War and the history of Wars and how they are started

[Citabria]

being a history buff was doing some reading and found an interesting quote..

President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.

Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.

President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.

[storch]

c'mon no sense in beating about the BUSH

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Citabria
being a history buff was doing some reading and found an interesting quote..
------
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.
------

The first attack (on the Maddox) has some credibility:


The second attack (on the Desoto) is the one with an inexperienced sonar mans testimony.

[Citabria]

doh! you got me storch.

I better explain why I was doing such reading...

I just watched this two hour documentary on demolition science and speculation...

its somthing I never thought twice about. I voted for bush twice and consider myself a republican

but now that I have seen more scientific analysis...

this drives me to want to know more.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+Mysteries

[Citabria]

watching this one now. its fascinating too...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change&hl=en

[BlueJ1]

[Citabria]

indeed and what a can.

[Elfie]

In just the first few minutes there are inaccuracies in that first movie.

They talk about how the Towers were designed to withstand hits from a Boeing 707, then say a smaller 767 hit the towers. The dimensions of a 707 are smaller than the 767. They also say max takeoff weight is 334,000 lbs. Boeing lists the max takeoff weight at 395,000 lbs for a difference of 61,000 lbs. A quick trip to Boeing's website showed those inaccuracies.

*edit* Even the max takeoff weight of the 707 is listed at 2000 lbs more than the movie says the 767 is.

[Elfie]

I watched about 20 minutes of that. (Talking about the first one) I just don't have the time to watch all of it. However, my impression is that whoever made it, has an agenda that they are pushing.

Repeatedly they talk about the fire causing the failure of the steel structure. They show multiple skyscrapers burning for hours and hours. They seem to ignore the ramifications of nearly 400,000 lbs slamming into the buildings at 500+ mph (?)

They had a short segment on explosions. Then showed the one of the towers collapsing and said to listen for an explosion just before the collapse started. All I heard was one continuous roar as the building came down and I rewound it twice. /shrug

[Citabria]

yeah a slant on that first one for sure. I think a lot of it has a political conspiracy agenda but I think the more I look at the info and the actual firsthand accounts from that day a case is made for an independant investigation. I have gotten hooked on trying to find more info thats not jaded and this one is pretty good... the nonsensationalist part that I watched a bit of starts halfway through the video with scientists and architechts explaining what they have seen or found.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4488542891415681105&hl=en

what I find interesting is the information given by the MIT guys and architechts in this video. at about halfway through push the bar to about exactly the middle.

[john9001]

the towers were built by a new method of construction, they used lightweight trusses instead of solid beams ( the empire state building has solid beams) ,the truss construction was both faster and cheaper to build, and the fire proofing was not applied correctly.
The heat caused the trusses to fail, building then fell down.

[mipoikel]

Winter war 1939

The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union's Red Army initiated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila while pretending that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda bonus that launched the Winter War four days later.

According to the archives of Soviet party leader Andrei Zhdanov, the entire incident was orchestrated in order to paint Finland as an aggressor and launch an offensive. The Finnish side disclaimed responsibility for the attacks and identified Soviet artillery as their source — indeed, the war diaries of the nearby Finnish artillery batteries show that Mainila was out of range of all of them, as they had been withdrawn previously to prevent such incidents.

However, in the days following the Shelling of Mainila, the Soviet propaganda machine generated publicity about other fictitious Finnish aggressions, renounced the non-aggression treaty with Finland, and on November 30, 1939 launched the first offensives of the Winter War.

[lasersailor184]

Oh like Architects have ANY IDEA as to how buildings stand up, much less fall down.  Have you actually ever talked to an architect?  Very few of them can tell their bellybutton from a hole in the ground.  There are a couple that are very good, but it's difficult to find them.



Anyway, I'm studying architectural engineering.  I'm focusing on Construction Management, but have extensively studied Structural Engineering, architectural design, fire dynamics and fire protection.

Given what happened from the jet's collision blowing off all Fire Proofing, the buildings fell exactly as they should have.


Oh, and John, the Fireproofing WAS applied correctly.  It's just that they never considered that a massive explosion could blow it off the structure.  The fire proofing is no more then flaky foam.  It's purpose is to DELAY the heat transfer from the fire to the metal.  Once the metal gets to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, you are in DEEP ****.  At 600 degrees it has lost 50% of it's structural capacity, taking the load it can hold below the load it was designed for INCLUDING safety factors.

[Engine]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oh like Architects have ANY IDEA as to how buildings stand up, much less fall down.  Have you actually ever talked to an architect?  Very few of them can tell their bellybutton from a hole in the ground.  There are a couple that are very good, but it's difficult to find them.

Summary: Architects are idiots, don't listen to them.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Anyway, I'm studying architectural engineering.  I'm focusing on Construction Management, but have extensively studied Structural Engineering, architectural design, fire dynamics and fire protection.

Given what happened from the jet's collision blowing off all Fire Proofing, the buildings fell exactly as they should have.

Summary: I'm studying Architecture, listen to me!

Huh?

[storch]

Originally posted by Engine
Summary: Architects are idiots, don't listen to them.


Summary: I'm studying Architecture, listen to me!

Huh?

I was just about to point this out but you did it much much better.