugtoe
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 10618 |
so slight, you're basically arguing that palestinian suicide bombers dont hate Israeli people, they just hate what the buses stand for.
my god, listen to yourself. bin laden has said himself all americans should die. are you really trying to argue that they actually considered minimizing the loss of life?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 09:24 AM |
|
|
| |
|
FuhQall
High Flyer
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: At Home
Posts: 4371 |
My brother and I were given the chance to turn a 747 in flight, one way for him and back on track for me, we both remarked on how difficult it was to move slightly off track. I have no scientific evidence as to why, but personal experience says it was hard to move a little let alone precise flying between buildings.
__________________
Shit, Motherfucker, Fuck, Shit!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
09-12-2002 09:27 AM |
| |
|
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
