911 mysteries....

[Gulquarn]

Ohhhh. Getting a little polotical arn't we? Req might just have you all beheaded.

[Motronic]

Originally Posted by Kelrathi

Excellent post.

Funny thing with conspiracies is that they ALWAYS come up with new stuff to question. For example, shortly after popular mechanics answered pretty much EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POINT of the conspiracy theorists with a book debunking the ENTIRE conspiracy theory. Guess what happened?
Thats right, the conspiracy theorists came out WITH THEIR OWN BOOK entitled "Ok so we were wrong about all that, but what about this !!11111"

And were seeing the same thing here.

I really liked the whole "why is the hole in the pentagon not in the shape of the plane??? hmmmm??? why? why is it not in the shape of a plane!?!?!"

Im sorry, did you expect it to make a cartoon like outline of a plane after it crashed?

About the pentagon, theorists like to point out the lack of identifiable wreckage at the crash site. Saying there is not a whole lot that resembles the plane. But you take a look at this picture, of a plane that fell from the sky in Africa, and you can see how small and scattered the bulk of the debris is.

http://www.sudan.net/graphic/news/te...lane_crash.jpg

That plane fell from the sky, is was not used as a missile like the one that crashed into the pentagon, so the damage to the plane is obviously going to be greater on the aircraft that was moving at the faster speed. I couldn't remember the exact scientific explanation for this from high school, so I cheated. Here is a link from Wikipedia on kinetic energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenetic_energy

Based on their formula, I've done some math..
A 757 weight approx 220,000 lbs (100,000 kg) with standard crew, passengers, cargo, and fuel for an minimum distance flight.
Let's say that the plane is traveling 200 mph (90 m/s).

Based on the formula from the link. I've attempted to do the math correctly, and come up with this.

.5 x 100,000 x 8,100 = 405,000,000 joules

Now if the plane was traveling 400 mph (180 m/s) the energy is quadrupled.

.5 x 100,000 x 32,400 = 1,620,000,000 joules

So you can see that the the plane moving at 400 mph has A LOT more kinetic energy than the one moving half that speed. I am explaining this in reference to the plane crash picture. Like I said, that plane fell from the sky, and you saw the damage that was done to it. The plane that flew into the Pentagon was said in the official government report to be moving over 500 mph, but experts say it was probably closer to 450 mph.

How much damage to the plane does a joule do? Who knows? I don't know if there's is any way of illustrating that. But from what I remember from school, kinetic energy is what blows shit to pieces. I'm not an expert on this field, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

And in case you don't know. Yes, planes can propel themselves faster than they fall.

[Ganjhitsu]

Originally Posted by Gulquarn

Ohhhh. Getting a little polotical arn't we? Req might just have you all beheaded.

Wait, can he do that?

[Kelrathi]

Originally Posted by Motronic

About the pentagon, theorists like to point out the lack of identifiable wreckage at the crash site. Saying there is not a whole lot that resembles the plane. But you take a look at this picture, of a plane that fell from the sky in Africa, and you can see how small and scattered the bulk of the debris is.

http://www.sudan.net/graphic/news/te...lane_crash.jpg

.................................................. .

And in case you don't know. Yes, planes can propel themselves faster than they fall.

.

Exactly right motronic, the velocity of an object is far more important than its mass when considering the amount of damage it does.

the thing we need to learn from this, isnt that there are no conspiracies, but they are far more simpler then

"some rich dude, able to sneak in explosives into a building with no one noticing while a CIA team helped terrorists that we trained in the 80s crash planes into buildings at the same place where explosives were placed and then detonate the explosives which were somehow undetonated from the plane crashing into the building, then blowing up a nearby building with more explosives which were smuggled in with no one noticeing and then collecting on the insurance money while at the same time someone else was betting on air line stocks to drop and collecting even more money"

or Try,
"Terrorists attacked the US for what they believe are things the US has done wrong against them, and the US used the attack as a political tool to start a war."

[Ganjhitsu]

This guy says its fact,that guy says its fiction.

The funny thing about humans is that they believe what ever they want to believe.
And all wars start over someones idea or what they believe.

[Kelrathi]

money, theres never been a war over ideas, at least not primarily

catholic vs protest wars of europe were about money, specifically who gets the donations this sunday.

crusades = money
greek wars = money, not helen of troy
ww2 = money

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by Kelrathi

money, theres never been a war over ideas, at least not primarily

catholic vs protest wars of europe were about money, specifically who gets the donations this sunday.

crusades = money
greek wars = money, not helen of troy
ww2 = money

here I thought that crusades were cause of religion, greek wars cause of honor and ww2 cause of racism and world domination...

[Yahto]

I don't think I'd blame the Crusades solely on a desire for wealth. There were a multitude for reasons for all involved over the span of several centuries that they occurred. I find it difficult to blame something on such a massive scale on a single word when hundreds of thousands of people were all involved with their own motives.

You really need to think about what the initial justification rather than the motivation of the majority of the participants sometimes.

[Kelrathi]

Originally Posted by Pedro

here I thought that crusades were cause of religion, greek wars cause of honor and ww2 cause of racism and world domination...

Youd be wrong. Allow me to clarify. A simple wikipedia search should do, if you dont think its right, i can find other sources.

"The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire"

It commonly understood that for the church:
Land = People = Followers = Give money to the church

for example imagine if the US never carried out the lousiana purchase, kicked spain out of this hemisphere or took all that land from mexico, oh my bad "purchased" that land.

If the muslims continued taking more and more land, theyd convert the people on that land, and lo and behold, no more money for the church.

more on that same line....

"which centre around trying to establish whether the move was selfish profiteering for the Western Church or genuine aid to a Christian ally. Some historians have suggested that the Pope:
- Saw economic and political gains for the Western Church"

Greek Wars
"Two major wars shaped the Ancient Greek world. The Persian Wars (500–448 BC) are recounted in Herodotus's Histories. Ionian Greek cities revolted from the Persian Empire and were supported by some of the mainland cities, eventually led by Athens. (The notable battles of this war include Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea.)"

All these wars were about money, clearly the persians didnt want to conquer greece for "honor"
Ever heard of the quote by macedonias king to the spartans "If I win this war, youll be slaves foerever" the spartans replied with one word "if"

In the battle of Troy, when the greeks finally made it into the city, they all rushed straight to Troys treasury. Surely they were looking for honor there

land = money

World War 2 was for racism ??? This is a common post justification of this specific war. Just like some americans are trying to justify the invasion of iraq by saying "its to take out the terrorists that are already there!" forgeting the fact that there were no terrorists in iraq before we invaded. Unless you count some palestinian guy thats been in iraq since the 80s.

How awfull how we lost World war 2 then, since clearly racism is still rampant not just in our country but throughout the world.

Japan and Germany each sought to aquire more land, in this case it wasnt followers they wanted.
Land = Resources = Money
The japanese needed oil, rubber, etc
Same goes for the germans.
Racism and discrimination was never an issue until well after the war for the simple fact that we were just as bad when it comes to killing innocent people.
No one has any doubt that our leaders would have been tried for war crimes had japan and germany won.

Our ally russia, killed more innocent people than germany and japan.

"ww2 cause of racism"

[Kelrathi]

Originally Posted by Yahto

I don't think I'd blame the Crusades solely on a desire for wealth. There were a multitude for reasons for all involved over the span of several centuries that they occurred. I find it difficult to blame something on such a massive scale on a single word when hundreds of thousands of people were all involved with their own motives.

You really need to think about what the initial justification rather than the motivation of the majority of the participants sometimes.

If you take specific individuals and what their goals were for the crusades, youd be hard pressed to find any of them had NO interest whatsoever in money or something that would get them money.

"There were as many different reasons for crusading as there were crusaders, but the single most common reason was piety. To crusade was to go on pilgrimage, a holy journey of personal salvation. Whether that also meant giving up virtually everything and willingly facing death for God, bending to peer or family pressure, indulging blood lust without guilt, or seeking adventure or gold or personal glory depended entirely on who was doing the crusading."

Nothing like a little piety to get some gold!