Discussion:
Selecing Targets to Nuke In the USA
(too old to reply)
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 02:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?

You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.

You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.

What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.

Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.

The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.

Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.

You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.

I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Ron Tucker
2006-04-29 02:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
Toronto, Kansas. Population 312.

Coordinates: 37°47'55" North, 95°56'58" West (37.798598, -95.949555)
SyVyN11
2006-04-29 04:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You forget one simple thing, THE IRANIANS ARE MUSLIMS!!!! They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE! If they had a suitcase nuke, they would put it in the place
that could net the highest kill. But they won't stop there, they will
kill any non-believers. ROEDY, THAT MEANS YOU!!! Yes, you won't be able
to hide behind, "i'm a canadian" or "i'm a atheist" and think you are safe.
They don't care, to kill YOU is their ticket to heaven, if you don't
believe, they don't care they do!
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.
What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.
Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.
The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.
Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.
You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.
I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
I hope the secret service or FBI arrest your ass and sends you to Gitmo!
Post by Roedy Green
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
The Decider
2006-04-29 04:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You forget one simple thing, THE IRANIANS ARE MUSLIMS!!!! They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE! If they had a suitcase nuke, they would put it in the place
that could net the highest kill. But they won't stop there, they will
kill any non-believers. ROEDY, THAT MEANS YOU!!! Yes, you won't be able
to hide behind, "i'm a canadian" or "i'm a atheist" and think you are safe.
They don't care, to kill YOU is their ticket to heaven, if you don't
believe, they don't care they do!
And that's what you think that *all* Muslims believe! You actually think that
there is no difference between the fuck head killer Osama Bin Laden and the guy
who is raising a family that you buy your cigarettes from at the local
convenience store, or Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X or Lew Alcindor.

That's like claiming that all people of Christian origin agree with everything
that Pat Robertson says.
That's like claiming that all Jews believe in Leviticus law, or the Christians
who often quote the same versus to say that the Bible prohibits homosexuality
also believe in slavery.

I could say that all Protestants are wife killers because of King Henry VIII,
are you a Protestant?

Grow up. Fucking Hillbilly.














*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 09:12:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:13:33 GMT, "SyVyN11"
Post by SyVyN11
They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE!
No they don't. That is just your crazy American propaganda. I know
that is true because I hung out with them and studied them in the
1990s. There are far less interested in prosletysing than Christians.

Most of the Muslims in the world live in Indonesia, one of the most
laid back places I have ever been.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 10:02:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:13:33 GMT, "SyVyN11"
Post by SyVyN11
You forget one simple thing, THE IRANIANS ARE MUSLIMS!!!! They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE!
If you read the Qu'ran it spells out the rules for dealing with
non-believers. You are not supposed to kill them, but then you are
not supposed to excessively fraternize with them either least they
lead you away from the true faith.

May I remind you of Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell or the Christian
Identity or the Diebold owners who are equally bonkers as your racist
depiction of a Muslim.. But that does not mean all Christians are that
nuts. Similarly, there are Muslims like that, but there is no support
for that sort of nuttiness in the Qur'an.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-04-29 14:53:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:13:33 GMT, "SyVyN11"
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You forget one simple thing, THE IRANIANS ARE MUSLIMS!!!! They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE!
I guess one nuke couldn't come CLOSE to getting all the really
ignorant people in the US.

But we have to start somewhere, according to the question. So where do
you live?


If they had a suitcase nuke, they would put it in the place
Post by SyVyN11
that could net the highest kill. But they won't stop there, they will
kill any non-believers. ROEDY, THAT MEANS YOU!!! Yes, you won't be able
to hide behind, "i'm a canadian" or "i'm a atheist" and think you are safe.
They don't care, to kill YOU is their ticket to heaven, if you don't
believe, they don't care they do!
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.
What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.
Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.
The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.
Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.
You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.
I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
I hope the secret service or FBI arrest your ass and sends you to Gitmo!
Post by Roedy Green
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Koppe
2006-05-02 13:20:51 UTC
Permalink
<SNIP>
Post by SyVyN11
You forget one simple thing, THE IRANIANS ARE MUSLIMS!!!! They want to
kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, women who dare show their skin or
doesn't walk 5 steps behind a man, anyone who has pre-marital sex, and ALL
GAY PEOPLE!
<SNIP>

Sounds disturbingly similar to the Christian Right and some
of the President's advisors...

-Koppe
Eric®
2006-04-29 04:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Roedy Green wrote . . .
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
Probably Hollywood.
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.
A 'suitcase' weapon would definitely wipe out Rushmore. Bad enough that
Cary Grant rubbed his 'nads all over it err - them. And her too.
Post by Roedy Green
What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.
Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.
The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.
Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.
You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.
I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
Sick fantasies are what substitutes for rational argument from the
radical left these days.

Hard to tell if you're anti-Bush or a paid 5th columnist.

Or just a garden-variety usenet kook.

Eric
--
For every prohibition you create you also create an underground.
- Jello Biafra
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 09:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Sick fantasies are what substitutes for rational argument from the
radical left these days.
Hard to tell if you're anti-Bush or a paid 5th columnist.
You are a wishful thinker. I you imagine your are safe and
invulnerable and that your country can do whatever it wants never with
any repercussions. You Americans have a childish belief that God will
protect you from any retaliation. I am trying to make you see how
easy it would be for someone to do serious damage to the USA. Your
best defense is to stop giving motive to so many people to want you
off the face of the earth. I am not saying anything new. Your own
security analysts have publicly stated the same things. You are
extremely vulnerable. Your stupid pride makes you think you are
invincible when you are not.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Scott Nudds
2006-04-29 15:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
You Americans have a childish belief that God will
protect you from any retaliation.
No they don't. That is just your crazy Canadian propaganda. I know
that is true because I hung out with them and studied them in the
1990s.
larry rose
2006-04-29 04:37:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
It doesn't matter. After the nuke goes off fear will do the rest. Imagine
setting off a nuke in the desert killing no one then announcing 3 more were
going to detonate in 3 major cities in 10 hours. Name 12 possible cities. Could
you imagine the carnage Americans would commit against each other in those 12
cities trying to escape.
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.
What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.
Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.
The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.
Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.
You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.
I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
Ron Tucker
2006-04-29 04:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by larry rose
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
It doesn't matter. After the nuke goes off fear will do the rest. Imagine
setting off a nuke in the desert killing no one then announcing 3 more were
going to detonate in 3 major cities in 10 hours. Name 12 possible cities. Could
you imagine the carnage Americans would commit against each other in those 12
cities trying to escape.
Detonate a lake freighter on Lake Huron with a Nuke and the water supply of 40
million people would be instantly poisoned.

Who said that it had to be a city?
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 09:30:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:37:12 -0700, larry rose
Post by larry rose
Could
you imagine the carnage Americans would commit against each other in those 12
cities trying to escape.
This is one of the themes explored in the TV melodrama 24. The
administration knows a nuke is about to go off in Los Angeles, but
does not want to tell anyone since there is not time for an orderly
evacuation and the panic could kill as many as the bomb.

You can't have a quick evacuation. You immediately cause gridlock. You
would have to go on foot, or possibly bicycle or motorbike. The roads
would be utterly clogged. To do one, the administration would need a
cover, say a chemical spill.

At the world's fair expo 86 I got caught in a crowd. I absolutely
could not move in any direction. I just had to wait for the crowd to
gradually drift along. I had a feeling of dread thinking what would
happen if anything panicked the crowd.

I can't think of anything that would more terrify a population than
nuclear weapons. Very few people would be able to remain calm or act
rationally. It would be worse than fire in a theatre where people
trample each other to get out.

Even a conventional bomb that released some radio isotopes would
trigger mass panic. The administration would have to lie.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-04-29 09:51:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
If you had religious puritans attacking, they might go for symbols of
decadence, for example:

very upscale department stores
Rodeo drive
Hollywood
42nd street in New York
Playboy Mansion
Las Vegas
The Crystal Cathedral or similar (a temple to Mammon)

If you had Palestinian attacking in revenge for America's funding of
apartheid and general oppression in Israel, they might go after Jewish
landmarks.

Bush personally is a prime target including the Whitehouse, and his
Crawford ranch. He speaks all over the country and his itinerary is
not a secret. Guards can sweep a hall, but not an entire city.
Presumably Air Force one has some fancy anti-missile defences, but
given Murphy's law you never know what will happen if someone shoots a
SAM at it.

The USA killed Ghadaffi's kids. If he takes revenge, he would likely
go for taking out Bush's daughters in a tit for tat. Killing Bush
himself would not extract much in the way of satisfactory revenge.
Bush would not even notice. He would be alive one minute and vaporised
the next. But if Bush's daughters were killed, Bush would feel the
pain every day for the rest of his life.

If China decides to take the USA out, it will do it financially. The
USA is vulnerable since they owe China so much money, and have such a
huge trade deficit with them. Japan is in a similar position.

Cuba is not likely to cause trouble. Castro is old. If he was that
sort, he would have done it long ago.

If Russia did it, I'd think they would go first for the nuclear
submarine base in Washington. Those subs make the Russians very
nervous. They would have to work very hard to hide the fact it was
them. If the weapons were traced to them, they would say they were
stolen, and would certainly be able to prove it.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Jim Penfold
2006-04-29 11:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
Fascinating - I don't see US citizens rushing to delaim this poisonous
Canadian Maniac, and his fellow thinkers. To even make these disgusting
suggestions is an act of potential terrorism. He should be very careful
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 01:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Penfold
Fascinating - I don't see US citizens rushing to delaim this poisonous
Canadian Maniac, and his fellow thinkers. To even make these disgusting
suggestions is an act of potential terrorism. He should be very careful
You are playing ostrich. You are so terrified your only response it
to hide your head in the sand. If you will at least contemplate the
possibilities then perhaps you could do something to protect yourself
or influence your government to prevent these things from happening.

Censoring me won't make the danger go away. I'm not the one who is
going to hurt you. I am trying to make you brave enough to think
rationally and calmly about these matters. The survival of the
species is not something you should leave up to Bush & co. He is so
incompetent he cannot even manage his personal life.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-04-29 14:48:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.

Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.

What's the advantage of that?
Post by Roedy Green
You could aim to kill and maim the most people. But you are well
aware the American people are basically clueless. They do what they
are told by their government and corporations. Your beef is not
really with them.
You could aim for the most terror -- destroying well known landmarks
symbolic of America, e.g. Mount Rushmore, the statue of liberty,
making sure you had abundant high res video captured of the events for
the world media broadcast over and over and over.
What you want to do is weaken corporate America. How could you put it
out of commission for a long time? You want to disrupt energy and
transportation. A nuclear power plant out of commission would take a
decade to replace. A major hydro dam likewise. Major bridges might
take 5 years to replace. To really destroy a corporation, you would
have to simultaneously destroy its computer records and all its
backups. Smart companies have many backups in many places. It would
take an inside job to know where to plant the nukes to destroy a large
corporation to get all the records.
Some crucial sites you don't have to destroy, just make too
radioactive to rebuild, e.g. sites of major rail yards.
The wealthiest people in America run the country. Nuking Washington
on Inaugural ball night would delete a sizeable proportion of them.
No amount of security would save anyone. Another gathering of the
clans in the SOTU speech where all the federal politicians gather in
one room, just begging to be taken out en masse. Again no amount of
security will protect from a suitcase nuke. It does not have to get
that close.
Ports of course are vulnerable, also because the ease of smuggling in
a nuke in a container.
You could play a weird mind game by working on destroying all of the
IRS's computers and records so the people don't know whether to be
furious or cheer.
I really question the wisdom of Bush's policies aimed at enraging the
world population, especially for so little benefit, when the
retaliation could be so severe. It is not wise to rely on the mercy of
your enemies, which is what has saved the USA up to now.
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 01:41:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
What's the advantage of that?
I think the problem is, with a suitcase nuke, it can remain a mystery
who did it. That does not mean escaping retaliation. I suspect the
Bush policy would be like the Nazi one, just punish SOMEONE, anyone,
to try to deter others.

The policy could work. Let's say Ghadaffi nuked the White House, and
the US decided to nuke Baghdad in retaliation. Ghadaffi would not be
getting off Scott free. Granted he primarily wants to protect Libya,
but he would not exactly feel overjoyed at a million Iraqis being
vapourised, and might think twice about a repeat performance.

On the other hand it would be fairly easy to frame someone. Nuke a US
city knowing full well the US will take vengeance on whomever it was
most recently bullying. You, as bastard, get revenge both on the USA
and the country the USA picks for the scapegoat.

It is not like the US would take a year of investigation to figure out
who to nuke, then do it with the deliberation of a death-row
execution. It will be all emotion and snap judgment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-04-30 06:23:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:41:43 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
What's the advantage of that?
I think the problem is, with a suitcase nuke, it can remain a mystery
who did it.
Can it? I think that there are subtle differences in the ratios of
various components of the fuel which would appear in a blast so that
we would be very likely able to tell its source.

I think that is why we were able to exonnerate Iran about a year ago
of a charge they were making fissible material. Small amounts of
fissible stuff were found in Iran, making one wonder if they had made
it. They said it must have come from contamination of equipment bought
from Pakistan. Apparently there was some sort of signature on the
stuff which did show it came from Pakistan.

So I think my premise is reasonable.

But assume it could not be traced. Obviously if we had just done
something horrible, again, it would be logical that our victims were
the ones retaliating.

That does not mean escaping retaliation. I suspect the
Post by Roedy Green
Bush policy would be like the Nazi one, just punish SOMEONE, anyone,
to try to deter others.
The policy could work. Let's say Ghadaffi nuked the White House, and
the US decided to nuke Baghdad in retaliation. Ghadaffi would not be
getting off Scott free. Granted he primarily wants to protect Libya,
but he would not exactly feel overjoyed at a million Iraqis being
vapourised, and might think twice about a repeat performance.
On the other hand it would be fairly easy to frame someone. Nuke a US
city knowing full well the US will take vengeance on whomever it was
most recently bullying. You, as bastard, get revenge both on the USA
and the country the USA picks for the scapegoat.
It is not like the US would take a year of investigation to figure out
who to nuke, then do it with the deliberation of a death-row
execution. It will be all emotion and snap judgment.
Where is Dr Strangelove when we need him?

To help us figure these things out.
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 09:16:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:23:31 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Can it? I think that there are subtle differences in the ratios of
various components of the fuel which would appear in a blast so that
we would be very likely able to tell its source.
Let's say you discovered it was Russian for example. These are
available on the black market. So who bought it?

Using satellites you could do a spectrographic analysis. There would
be nothing left of the mechanism to examine. It won't be like dynamite
with id tags in it. You could do a profile of the radioactive
byproducts and match that against profiles of nukes you were able to
sample.

The original idea was delivery was by missile, so it was obvious who
sent it. But smuggling makes it much harder to determine the source
rapidly with certainty.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 09:19:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:23:31 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
So I think my premise is reasonable.
We here in the newsgroups are not likely going to be able to find that
out. The ability to detect and the ability to disguise or
counterfeit another country's signature to frame it would be highly
classified information.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 02:16:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
I don't quite follow, but I think that is what you would do as an
American spy. But let's say Americans had raped, tortured and killed
(each in a different horrifying way) all the members of your family.
Your life would be meaningless other than to seek revenge on America.
You would be so filled with rage, you would not care who was hurt, so
long as the bastards that did this felt some serious pain. Getting
killed yourself would not matter in the least. Your life is utter
hell. You would be just as glad to have it over. Whether this actually
happened is immaterial. What counts is what the guy who lost his
family believes happened.

I remember feeling some of this sort of rage on a much reduced scale
when I was a university student at UBC. The engineering faculty used
to entertain themselves by forming gangs and roving campus, kidnapping
random students then throwing the into the fountain. They did this
all year round, even in the snow. The hapless students had to sit in
cold wet clothes all day till his carpool ride home. They did this to
dozens of students each day. I sought revenge.

I got a red jacket similar to one ones all the engineers wore. In the
excitement I was able to grab one of the engineers in a bear hug and
leap face first into the freezing water. I lived on campus so was
able to get thawed out relatively quickly. I did not care what
happened to me. I did not care if the engineer lost his teeth in the
attack. I just wanted revenge on the Engineering faculty.

With revenge as the primary motivation, you might be tempted to go
for max kill or military targets, e.g. the pentagon, military training
schools, Fort Dix, Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base. Killing of
cadets strikes me as a prime target for revenge. Loss of a young
cadet would sting more deeply and would primarily hit military
families. The primary rage would be directed at the air force, which
strikes with complete impugnity. The secondary rage would be at the
army who face to face brutalise citizens. The navy would be the least
likely target of the three.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-04-30 06:33:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:16:31 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
I don't quite follow, but I think that is what you would do as an
American spy. But let's say Americans had raped, tortured and killed
(each in a different horrifying way) all the members of your family.
Your life would be meaningless other than to seek revenge on America.
You would be so filled with rage, you would not care who was hurt, so
long as the bastards that did this felt some serious pain. Getting
killed yourself would not matter in the least. Your life is utter
hell. You would be just as glad to have it over. Whether this actually
happened is immaterial. What counts is what the guy who lost his
family believes happened.
I don't know how exactly to break this to you, but right now US forces
and their stooges in Iraq are contuing to do such brutal things every
day.

Yet we see relatively rational reactions on the other side.

On the whole.

Maybe someone else would choose immediate immolation. Personally, I
would try to avoid it.
Post by Roedy Green
I remember feeling some of this sort of rage on a much reduced scale
when I was a university student at UBC. The engineering faculty used
to entertain themselves by forming gangs and roving campus, kidnapping
random students then throwing the into the fountain. They did this
all year round, even in the snow. The hapless students had to sit in
cold wet clothes all day till his carpool ride home. They did this to
dozens of students each day. I sought revenge.
I got a red jacket similar to one ones all the engineers wore. In the
excitement I was able to grab one of the engineers in a bear hug and
leap face first into the freezing water. I lived on campus so was
able to get thawed out relatively quickly. I did not care what
happened to me. I did not care if the engineer lost his teeth in the
attack. I just wanted revenge on the Engineering faculty.
I think those who run countries might be more devious. I recommend the
account by Robert Caro in his biography of Lyndon Johnson of how LBJ
got even with some of his school opponents. Without a single bit of
evidence whatsoever, each and every one found that he had been forced
out of school, for one reason or another.

The subtlety of LBJ's revenge was a true masterpiece.

It took some time, a couple years, and exceptionally clever
deviousness, but it worked.

Real politicians are often deep.

I would not be surprised were there not depth in the reaction in this
case.

Not every nation is run by total morons. Few would do something so
transparently counter-productive as invading Iraq or nuking the US.
Post by Roedy Green
With revenge as the primary motivation, you might be tempted to go
for max kill or military targets, e.g. the pentagon, military training
schools, Fort Dix, Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base. Killing of
cadets strikes me as a prime target for revenge. Loss of a young
cadet would sting more deeply and would primarily hit military
families. The primary rage would be directed at the air force, which
strikes with complete impugnity. The secondary rage would be at the
army who face to face brutalise citizens. The navy would be the least
likely target of the three.
the Good Captain
2006-04-30 19:37:38 UTC
Permalink
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote: -
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
I think those who run countries might be more devious. I recommend the
account by Robert Caro in his biography of Lyndon Johnson of how LBJ
got even with some of his school opponents. Without a single bit of
evidence whatsoever, each and every one found that he had been forced
out of school, for one reason or another.
It took some time, a couple years, and exceptionally clever
deviousness, but it worked. Real politicians are often deep.
You're quite right. That sort of man would worry me a lot more than the
lefts current fairytale bogeyman, George Bush. Imagine the
singlemindedness, determination and sacrifice that must go into
acheiving high electoral office. And why do they do it? So they can
enact laws to either protect the interests they care about (largely the
legal profession in US/UK) or to screw around with the lives of the
rest of us for no apparent reason (witness the fact that selling 1 lb
of bananas is now an offence in the UK)
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 21:45:38 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Apr 2006 12:37:38 -0700, "the Good Captain"
Post by the Good Captain
witness the fact that selling 1 lb
of bananas is now an offence in the UK
Surely you mean advertising the price of the bananas in pence per
pound is the problem or failing to post the price per kg
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
the Good Captain
2006-04-30 19:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
I remember feeling some of this sort of rage on a much reduced scale
when I was a university student at UBC. The engineering faculty used
to entertain themselves by forming gangs and roving campus, kidnapping
random students then throwing the into the fountain.
I think this tells us as much about where you're coming from as we need
to know. Did they make fun of the size of your willy too? Anyway,
someday, somehow maybe you'll meet a girl, then all that wont seem so
important, and you can stop trying to drain off your bile into the
internet
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 21:47:47 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Apr 2006 12:21:44 -0700, "the Good Captain"
Post by the Good Captain
. Did they make fun of the size of your willy too?
In the era, one did not display one's penis to other males for them to
ridicule as they apparently did where you lived.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
the Good Captain
2006-04-30 22:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Roedy Green wrote: -
Post by Roedy Green
In the era, one did not display one's penis to other males for them to
ridicule as they apparently did where you lived.
No, it's just that, from the heartrending picture you were painting I
was concerned that you might have been debagged by the ruffians of the
engineering department.
B1ackwater
2006-04-30 22:00:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by larry rose
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Won't work - the govt will cover it up, say you didn't REALLY
have a nuke. You'd HAVE to set the thing off SOMEWHERE it
could be seen by millions - even if it was safely offshore of
some large city. Envision the statue of Liberty starkly
backlit by a distant mushroom cloud and the panic it
would cause ... terrorist nirvana.

But then the true terrorist wouldn't want to detonate it
OFFshore ...
Post by larry rose
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
But where's a terrorists "country" ? They're an international
group - without homelands or borders.
Post by larry rose
What's the advantage of that?
Death in the service of god is all the reward
a martyr requires. The more of his own people
he can martyr at the same time, the better. He
is guarenteeing them a straight shot into paradise.
Roedy Green
2006-04-30 23:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
I think I understand you better now. So what are the potential
terrorists about?

1. effecting political change
2. extracting revenge
3. destroying the USA as a superpower.

If they were about (1) they could increase their own power by making
many people benefit from whatever change they extracted.

I don't think though they would need to prove they have the ability to
buy and smuggle a nuke. I think that is pretty well a given. What is
at issue is whether they would actually use it and risk retaliation on
some group they like. Setting one off in a remote location,
particularly offshore or near quasi-American soil like Guam would
generate massive terror with less chance of retaliation.

A bloody minded Bush could say, if there are any nuclear attacks on
the USA by anyone of the Muslim faith, we will nuke Mecca with a very
large H bomb. You won't be able to do the hajj (the holy pilgrimage
to Mecca required of devout Muslims at least once a lifetime) ever
again.

I suppose the Muslims could counter, if there are any attacks on
Muslim countries by a Christian, we will nuke the Vatican, and any by
a Jew and we will nuke the wailing wall.

I could imagine the survivors of a nuclear escalation scratching their
heads and saying "what were we fighting over again?"
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-05-01 03:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by larry rose
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Won't work - the govt will cover it up, say you didn't REALLY
have a nuke. You'd HAVE to set the thing off SOMEWHERE it
could be seen by millions - even if it was safely offshore of
some large city. Envision the statue of Liberty starkly
backlit by a distant mushroom cloud and the panic it
would cause ... terrorist nirvana.
But then the true terrorist wouldn't want to detonate it
OFFshore ...
The "true terrorist" might very well have moral sensibilities about
using methods no more horrible than necessary to achieve desired ends.

There is a difference between those who use terror as a way to achieve
a goals and those who just favor mass murder for its own sake. I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.

I guess your point might be that Bin Laden etc might not be "true"
terrorists. Ok.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
But where's a terrorists "country" ? They're an international
group - without homelands or borders.
Reread the question. It says in part "attack against your own country"

We nuke Country A. The retaliation was apparently from those who are
citizens of Country A.

That was my assumption, at least.

The problem of stateless actors is interesting, of course. It sort of
guts MAD.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
What's the advantage of that?
Death in the service of god is all the reward
a martyr requires. The more of his own people
he can martyr at the same time, the better. He
is guarenteeing them a straight shot into paradise.
First, the question referred not to their logic, but to mine.

Second, your drinking the Flavor Aide by swallowing that spin of the
US about what motivates our enemies.

Our enemies tell us what motivates them, and it seems quite logical.
There is no reason to assume that they, unlike everyone on Earth you
or I ever met, favor their own total destruction.

We praise our soldiers who die also, as martyrs.

We have people who claim they go to some place in the sky where people
play harps and trumpets, presumably together, as horrible as that
sounds.

So the religious overlay does not strike me as all that important.

They find their fairy tale comforting, just as we find ours similarly
comforting.

But in reality we act to protect oil supplies, and they act to get us
the hell out of the middle east. No need to adopt goofball theories of
bizarre motivation when they STATE their reasons which sound like the
logical reasons typically motivating violent conflict.

The "martyrs" are not particularly religious at all.

They are motivated by politics, IMO.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 05:14:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The "true terrorist" might very well have moral sensibilities about
using methods no more horrible than necessary to achieve desired ends.
A terrorist is just a type of military man without a decent budget.

The terrorist targets civilians for a political end, according to the
FBI definition. The USA is thus a terrorist nation with a STUPENDOUS
budget. Mind you they have used tactics like torture, white
phosphorous, napalm and child rape that most terrorists organisations
have not used. This suggests American desperation and weakness.

Odd as it sounds, your average terrorist is thus more moral than your
average American military strategist.

So it is plausible to presume a terrorist wants to hurt those who have
hurt him, not random bystanders.

Let's say for, example, the terrorist nuked the huge US Clark Air
military base in the Philippines, and framed some local rebels. What
is the USA to do? Nuke the Philippines?

Though the base would be a huge expense to rebuild for the American
taxpayer, it would be a windfall to Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed
Martin, Halliburton etc.

If the terrorist perceived the corporations profiting from war as his
enemies, that attack would make no sense. He might want to hurt those
companies, not fatten their bottom lines.

It would make more sense for him to attack those companies directly.
Nuking them would work, but the reprisals would be risky. Kidnapping
and torturing a few board of directors, or even major stockholders
would likely be far more effective in effecting change. Would you
want to continue to hold stock in a company whose stockholders were
being kidnapped and castrated/beheaded? The stock price of the
company, and other companies of similar ilk, would collapse.

In South America, kidnapping executives is very common. Groups do it
all the time to raise money. There would be no way to guard ALL the
major stockholders of ALL the companies that have been involved in
oppressing the rest of the world. A kidnapping is dramatic, but a
drive by shooting would be much easier and almost as scary if done
sufficiently often. Kidnappers are easy to catch because they have to
pick up the money. But if instead all they want it to torture their
victim to death and broadcast the images, you have no handle on them.

The proper defense is to stop giving rational motivation to so many
people to wring your necks.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 05:22:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by Roedy Green
I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
If you assume bin Laden did 9/11 which I strongly doubt, the planned
number of casualties was lower than it turned out.

The buildings should not have collapsed. No such collapse ever
happened before or since. (My Newtonian evidence suggests
demolition.) That is what killed the most people.

The Pentagon hit was on a part of the building closed for renovation.

Consider that you Americans killed between 1 and 2 million Iraqis in
the sanction bombings PRIOR to the Iraq war; 9/11 was a just a slap on
the wrist in comparison.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-05-01 14:34:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 05:22:41 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by Roedy Green
I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
If you assume bin Laden did 9/11 which I strongly doubt, the planned
number of casualties was lower than it turned out.
The buildings should not have collapsed. No such collapse ever
happened before or since.
And the Titanic should not have sunk.

Sometimes steel is not made the way it really should be.

And rain should not include frogs, but sometimes it does.

And Doyle Brunson shouldn't have won the WSOP two years in a row
playing 10-2.

Very weird things happen, seemingly more often than they should.
Humans suck at many statistical reasoning tasks - all praise the late
great Amos Tversky for teaching us that - and one way we suck is in
underestimating how many really weird things will happen by chance
alone.

(My Newtonian evidence suggests
Post by Roedy Green
demolition.) That is what killed the most people.
The Pentagon hit was on a part of the building closed for renovation.
Consider that you Americans killed between 1 and 2 million Iraqis in
the sanction bombings PRIOR to the Iraq war; 9/11 was a just a slap on
the wrist in comparison.
You mean to say - poverty kills. And our sanctions on Iraq, inducing
poverty, caused maybe an extra million deaths.

The bombs, on average twice a week, probably only killed thousands, I
suppose.

My point is that those who sanction Iraq, or throw grenades into the
King David Hotel, or fly into the WTC are not just trying to kill as
many as possible, but are trying to achieve ends, and would actually
rather not kill people were other equally effective options available.
That the road to hell is full of people with "good" intentions.

Thus it's not reasonable to just assume terrorists just like to kill
people such that they would welcome mass destruction of their enemies,
let alone of themselves.
Chimpolean_Chimpinista
2006-05-01 14:40:23 UTC
Permalink
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<***@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 01 May 2006 05:22:41 GMT, Roedy Green
: <***@munged.invalid>
wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy
Tyrebiter, Jr."
: ><***@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted
: >someone who said :
: >
: >> I have
: >>no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be
effective, rather than
: >>murderous for its own sake.
: >
: >If you assume bin Laden did 9/11 which I strongly
doubt, the planned
: >number of casualties was lower than it turned out.
: >
: >The buildings should not have collapsed. No such
collapse ever
: >happened before or since.
:
: And the Titanic should not have sunk.
:
: Sometimes steel is not made the way it really should
be.
:

Truer words never came from such a stupid ignorant
rightarded mother fucker. You have been brainwashed
Leroy. Your momma is calling you man, go home and fuck
her so there can be some more rightarded babies to pay
off the debt your king is running up in the name of
FEAR.

Watch this an get a clue traitor.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815

Peace
Chimpolean
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 19:59:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 14:40:23 GMT, "Chimpolean_Chimpinista"
Post by Chimpolean_Chimpinista
Truer words never came from such a stupid ignorant
rightarded mother fucker. You have been brainwashed
Leroy. Your momma is calling you man, go home and fuck
her so there can be some more rightarded babies to pay
off the debt your king is running up in the name of
FEAR.
That all may be true, but it says nothing to refute any of his claims
and will not likely change his mind.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 19:50:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:34:12 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
And the Titanic should not have sunk.
Invalid analogy. The Titanic was new untested technology. There are
tens of thousands of skyscrapers. Many have had fires, far far worse
than those on 9-11 without collapse. Have you seen the videos of
other fires or Building 6?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 19:59:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:34:12 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Very weird things happen, s
Correct. But you don't get 3 totally FREAK unprecedented in history
before or since collapses in one day. Recall building 6 collapsed
without even anything, not even debris hitting it. Have you seen the
videos? Have you seen videos of other high rise fires hundreds of
times bigger where there was no collapse?

Add to that the fact the towers fell FASTER that Newtonian freefall
in a vacuum of the early part of the collapse. Nobody has come up with
anything to explain that but demolition charges. You would expect it
to fall slower since the intact building would give some resistance.

It is possible that someone decided to demolish the buildings hoping
to prevent some even worse catastrophe, but if that were so, they
should at least have given an order for rescue workers to evacuate
first.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
B1ackwater
2006-05-01 20:00:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:34:12 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 01 May 2006 05:22:41 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by Roedy Green
I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
If you assume bin Laden did 9/11 which I strongly doubt, the planned
number of casualties was lower than it turned out.
The buildings should not have collapsed. No such collapse ever
happened before or since.
And the Titanic should not have sunk.
Sometimes steel is not made the way it really should be.
And rain should not include frogs, but sometimes it does.
And Doyle Brunson shouldn't have won the WSOP two years in a row
playing 10-2.
Very weird things happen, seemingly more often than they should.
Humans suck at many statistical reasoning tasks - all praise the late
great Amos Tversky for teaching us that - and one way we suck is in
underestimating how many really weird things will happen by chance
alone.
On that morning, I looked at the damage, I looked at
the fires ... and then I sat back and waited for the
buildings to collapese. I *knew* it would happen once
the steel got soft enough. When it happened, HOW it
happened, no suprise at all.

But some people can't mentally model even a relatively
simple mechanical system like a girder building, they
have no 'feel' for what happens when you change this
or that factor. So - they invent incredibly elaborate
conspiracy theories instead and re-invent the laws
of physics and mechanics until they fit the theory.
THEN we hear about how the spooks spent a month
wiring the building with explosives or thermite so
it would fall JUST-SO after a cohort flew an airliner
into a precisely choosen spot.

Hell, the 2nd plane nearly MISSED the building ...
those guys could barely fly. If you can't count on
where the damaged spot will be, you can't set-up
tbe building for a neatly-controlled collapse.

And yes, it SHOULD have collapsed almost straight down.
As soon as enough girders softened the overhead weight
dropped straight down about two or three floors and
started the chain-reaction collapse. The remaining
external skeleton simply helped to channel the forces
towards the center - like dropping a golf ball down
a cardboard tube. (Really, they should build ALL tall
new buildings with a stiff exterior - to encourage the
same effect, just in case. You want the center to be
just a little bit 'softer').
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 21:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
On that morning, I looked at the damage, I looked at
the fires ... and then I sat back and waited for the
buildings to collapese. I *knew* it would happen once
the steel got soft enough. When it happened, HOW it
happened, no suprise at all.
Based on ZERO experience with such fires. Based on zero knowledge
about hat happened when other planes hit buildings. Based on ZERO
engineering experience. You were behaving with no more knowledge than
someone pulling a slot machine this is the time for the big one.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
B1ackwater
2006-05-02 12:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 21:04:50 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
On that morning, I looked at the damage, I looked at
the fires ... and then I sat back and waited for the
buildings to collapese. I *knew* it would happen once
the steel got soft enough. When it happened, HOW it
happened, no suprise at all.
Based on ZERO experience with such fires. Based on zero knowledge
about hat happened when other planes hit buildings. Based on ZERO
engineering experience. You were behaving with no more knowledge than
someone pulling a slot machine this is the time for the big one.
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...

Black Helicopter - DUCK !!!

Gotcha ! :-)
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 19:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Post by Roedy Green
Based on ZERO experience with such fires. Based on zero knowledge
about hat happened when other planes hit buildings. Based on ZERO
engineering experience. You were behaving with no more knowledge than
someone pulling a slot machine this is the time for the big one.
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
Black Helicopter - DUCK !!!
You are the one claiming occult powers to know the towers would fall
without any engineering training to hone your intuition. You are the
tin hat man.

My claim is that these were unprecedented occurrences. I came to that
conclusion watching a video from the library on the construction of
extremely tall buildings put out a little BEFORE 9/11 so it can't very
well be accused of bias. It showed video of fires far bigger than the
9/11 fires. The building 6 fire was tiny. Have you seen the video of
it?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 19:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.

That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
b***@gmail.com
2006-05-02 19:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Roedy Green fantasized:
"In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam."

LOL! Try to keep it real, will ya, Roedy?
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 21:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
"In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam."
LOL! Try to keep it real, will ya, Roedy?
My Grade 11 physics teacher Glenn Mervyn is dead. Perhaps Mr. Harry
Cullis my grade 13 physics teacher would remember. If there are
newspaper records from that period you could perhaps look it up. I was
known as "Munroe Green" at the time. Later in life I started going my
by home nickname Roedy. IBM told me I was the youngest computer
programmer in the world at the time.

Whether you believe me or not, all it takes is some grade 11 Newtonian
physics which you can brush up on if you don't remember to see there
is something very fishy about the speed of the collapse. It has
nothing do with whether you believe me. It is about whether you trust
Isaac Newton's formula d = 1/2 g t^2. You can check it out for
yourself. Until you have done your own math, you are just telling us
your "gut" feelings which mean nothing, no more that your occult
bullshit that enabled you to "predict" the three towers would
collapse.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
kirtland
2006-05-02 19:41:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.

Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?

If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
Chimpolean_Chimpinista
2006-05-02 19:49:19 UTC
Permalink
"kirtland" <***@noway.org> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
:: Are there any sites that explain the "pancake
effect" AND take into
: consideration the fact that the towers were mostly
supported by the
: internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
:
: If anyone here has walked around the ground level
concourse of the
: trade towers, you will realize the above.

This site covers the controlled demolition of WTC
towers and WTC 7 pretty well. On the same page (next
video a couple of times) there is a video of the
building of the WTC towers and it discusses the inner
and outer columns. It is 26 years old so it is not spun
by the bushnicks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815
kirtland
2006-05-02 21:22:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:49:19 GMT, "Chimpolean_Chimpinista"
Post by Chimpolean_Chimpinista
:: Are there any sites that explain the "pancake
effect" AND take into
: consideration the fact that the towers were mostly
supported by the
: internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
: If anyone here has walked around the ground level
concourse of the
: trade towers, you will realize the above.
This site covers the controlled demolition of WTC
towers and WTC 7 pretty well. On the same page (next
video a couple of times) there is a video of the
building of the WTC towers and it discusses the inner
and outer columns. It is 26 years old so it is not spun
by the bushnicks.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815
Definitely there is a need to re-open the investigation.

I'm looking for a photo that shows one of the main steel support
columns cut at an angle. This is the way hollow columns are cut with
thermite to allow the structure to 'slip'. A straight cut interferes
with the collapse. I beams use carefully placed ballast (sand bags) to
cause displacement of upper and lower portions.

Computer generated collapse of these structures should be done.
Lt. Dan's Missing Legs
2006-05-02 21:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:49:19 GMT, "Chimpolean_Chimpinista"
Post by Chimpolean_Chimpinista
:: Are there any sites that explain the "pancake
effect" AND take into
: consideration the fact that the towers were mostly
supported by the
: internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
: If anyone here has walked around the ground level
concourse of the
: trade towers, you will realize the above.
This site covers the controlled demolition of WTC
towers and WTC 7 pretty well. On the same page (next
video a couple of times) there is a video of the
building of the WTC towers and it discusses the inner
and outer columns. It is 26 years old so it is not spun
by the bushnicks.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815
Definitely there is a need to re-open the investigation.
I'm looking for a photo that shows one of the main steel support
columns cut at an angle. This is the way hollow columns are cut with
thermite to allow the structure to 'slip'. A straight cut interferes
with the collapse. I beams use carefully placed ballast (sand bags) to
cause displacement of upper and lower portions.
I posted a link to such a photo about a week ago.

Start by searching the groups using the keyword "thermite"

I forgot what subject line I posted it under.
Post by kirtland
Computer generated collapse of these structures should be done.
b***@yahoo.com
2006-05-02 22:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
I'm looking for a photo that shows one of the main steel support
columns cut at an angle. This is the way hollow columns are cut with
thermite to allow the structure to 'slip'. A straight cut interferes
with the collapse. I beams use carefully placed ballast (sand bags) to
cause displacement of upper and lower portions.
Computer generated collapse of these structures should be done.
Ya think it could all be a hoax generated by the same people who faked
the moon landings with with movie sets and cameras? Ahem... :)
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 23:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Ya think it could all be a hoax generated by the same people who faked
the moon landings with with movie sets and cameras? Ahem... :)
Not really. There are many different videos. Consider the planes hit
considerably before the collapse so there is plenty of video.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 22:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chimpolean_Chimpinista
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815
I have been trying to get people to understand the simple Newtonian
argument for demolition since almost day 1. I am gratified to see the
argument reflected in that video. However, there is a second part to
my argument. If you do the calculation for the FIRST HALF of the
collapse, it proceeds even FASTER than free fall in gravity.

The third part of the argument is more subtle. Newton predicts an
accelerating collapse in free fall. You don't see that. You see a
linear collapse, as if timed by equally spaced explosions.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
B1ackwater
2006-05-02 20:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.

Actually WTC7 is pretty good evidence AGAINST a vast
konspiracy. It was a (relatively) small and hidden
building. Unless you worked in the area you probably
didn't even know it was there, or part of the WTC
complex. As such it had NO propaganda value - either
for bin-Laden OR a vast right-wing konspiracy. Only
the two BIG buildings were important.
Post by kirtland
Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
Post by kirtland
If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
You'd realize that WTC7 wasn't WORTH anyone knocking down.
kirtland
2006-05-02 21:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.
There were very few fires and they had not spread much. This can be
seen from different views of the building before it fell. It fell
straight down which is wierd because of its aspect ratio - the ratio
of height against width and length.
Post by B1ackwater
Actually WTC7 is pretty good evidence AGAINST a vast
konspiracy. It was a (relatively) small and hidden
building. Unless you worked in the area you probably
didn't even know it was there, or part of the WTC
complex. As such it had NO propaganda value - either
for bin-Laden OR a vast right-wing konspiracy. Only
the two BIG buildings were important.
What were the offices in that building?
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
Your answer doen't answer my question.
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
You'd realize that WTC7 wasn't WORTH anyone knocking down.
What were the offices in that building?
B1ackwater
2006-05-02 21:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.
There were very few fires and they had not spread much. This can be
seen from different views of the building before it fell. It fell
straight down which is wierd because of its aspect ratio - the ratio
of height against width and length.
Consider too the earthquake-like effects of the nearby
towers falling. Not only was there a huge shake, but
the foundations themselves would have suffered since
the buildings were kind-of tied together by all sorts
of tunnels, tubes and even bedrock.

The fires weren't THAT weak either.

I've yet to see a slo-mo of that particular building
falling. I'm sure they're out there, I just never came
across one. Fair chance it didn't fall QUITE as
uniformly as you think.

A weakness of modern structures is that in order to cut
material requirements they depend a great deal on mutual
support between load-bearing structural components. If
one element goes, the rest suddenly become severely
un-braced or de-tensioned. Older "stack-o-bricks" buildings
were a bit different in that respect, each wall had to
be largely self-supporting. Look at pix of old medieval
castles ... one wall may have collapsed from war or
subsidence, but often three walls are still standing strong.

You couldn't pull one wall out of the WTC towers and expect
them to stand for long. Indeed, they didn't. Parts that
relied on tension were left danglin' in the breeze, parts
the relied on constant compression found only empty space
beneath their feet. Then the remaining steel got softer ...
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Actually WTC7 is pretty good evidence AGAINST a vast
konspiracy. It was a (relatively) small and hidden
building. Unless you worked in the area you probably
didn't even know it was there, or part of the WTC
complex. As such it had NO propaganda value - either
for bin-Laden OR a vast right-wing konspiracy. Only
the two BIG buildings were important.
What were the offices in that building?
Irrelevant. As it was not targeted by an airliner there was
plenty of time to grab the backup disks, lock the safes and
evacuate the building.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
Your answer doen't answer my question.
You've kinda asked a lot of questions ...

As for web sites ... use Google and search for yourself.

The BEST solution is to get access to professional
structural design software. Plug in the parameters
for the towers and then simulate the damage and
loading situation.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
You'd realize that WTC7 wasn't WORTH anyone knocking down.
What were the offices in that building?
Again irrelevant. They lived. The hit was very indirect.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 22:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
I've yet to see a slo-mo of that particular building
falling. I'm sure they're out there, I just never came
across one. Fair chance it didn't fall QUITE as
uniformly as you think.
If you have not seen any video, where do you get off telling people
what happened?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
kirtland
2006-05-03 01:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.
There were very few fires and they had not spread much. This can be
seen from different views of the building before it fell. It fell
straight down which is wierd because of its aspect ratio - the ratio
of height against width and length.
Consider too the earthquake-like effects of the nearby
towers falling. Not only was there a huge shake, but
the foundations themselves would have suffered since
the buildings were kind-of tied together by all sorts
of tunnels, tubes and even bedrock.
The fires weren't THAT weak either.
I've yet to see a slo-mo of that particular building
falling. I'm sure they're out there, I just never came
across one. Fair chance it didn't fall QUITE as
uniformly as you think.
It didn't fall in slow-mo. It fell at the same speed a rock would if
dropped of the top of a 47 story building.
Post by B1ackwater
A weakness of modern structures is that in order to cut
material requirements they depend a great deal on mutual
support between load-bearing structural components. If
one element goes, the rest suddenly become severely
un-braced or de-tensioned. Older "stack-o-bricks" buildings
were a bit different in that respect, each wall had to
be largely self-supporting. Look at pix of old medieval
castles ... one wall may have collapsed from war or
subsidence, but often three walls are still standing strong.
WTC7 was a boxed steel framed structure. All the bottom supports
needed to collapse at the same instant for the building to fall so
straight. If it started at one edge or corner, it would look more like
a domino effect traversing horizontally and would fall unevenly.

Besides, there was a recorded TV interview that told the building was
"pulled" by the fire dept. How the firemen managed to get the
explosives downtown and installed in less than six hours is beyond me.
Post by B1ackwater
You couldn't pull one wall out of the WTC towers and expect
them to stand for long. Indeed, they didn't. Parts that
relied on tension were left danglin' in the breeze, parts
the relied on constant compression found only empty space
beneath their feet. Then the remaining steel got softer ...
The heat wasn't enough to melt the internal massive box beams under
compression. The "official" version shows it was the bending of the
floor joists that connect the internal boxed core to the outside steel
cage.
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Actually WTC7 is pretty good evidence AGAINST a vast
konspiracy. It was a (relatively) small and hidden
building. Unless you worked in the area you probably
didn't even know it was there, or part of the WTC
complex. As such it had NO propaganda value - either
for bin-Laden OR a vast right-wing konspiracy. Only
the two BIG buildings were important.
What were the offices in that building?
Irrelevant. As it was not targeted by an airliner there was
plenty of time to grab the backup disks, lock the safes and
evacuate the building.
I found some very interesting material here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
Your answer doen't answer my question.
You've kinda asked a lot of questions ...
As for web sites ... use Google and search for yourself.
The BEST solution is to get access to professional
structural design software. Plug in the parameters
for the towers and then simulate the damage and
loading situation.
Are the structural drawings available? Everything I've read tells me
they're not.
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
You'd realize that WTC7 wasn't WORTH anyone knocking down.
What were the offices in that building?
Again irrelevant. They lived. The hit was very indirect.
B1ackwater
2006-05-03 13:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.
There were very few fires and they had not spread much. This can be
seen from different views of the building before it fell. It fell
straight down which is wierd because of its aspect ratio - the ratio
of height against width and length.
Consider too the earthquake-like effects of the nearby
towers falling. Not only was there a huge shake, but
the foundations themselves would have suffered since
the buildings were kind-of tied together by all sorts
of tunnels, tubes and even bedrock.
The fires weren't THAT weak either.
I've yet to see a slo-mo of that particular building
falling. I'm sure they're out there, I just never came
across one. Fair chance it didn't fall QUITE as
uniformly as you think.
It didn't fall in slow-mo. It fell at the same speed a rock would if
dropped of the top of a 47 story building.
I was referring to a slow-motion video of the collapse.
I've seen a regular-speed vid, but nothing slowed-down
enough to really get a handle on whether everything
went splat in one instant - suggesting the thing was
laced with explosives - or whether there was a primary
structural failure point from which everything else
proceeded. Lots of vid on the BIG towers, but WTC7
was kind-of "incidental" and under-reported.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
A weakness of modern structures is that in order to cut
material requirements they depend a great deal on mutual
support between load-bearing structural components. If
one element goes, the rest suddenly become severely
un-braced or de-tensioned. Older "stack-o-bricks" buildings
were a bit different in that respect, each wall had to
be largely self-supporting. Look at pix of old medieval
castles ... one wall may have collapsed from war or
subsidence, but often three walls are still standing strong.
WTC7 was a boxed steel framed structure. All the bottom supports
needed to collapse at the same instant for the building to fall so
straight. If it started at one edge or corner, it would look more like
a domino effect traversing horizontally and would fall unevenly.
That's why I want to see the slo-mo ... what first seems
to be "one instant" may in fact be a complex, orderly
series of events that just SEEMED to happen all at once.

BTW, you CAN create the appearance of instant collapse in
such a structure - if a critical number of the hidden
central supports fail. A wave of collapse will move from
the center outwards. But, since the outer shell is the last
to go and the only part we can SEE, it APPEARS that the
structure just went 'plop' all at once.

And finally, as I mentioned before, WTC7 was an OBSCURE
building - worthless for propaganda purposes to both
terrorists and any hypothetical evil US or Israeli govt
conspirators.
Post by kirtland
Besides, there was a recorded TV interview that told the building was
"pulled" by the fire dept. How the firemen managed to get the
explosives downtown and installed in less than six hours is beyond me.
Well, six hours is a long time - although things WERE very
confused that day. Assuming they had explosives nearby they
COULD have retrieved them and installed charges at least on
some of the aforementioned central supports in order to
induce an 'implosion' of sorts.

However, I seem to remember rather a lot of firemen and
such being fairly NEAR the building when it went. Any
demolition team would have pulled everybody WAY back
before they pushed the button.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
You couldn't pull one wall out of the WTC towers and expect
them to stand for long. Indeed, they didn't. Parts that
relied on tension were left danglin' in the breeze, parts
the relied on constant compression found only empty space
beneath their feet. Then the remaining steel got softer ...
The heat wasn't enough to melt the internal massive box beams under
compression. The "official" version shows it was the bending of the
floor joists that connect the internal boxed core to the outside steel
cage.
They don't HAVE to "melt". Steel suddenly becomes MUCH more
plastic at just a dull red heat. Buy a Benz-o-Matic torch
and a strip of steel from your local "Home Depot" and do
some experiments. If you really want to be sophisticated
buy a 50 lb spring "fish scale" and one of those IR non-
contact thermometers too. Clamp about an 18" long piece of
the steel strip (a 1x1/8" is commonly availible) flatside
down so one end is in a vice and the scale pulls down on
the far end. Draw about 30 lbs of tension on it and then
proceed with the heating.

You will be able to see that the tension initially holds -
but then suddenly diminishes as the steel approaches the
point where it's visibly hot. If you've got an assistant
or computer aid you can plot the temperature against the
percentage-strength-remaining. By the time you're at dull-red,
the steel can be folded double quite easily. At red-red it's
pretty floppy and can be formed easily with hand pressure
or a hammer. (Great-grandpappy was a blacksmith)

I encourage you to actually DO the hands-on experiment. However
if you MUST cheat, below is some of what you'd expect to see -

A handy guide to temperatures and other steel stuff is at :
http://www.threeplanes.net/toolsteel.html

And this from a fire faq :

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/company/business_units/fire_engineering_home/who_is_fire_engineering/faq/

For hot rolled structural steel the yield strength reduces as the
temperature increases dropping to about 60% of its ambient
temperature strength at around 400°C and approximately 10% at
800°C. However the stress at 2% strain (normally reached when a
steel floor beam attains its permitted limit of deflection)
initially increases with increasing temperature reaching a peak
value at around 250°C. The reason for this can be explained using
metallurgical theory and involves a combination of work hardening
and dynamic strain ageing.

More info at :
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc41506.pdf
Figure 4 is of relevance here.

And the WTC floor joists were steel too.

Remember also that there was some concrete in that building, in
the floors especially, and that provided stiffening between the
steel structural beams. As the steel gets hotter, it EXPANDS
and can CRACK the concrete (an insulator, so it doesn't heat
up at the same rate). This further weakens the entire structure.

About 15 minutes before the first tower fell, the TV images
showed how the section above the damage had actually settled
down a bit, slightly tilted, where the damage was greatest.
That meant the remaining weight was being held up by relatively
few beams - they were under a LOT of stress, both end-on and
in terms of lateral deflection. The upper floors were rather
like a long balcony, sticking out over a void, held up only
at the far end.

As the beams nearest the center failed, the remaining beams
had to hold more and more of the weight at a less and less
advantageous angle. Then there was an abrupt failure and the
far end plopped down all at once - a powerful blow striking
several lower floors compromised by impact damage and heat -
starting the chain-reaction collapse. Once everything was in
motion, nothing in that building was strong enough to stop it.
No explosives or thermite charges required.

A lot of people seem to think tall buildings should fall OVER
like a tree and this misleads them terribly. The WTC towers
were NOT trees, their structural strengths and weaknesses were
MUCH different and thus they FELL differently. Even if the base
of the tower had been blasted out, the rest STILL would have
fallen almost straight down.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Actually WTC7 is pretty good evidence AGAINST a vast
konspiracy. It was a (relatively) small and hidden
building. Unless you worked in the area you probably
didn't even know it was there, or part of the WTC
complex. As such it had NO propaganda value - either
for bin-Laden OR a vast right-wing konspiracy. Only
the two BIG buildings were important.
What were the offices in that building?
Irrelevant. As it was not targeted by an airliner there was
plenty of time to grab the backup disks, lock the safes and
evacuate the building.
I found some very interesting material here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Are there any sites that explain the "pancake effect" AND take into
consideration the fact that the towers were mostly supported by the
internal core and NOT the outer steel framework?
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
Your answer doen't answer my question.
You've kinda asked a lot of questions ...
As for web sites ... use Google and search for yourself.
The BEST solution is to get access to professional
structural design software. Plug in the parameters
for the towers and then simulate the damage and
loading situation.
Are the structural drawings available? Everything I've read tells me
they're not.
They USED TO be public-domain ... filed with the NYC building
department. Many copies must have been made before the first
terrorist attack in the basement garage. Any contractor bidding
on any sort of repair or maintenence deal would have pulled a
copy so they'd know what they were dealing with. The data is
"out there" somewhere - many somewheres. Now that the buildings
are no more, there's no point in keeping the designs secret.
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
Post by B1ackwater
Post by kirtland
If anyone here has walked around the ground level concourse of the
trade towers, you will realize the above.
You'd realize that WTC7 wasn't WORTH anyone knocking down.
What were the offices in that building?
Again irrelevant. They lived. The hit was very indirect.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 22:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
WTC7 fell because it was badly designed - the structure
was compromised by the need to span over existing
structures. This concentrated stresses. When the fire
progressed far enough - boom.
FEMA says they don't know why it collapsed. And what is your evidence
the building was badly designed? Pulled out your ass or discovered
from your OUIJA board no doubt. You offer nothing to back up your
occult claims.

Even if it was badly designed, it was not particularly stressed.
Nothing hit it. It had just a small fire. LOOK AT THE VIDEOS so at
least you will know you are lying.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 22:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
The outer frame served as a 'guide' for the collapse,
tending to channel forces inwards toward the center.
The pancaking was expected, indeed the building was
designed to fall that way if it ever DID fall.
And where did you learn this? More pulling crap that sounds plausible
out of thin air, right?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 21:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
Where can I find information on why WTC7 fell? Any government info
seems to have gone down the memory hole.
I think the official story is the fire melted the beams and it
collapsed. Have a look of a video of the building just before
collapse. There is only a quite small fire going on.

Then go to your library and find video about fires in tall buildings
and look at the stupendous totally-enveloping fires where the building
DID NOT collapse, and in fact NEVER collapse, except on 9/11.

Many metallurgists have testified, jet fuel burns far too cold to melt
steel. That is obvious even to the layman when you look at the
rigamarole you have to go through to melt steel intentionally, e.g.
using a jet of pure oxygen.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a 2002-09
PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to
'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry
jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

What the hell more evidence do you need? You have a taped confession!!
for Christ's sake. America behaves like the apartment owner in Max
Frisch's play "The Firebugs" where a man has leased rooms to admitted
arsonists, but keeps making excuses for their behaviour, and in the
end loses his home to fire.

Americans remind me of the Jerry Herman Dear World song "I Don't Want
To Know", about the singer's desire to remain blissfully ignorant so
he plugs his ears to reality so he can enjoy his fantasy world.

Rightwingers accuse me of living in a fantasy world. Since when is
paying attention to confessions less more delusional than ignoring
them? Who was more delusional Galileo or those who refused to even
look through the telescope? Who is more delusional, those who do the
physics or those who claim the know the results without doing the
physics?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
B1ackwater
2006-05-02 20:14:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:07:10 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
You and I watched the same news feeds - over and over and
over and over again. They fell just as I expected them to
fall. The top bumped down and the floors beneath could
not hold the weight - so everything collapsed straight
down. The exoskeleton made the fall even straighter. There
was even some slight slo-mo effect caused because the AIR
between each floor had to be squeezed out.

I don't care HOW many degrees you have - some people can
run a mechanical simulation in their heads, others cannot.
It's not really a matter of IQ or education so much either.
I've encountered real dumb-ass ignorami who could still
tell you what part of a machine was going to wear out
or crack soonest just by mentally fast-forwarding through
a years worth of wear and vibration. Tesla was one of the
best at it however, by all accounts.

I'd suggest you get your hands on a REAL high-quality
simulation program ... the kind engineers used to study
the effects of wind and earthquakes on proposed designs.
Set it up halfway right and it ought to crank out some
interesting stuff. MAYBE I'm wrong ... but I strongly
suspect I'll be vindicated.

Then there are the insurmountable problems involved in
intentionally dropping the buildings. As I said, the exact
impact point and angle and speed of the aircraft were not
possible to predict with any precision beforehand.
Engineering that neat-o pancake collapse would have been
impossible without foreknowledge of what the initial damage
would be like. Demolition companies spend weeks setting
their charges JUST SO - and they're dealing with a static
structure that isn't gonna have a huge random hole punched
in it at the last minute.

But I fear you don't WANT to know the truth ... the vast
right-wing konspiracy theory is SO compelling, SO tells
you what you want to hear ....
l***@yahoo.com
2006-05-02 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by B1ackwater
Keep believing that Roedy, just keep believing ...
It is not a matter of belief. In grade 11, I got the top mark in
North America on a physics exam. I still remember my grade 11
Newtonian physics.
That is the other reason I say those towers did not fall naturally.
You're being downright silly if for no other reason than high school
newtonian physics tests have nothing to do with the fall of the WTC.

What buildings have been hit by fully fueled 747s? I can't think of
one. The closest comparison is the 1944 (approximately) crash of a US
bomber into the Empire State Building. Big differences in plane size
and fuel load. The ESB was built far more robustly than the WTCs. Your
high school physics courses are not pertinent.

Sometimes, like wacko rightwingers, you can post the stupidest
assertions.
Post by Roedy Green
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-02 22:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
You're being downright silly if for no other reason than high school
newtonian physics tests have nothing to do with the fall of the WTC.
Then that shows you slept through your grade 11 physics class. Review
and then come back with a rebuttal based on physics.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-05-03 00:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by l***@yahoo.com
You're being downright silly if for no other reason than high school
newtonian physics tests have nothing to do with the fall of the WTC.
Then that shows you slept through your grade 11 physics class. Review
and then come back with a rebuttal based on physics.
You made the claim your 11th grade physics class was relevant. What was
in that course relevant to the fall of the towers?

Had you claimed your chemistry class was applicable, you'd have a leg
to stand on. You could have discussed the temperature thousands of
gallons of jet fuel created and the impact on the compression strength
of the steel making up the structure of the building. There were
several floors above the one each plane crashed into. The structure of
the very next floor below the crash point could not support the
accumulative weight of ten to fifteen floors above. At least, that's
what a logical mind might argue.

(PS. I just did as you demanded....chemistry is a subset of physics.)
Post by Roedy Green
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-03 03:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
You made the claim your 11th grade physics class was relevant. What was
in that course relevant to the fall of the towers
The basic formula is d = 1/2 g t ^ 2

where d = distance

g = acceleration due to gravity 32 feet per second per second

t = time.

This tells you where you would expect to find a rock dropped from a
tower at different times if there were no air resistance. It describes
the way a falling body picks up speed.

If you apply this formula to the tower debris, given the Bush
conspiracy pancake theory, the tower should fall SLOWER than free fall
because of the resistance of each floor would slow the entire falling
mass down.

However, there are three anomalies.

1. the total time for tower collapse is the same at free fall IN A
VACUUM. It should be slower.

2. If you look at the time for the building to fall half way, its is
FASTER than free fall for the first half. The only way that can happen
is if there is something pushing it other than gravity. Newton's law f
= ma says there must be a force to account for the extra acceleration.

3. The formula for free fall predicts the collapse to speed up as it
progresses. It does not.

A set of explosions going off equally timed would explain all three
anomalies. They would also explain many other anomalies, including the
fact that all three buildings fell at all, the puffs of smoke coming
out ahead of the debris cloud, the demolition-like collapse onto a
small footprint and that the owner of building 7 publicly admitted he
ordered it demolished.

I am not asking you to believe me. There is no way you could believe a
thing I tell you because it conflicts with your deeply held patriotic
beliefs. But if you have the courage to do the math yourself THAT
might convince you. The big problem is I suspect most Americans are
incapable of even that elementary physics. The "huh?" reaction I get
every time I explain this suggests Americans don't study Newtonian
physics in high school. If you can't do the math yourself, give it to
a kid who can.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-03 03:49:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 May 2006 03:37:00 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
There is no way you could believe a
thing I tell you because it conflicts with your deeply held patriotic
beliefs. But if you have the courage to do the math yourself THAT
might convince you.
For me there is no contest. Nobody has found an exception to Newton's
laws in hundreds of years other than minute relativistic effects. In
contrast, almost everything Bush ever said turned out to be a lie. I
Will trust a scientist over a politician any day.

It is the old story of the Emperor's New Clothes. The people will
pretend to believe any nonsense if they imagine everyone else believes
it. It takes a few brave souls to state the obvious, and gradually
people lose their fear of the obvious truth.

The biggest problem is you and your ilk are cowards. The thought that
the government could be complicit in something as freaking weird as
9/11 so alarms you that you close you eyes to all the evidence. You
are afraid to even investigate. You may be afraid of Bush. But more
likely you are afraid of the social disapproval of the ignorant who
refuse to look for themselves.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Lt. Dan's Missing Legs
2006-05-02 21:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:34:12 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 01 May 2006 05:22:41 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by Roedy Green
I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
If you assume bin Laden did 9/11 which I strongly doubt, the planned
number of casualties was lower than it turned out.
The buildings should not have collapsed. No such collapse ever
happened before or since.
And the Titanic should not have sunk.
Sometimes steel is not made the way it really should be.
And rain should not include frogs, but sometimes it does.
And Doyle Brunson shouldn't have won the WSOP two years in a row
playing 10-2.
Very weird things happen, seemingly more often than they should.
Humans suck at many statistical reasoning tasks - all praise the late
great Amos Tversky for teaching us that - and one way we suck is in
underestimating how many really weird things will happen by chance
alone.
On that morning, I looked at the damage, I looked at
the fires ... and then I sat back and waited for the
buildings to collapese. I *knew* it would happen once
the steel got soft enough. When it happened, HOW it
happened, no suprise at all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Lying zionazi shill.

Go fuckin' die in Iraq you useless twat.
Post by Roedy Green
But some people can't mentally model even a relatively
simple mechanical system like a girder building, they
have no 'feel' for what happens when you change this
or that factor. So - they invent incredibly elaborate
conspiracy theories instead and re-invent the laws
of physics and mechanics until they fit the theory.
THEN we hear about how the spooks spent a month
wiring the building with explosives or thermite so
it would fall JUST-SO after a cohort flew an airliner
into a precisely choosen spot.
Hell, the 2nd plane nearly MISSED the building ...
those guys could barely fly. If you can't count on
where the damaged spot will be, you can't set-up
tbe building for a neatly-controlled collapse.
And yes, it SHOULD have collapsed almost straight down.
As soon as enough girders softened the overhead weight
dropped straight down about two or three floors and
started the chain-reaction collapse. The remaining
external skeleton simply helped to channel the forces
towards the center - like dropping a golf ball down
a cardboard tube. (Really, they should build ALL tall
new buildings with a stiff exterior - to encourage the
same effect, just in case. You want the center to be
just a little bit 'softer').
B1ackwater
2006-05-01 12:23:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by larry rose
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Won't work - the govt will cover it up, say you didn't REALLY
have a nuke. You'd HAVE to set the thing off SOMEWHERE it
could be seen by millions - even if it was safely offshore of
some large city. Envision the statue of Liberty starkly
backlit by a distant mushroom cloud and the panic it
would cause ... terrorist nirvana.
But then the true terrorist wouldn't want to detonate it
OFFshore ...
The "true terrorist" might very well have moral sensibilities about
using methods no more horrible than necessary to achieve desired ends.
There is a difference between those who use terror as a way to achieve
a goals and those who just favor mass murder for its own sake. I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
I guess your point might be that Bin Laden etc might not be "true"
terrorists. Ok.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
But where's a terrorists "country" ? They're an international
group - without homelands or borders.
Reread the question. It says in part "attack against your own country"
We nuke Country A. The retaliation was apparently from those who are
citizens of Country A.
But country 'A' isn't necessarily a SPONSOR of these
terrorists, may indeed DESPISE them. Nuking Egypt
because one member of a terror cell is Egyptian
would be just nuts.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
That was my assumption, at least.
The problem of stateless actors is interesting, of course. It sort of
guts MAD.
Yes, it does.

The martyrdom thing also undermines the MAD concept.
MAD implicitly assumes that the relevant parties do
NOT want to die. The upshot is that when it comes to
nations run by rad Islamics, we cannot count on MAD
to restrain their behavior.

One day, probably soon, the rads are going to overthrow
Mushariffs government in a sudden bloody coup and that
countries nukes will be in their hands. THEN what do we
do ? Well, maybe WE won't have to do anything - India
will probably, wisely, launch a pre-emptive strike before
the rads figure out how to launch all their new missiles.

Of course the fallout will drift over into China - which
will then be justified acting in its own self defense by
seizing Pakistan and the northern provinces of India ...
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
What's the advantage of that?
Death in the service of god is all the reward
a martyr requires. The more of his own people
he can martyr at the same time, the better. He
is guarenteeing them a straight shot into paradise.
First, the question referred not to their logic, but to mine.
Second, your drinking the Flavor Aide by swallowing that spin of the
US about what motivates our enemies.
Depends on the individual enemy. Osama bin-Laden probably
has political aspirations - but the troops he's training
and brainwashing DO think it's eternal glory to kill and
die for Allah. Nukes in bin-Ladens hands would be used as
a blackmail device. Nukes in the hands of one of the smaller
splinter cells would be used to slaughter Israelis or the
nearest concentration of westerners. They'd happily emulate
Slim Pickens, riding that nuke down to glory .....
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Our enemies tell us what motivates them, and it seems quite logical.
There is no reason to assume that they, unlike everyone on Earth you
or I ever met, favor their own total destruction.
Again, we are not facing a single enemy. It's also a
mistake to take anything bin-Laden says at face value.
He's a revolutionary propagandist first and foremost.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
We praise our soldiers who die also, as martyrs.
Not QUITE the same ... martyrdom in western culture
has a different look and feel. To plunge your crippled
plane into the enemy fortress to save your chums is OK,
but you only do it as a last resort - otherwise it's
ordinary "suicide" and western culture doesn't honor that.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
We have people who claim they go to some place in the sky where people
play harps and trumpets, presumably together, as horrible as that
sounds.
So the religious overlay does not strike me as all that important.
It is. Suicide "for god" is powerfully reinforced in
islamic culture.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
They find their fairy tale comforting, just as we find ours similarly
comforting.
But in reality we act to protect oil supplies
Oil is important.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
and they act to get us the hell out of the middle east.
Short-term ... so the rads can take over the whole area.
THEN comes the worldwide nuclear jihad ...
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
No need to adopt goofball theories of
bizarre motivation when they STATE their reasons which sound like the
logical reasons typically motivating violent conflict.
You mean when they LIE about their reasons, don't you ?
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The "martyrs" are not particularly religious at all.
They are motivated by politics, IMO.
The martyrs are motivated by religion (which is inseperable
from politics in fundamentalist islam). Those masterminds
behind the movement however, THEY are motivated more by
conventional politics. Unfortunately, their control of
their creations isn't particularly firm ...
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2006-05-01 14:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by larry rose
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:09:40 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Let's say you were put in charge of selecting the targets to nuke with
small suitcase weapons in the USA to retaliate for atrocities or a
nuclear attack against your own country. Where would you strike?
No where. I would leave the device where it could be found, tell where
it is, and demand certain things such as the execution of those
responsible, or else a second one would be detonated.
Won't work - the govt will cover it up, say you didn't REALLY
have a nuke. You'd HAVE to set the thing off SOMEWHERE it
could be seen by millions - even if it was safely offshore of
some large city. Envision the statue of Liberty starkly
backlit by a distant mushroom cloud and the panic it
would cause ... terrorist nirvana.
But then the true terrorist wouldn't want to detonate it
OFFshore ...
The "true terrorist" might very well have moral sensibilities about
using methods no more horrible than necessary to achieve desired ends.
There is a difference between those who use terror as a way to achieve
a goals and those who just favor mass murder for its own sake. I have
no reason to think Bin Laden isn't trying to be effective, rather than
murderous for its own sake.
I guess your point might be that Bin Laden etc might not be "true"
terrorists. Ok.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
Detonating the thing would bring more nukes on your own country.
But where's a terrorists "country" ? They're an international
group - without homelands or borders.
Reread the question. It says in part "attack against your own country"
We nuke Country A. The retaliation was apparently from those who are
citizens of Country A.
But country 'A' isn't necessarily a SPONSOR of these
terrorists, may indeed DESPISE them. Nuking Egypt
because one member of a terror cell is Egyptian
would be just nuts.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
That was my assumption, at least.
The problem of stateless actors is interesting, of course. It sort of
guts MAD.
Yes, it does.
The martyrdom thing also undermines the MAD concept.
MAD implicitly assumes that the relevant parties do
NOT want to die. The upshot is that when it comes to
nations run by rad Islamics, we cannot count on MAD
to restrain their behavior.
One day, probably soon, the rads are going to overthrow
Mushariffs government in a sudden bloody coup and that
countries nukes will be in their hands. THEN what do we
do ? Well, maybe WE won't have to do anything - India
will probably, wisely, launch a pre-emptive strike before
the rads figure out how to launch all their new missiles.
Of course the fallout will drift over into China - which
will then be justified acting in its own self defense by
seizing Pakistan and the northern provinces of India ...
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by larry rose
What's the advantage of that?
Death in the service of god is all the reward
a martyr requires. The more of his own people
he can martyr at the same time, the better. He
is guarenteeing them a straight shot into paradise.
First, the question referred not to their logic, but to mine.
Second, your drinking the Flavor Aide by swallowing that spin of the
US about what motivates our enemies.
Depends on the individual enemy. Osama bin-Laden probably
has political aspirations - but the troops he's training
and brainwashing DO think it's eternal glory to kill and
die for Allah. Nukes in bin-Ladens hands would be used as
a blackmail device. Nukes in the hands of one of the smaller
splinter cells would be used to slaughter Israelis or the
nearest concentration of westerners. They'd happily emulate
Slim Pickens, riding that nuke down to glory .....
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Our enemies tell us what motivates them, and it seems quite logical.
There is no reason to assume that they, unlike everyone on Earth you
or I ever met, favor their own total destruction.
Again, we are not facing a single enemy. It's also a
mistake to take anything bin-Laden says at face value.
He's a revolutionary propagandist first and foremost.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
We praise our soldiers who die also, as martyrs.
Not QUITE the same ... martyrdom in western culture
has a different look and feel. To plunge your crippled
plane into the enemy fortress to save your chums is OK,
but you only do it as a last resort - otherwise it's
ordinary "suicide" and western culture doesn't honor that.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
We have people who claim they go to some place in the sky where people
play harps and trumpets, presumably together, as horrible as that
sounds.
So the religious overlay does not strike me as all that important.
It is. Suicide "for god" is powerfully reinforced in
islamic culture.
As is dying for your country here in the US.

Academic studies of suicide bombers do not find them particularly
religious.

It's just another tactic of armed conflict.

Our enemy is not from outer space. It is from earth.

And on earth people may talk about the sweet everafter, but they fight
like hell to avoid going there.

But people will die for a political cause, at times. Whether they
believe in the afterlife or not.

The notion that muslims welcome mass death among their own is not
supported by any evidence.

Saying you are going to go to heaven is something many people say -
but seem to not actually believe enough to accelerate that glorious
day.
Post by Roedy Green
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
They find their fairy tale comforting, just as we find ours similarly
comforting.
But in reality we act to protect oil supplies
Oil is important.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
and they act to get us the hell out of the middle east.
Short-term ... so the rads can take over the whole area.
THEN comes the worldwide nuclear jihad ...
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
No need to adopt goofball theories of
bizarre motivation when they STATE their reasons which sound like the
logical reasons typically motivating violent conflict.
You mean when they LIE about their reasons, don't you ?
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The "martyrs" are not particularly religious at all.
They are motivated by politics, IMO.
The martyrs are motivated by religion (which is inseperable
from politics in fundamentalist islam). Those masterminds
behind the movement however, THEY are motivated more by
conventional politics. Unfortunately, their control of
their creations isn't particularly firm ...
B1ackwater
2006-05-01 19:14:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:40:22 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Post by Roedy Green
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:16:13 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
We have people who claim they go to some place in the sky where people
play harps and trumpets, presumably together, as horrible as that
sounds.
So the religious overlay does not strike me as all that important.
It is. Suicide "for god" is powerfully reinforced in
islamic culture.
As is dying for your country here in the US.
Those who die are highly respected, but we don't SEND
them to die - we send them to FIGHT, to make the ENEMY
die. We'd rather THEY come home alive. Their death
does not have value in and of itself beyond proof that
they were WILLING to risk death for the good of their
countrymen.

Then you cut to recent newsreels from Palestine where
a mother expresses hopes that her child will grow up
to be a suicide bomber ...

It's just DIFFERENT over there. The underlying culture,
value system and history is simply DIFFERENT. Just when
you imagine they think like we do they'll suddenly
throw you a totally unexpected curveball. I'll not
say that WE think correctly and THEY think incorrectly,
that's too broad and muddy a street to navigate ... just
that every arab/moslem does NOT have an American inside
of them trying to get out.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Academic studies of suicide bombers do not find them particularly
religious.
They don't have to be all-over religious - just have those
few little bits of religion in their heads that persuade
them to cover themselves in TNT and detonate in a schoolbus.
Never assume that someone has to be a snake-handlin' clearly
fanatical churchie in order to do something motivated by an
idea contained within their religion.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
It's just another tactic of armed conflict.
Our enemy is not from outer space. It is from earth.
You'd hardly know it ...

There is such a thing as basic 'human nature' - but it's
pretty low-level stuff, like the straw used to make wicker
baskets and such. Culture and circumstance weaves our basic
nature into distinct and exotic forms. It is a mistake, a
dangerous mistake, to take ANYTHING for granted when you
deal with a seriously different culture.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
And on earth people may talk about the sweet everafter, but they fight
like hell to avoid going there.
They HOPE there's a "sweet ever-after" ... but since
they don't get e-mails from all their deceased friends
and relatives they've gotta be a bit WARY dontchaknow ...
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
But people will die for a political cause, at times. Whether they
believe in the afterlife or not.
Yep, sometimes. Politics and religion are both ideologies
and can provoke similar responses.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The notion that muslims welcome mass death among their own is not
supported by any evidence.
We're not dealing with all moslems - just a small fanatical
subset. That's enough. Everyone else either goes with the
flow they create or just keeps their head down and tries to
stay out of the way.
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Saying you are going to go to heaven is something many people say -
but seem to not actually believe enough to accelerate that glorious
day.
Bin-Laden and friends have had NO trouble finding an adequate
supply of folks who are SURE.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 20:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Those who die are highly respected, but we don't SEND
them to die - we send them to FIGHT, to make the ENEMY
die. We'd rather THEY come home alive. Their death
does not have value in and of itself beyond proof that
they were WILLING to risk death for the good of their
countrymen.
The one who come home dead get far more fuss made over them than those
who come home crippled. Think of all the stories of guys having pay
the military when they had to return early due to injuries.

Its a death cult. No matter what sort of goober you were, if you
manage to die in the military your death will be spun into something
heroic for the hometown crowd to sucker other losers desperate for any
glory, to sign up.

When your country is fighting for is life from an invader, all these
tricks to make people sacrifice their lives can be justified. But when
the wars are purely optional, and purely for the financial benefit of
a few corporations, they are SICK.

No right winger ever tries to answer the question, WHY IS THE USA
STILL FIGHTING IN IRAQ? It is not WMDs; Bush knew from day one there
were none. . It is not Saddam; he was captured back in 2003. What is
it if not oil?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 20:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
They don't have to be all-over religious - just have those
few little bits of religion in their heads that persuade
them to cover themselves in TNT
that has nothing to do with Islam. There is NOTHING in the Qu'ran to
support this. The propaganda is that Islam is the problem. This is
like blaming Jesus for Tim McVeigh because McVeigh was a nominal
Christian. His acts were not in the least condoned by his religion.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 20:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 May 2006 07:40:22 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
Post by George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
As is dying for your country here in the US.
Academic studies of suicide bombers do not find them particularly
religious.
I could conceive of doing a suicide bombing to revenge the death of my
family and friends. In grief I could see no further point in my life.
But there is no way on earth I would do such a thing for an early seat
at the pie the sky table, especially when there was no support for
such bullshit in my holy book, and in fact it said the exact opposite.

I think some people sacrifice their lives out of altruism. If you
blow up X of the implacable enemy in your suicide, that will save
X+Y-1 of our folk.

Lots of people have marched to their death with worse that 50-50 odds
motivated by their duty to protect their loved ones. Much of what went
on in WW I was little different from suicide attacks.

Claiming your enemies sacrifice their lives motivated by a desire to
get laid in the afterlife is just silly propaganda designed to
dehumanise your enemies thus making it easier to kill them including
their children.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 20:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
But country 'A' isn't necessarily a SPONSOR of these
terrorists, may indeed DESPISE them. Nuking Egypt
because one member of a terror cell is Egyptian
would be just nuts.
Let's say Tim McVeigh had decided to attack the Vatican. Would anyone
be justified in attacking the USA? Many would of course. I would not
want to be an American tourist in Italy when such an attack were
announced.

Oddly Americans are not particularly pissed with Saudi Arabia over
9/11. Instead they have decided to leave them alone and attack OTHER
Muslim countries. All we have is Bush's word those responsible are
Saudi and they are dead unavailable for questioning.
.
I speculate the reason Americans are so sanguine to the Saudis is they
have been manipulated. It helps Exxon to shut down the #2 Iraq and #5
Iran oil producers to create shortages to jack up prices, but shutting
down #1 Saudi Arabia would overdo it. Further the Saudis are much
better armed against an American invasion. Further such an invasion
would immediately unite he entire Arab world. Bin Laden has been
complaining for years about infidel American in the holy land of
Mecca.

"How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from
bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations
conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells
us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for
the attack on the World Trade Centre."
~ John le Carré
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Kevin
2006-05-01 20:01:42 UTC
Permalink
How 'bout this one?
Midland, Texas (George Bush's home)
Latitude: 315200N
Longitude: 1020300W
Roedy Green
2006-05-01 21:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
How 'bout this one?
Midland, Texas (George Bush's home)
Latitude: 315200N
Longitude: 1020300W
That is an interesting target. The strike would generate a lot of
mixed emotions. The advantage is it would have low co-lateral damage.

Though emotionally satisfying for people whose family's Bush as
tortured and killed by all manner of hideous Shock & Awe, the torch
would pass to Cheney would be able to rule with an iron first under
martial law. The world would be worse off for everyone.

For that strategy to work, the terrorist would have to wait until the
country's leaders were all assembled, e.g. for the SOTU speech. I
don't think Cheney attends those any more and would logically hide out
in an undisclosed location for the duration. As president he would
have to keep his location secret for the duration of his reign.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
a***@yahoo.com
2006-05-02 02:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Kevin
How 'bout this one?
Midland, Texas (George Bush's home)
Latitude: 315200N
Longitude: 1020300W
That is an interesting target. The strike would generate a lot of
mixed emotions. The advantage is it would have low co-lateral damage.
Though emotionally satisfying for people whose family's Bush as
tortured and killed by all manner of hideous Shock & Awe, the torch
would pass to Cheney would be able to rule with an iron first under
martial law. The world would be worse off for everyone.
For that strategy to work, the terrorist would have to wait until the
country's leaders were all assembled, e.g. for the SOTU speech.
(cut)
One low ranking cabinet official always stays away from the State of
the Union speech just in case of such an emergency. That secretary
would be sworn in as president- A. McIntire
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...