Log in

View Full Version : Twin Towers Disaster


winwun
March 15th, 2009, 11:58 AM
Does anyone have any ideas about whether different construction methods or materials would have minimized or mitigated the damage suffered to the WTC on 9-11 ?

I am not suggesting at all that the perpetrators should be absolved in any manner for what they did -- hanging by the cojones and kept alive long enough for rats to chew on them would be too little punishment.

In perusing the pictures of the catastrophe, I didn't see any of the old "sky-scraper" construction materials, such as large I-beams or H-beams like was used in the Empire State Building, or other similar buildings.

It seems that "box girders" were used throughout the WTC towers, and and as their integrity failed, the whole thing came down.

Apparently the "box-girder" system is strong enough to support the weight but has little or no residual strength, such as I-beams or H-beams.

I remember a plane crash into the Empire State building back in 46 or 47, and while it wasn't as large a plane as the jet airliners that hit the WTC, it was an old WW-II bomber, and I think it scratched some concrete and broke out a window.

sudikics
March 15th, 2009, 02:28 PM
I doubt that materials really played a role. Whether they used box girders, I-beams, H-beams, anything, it still would have come down. The reason is fuel. A WWII bomber does not hold nearly as much fuel as a passenger jet. Plus, the WTC planes were practically topped off with fuel. Also, the World Trade Centers were filled with countless tonnes of chairs, desks, papers -- all flammable. Their combined impact was enough to raise the temperature into the thousands of degrees, where it was hot enough to literally melt the infastructure. With the destroyed floors wobbling, the higher floors felt even more wobble. They were the first to go, and the whole thing came down, implosion-style.

I suppose that had the planes hit lower down in just the right way, the WTC could have fallen over instead of down, destroying large swaths of the Financial District.

rmw
March 15th, 2009, 02:40 PM
It was my understanding that the Towers collapsed from the heat of the fires, and not because of questionable structural integrity.

winwun
March 16th, 2009, 01:58 AM
In the passion of the moment, and the total hate and anger at anyone who would perpetrate such an action against us, it was likely unthinkable to determine if any factors relevant to the infrastructure played any part in the huge loss of life.

I am convinced that had better construction methods been utilized, the loss of life would have been less.

I reiterate, in the strongest possible terms, this belief in no way gives ANY relief at all to the responsibility of those who committed the horrendous act.

Loki
March 16th, 2009, 02:06 AM
Can folks not understand this simple fact - they were designed to fall in a way that would cause minimum damage to the surrounding area!

All high-rise buildings are! (or should be)


It wasn't a conspiracy! The US Government didn't put shape charges in the building.
It was a sad day for all of us - it wasn't a conspiracy. It was an act of pure evil perpetrated by idiots and extremists.

I'm one of the most cynical bastards out but the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is anathema to me!

rmw
March 16th, 2009, 02:11 AM
When the WTC was being built, I doubt the idea that some religious fanatics would fly airliners into the buildings even crossed the minds of the structural engineers. At the time, such a notion was beyond comprehension.

Al Farabi
March 16th, 2009, 04:43 AM
But the idea that they might need to come down someday without damaging the surrounding area would be VERY present in the minds of forward-thinking architects of the kind that would work on such a project.

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 10:35 AM
a really good architect
is too much of an egoist
to ever think his 'monument'
is coming down...

djura
March 16th, 2009, 12:00 PM
It was my understanding that the Towers collapsed from the heat of the fires, and not because of questionable structural integrity.

That's absolutely true. Jet fuel consists of several hundred or maybe more hydrocarbons and burns at temperatures higher then steel melting point. Because of construction steel having different chemical compound then one used in aviation industry, it wasn't wary long before beams flailed. Note that these didn't have to melt entirely, but rater to be heated to a certain point, where steel becomes weaker (or rather less brittle)

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 12:50 PM
jet fuel,
JP4 is basically kerosene
burns hotter than crap
sticks to anything
and continues
to burn
the O2
catalyst is what defines the burn

djura
March 16th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Catalyst could be anything that ties down O2 - iron oxide is nice and there is plenty of it around. And the shit is oily, lighter than water and sticky. Take a few tens of tons of it...

winwun
March 16th, 2009, 01:27 PM
In no way did I suggest a conspiracy -- let me put it simple -- I am suggesting that the "safety factor", in the interest of economy, was far LOWER in the Towers than in, say, the Empire State Building.

I am suggesting that the buildings were strong enough to hold themselves up, subject to no loss of integrity, but in the face of such a loss in even a small area, the design and materials were insufficient for the task thrust upon them.

Had there been a sufficiently strong exo-skeleton, the tremendous damage from the (admittedly) intense heat of the burning kerosene (JP-4) would have been localized, and once spent, the fire would have been out.

Where were the fire codes on internal construction and furnishings ? ?

A swimming pool without a fence is known as an "attractive nuisance", and the owners thereof are liable for damages resulting from their short-sightedness in providing no protection.

I suggest that it would take something less than a drooling idiot to recognize that the Towers comprised an "attractive target", and responisble persons should be held to SOME level of accountability for their lack of recognizing that the conspicuity of the structures would entice naughty boys to do vile and unspeakable things . . .

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 01:29 PM
well said
excellent
clarification

sudikics
March 16th, 2009, 05:30 PM
I'm going to crunch some numbers.

Flight 11 was carrying approximately 38000 L of jet fuel when it hit the North Tower. Commercial jet fuel has a density of 0.8075 kg / L, and a specific energy of 43150000 J / kg. Therefore, Flight 11 was carrying about 30685 kg of jet fuel at time of impact, and therefore the jet fuel had a specific energy of about 1324057750000 J, or 1.324 * 10^12 J. That's about 316 tons of TNT.

However, we haven't taken into account the fact that the plane was moving at about 750 km / hr, or 208 m/s. Flight 11 (which hit the North Tower) was a Boeing 767-223ER. Boeing 767s have a maximum carrying capacity of 211000 kg, so let's assume that it was carrying 200000 kg. Therefore, the plane's kinetic energy upon impact was 1/2 mv^2, or

1/2 (200000 kg)(208 m/s)^2 = (100000 kg) (43264 m^2/s^2) = 4326400000 J = 4.326 * 10^9 J ~= 1 ton of TNT.

This may seem relatively paltry next to the energy released by the jet fuel, but there is a difference: the kinetic energy was transferred mostly into breaking into the building. The jet fuel only reached auto ignition temperature after impact.

The body of the airplane is 9.3 meters in diameter, and is roughly cylindrical, making the area of a horizontal cross-section 67.93 m^2. Therefore, the airplanes exerts upon impact up to 63683203 J / m^2. 64 million J of TNT looks roughly like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnKDVDycHjs

Even without the calculations, we know for a fact that the plane went through the side of the building. Plus, at some point the fuel would ignite, which would be the equivalent of setting off 4 tonnes of TNT for every square meter of concrete and steel, or an explosion FOUR TIMES the size of this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-vN8--FiQE

EVERY SQUARE METER.

In short, the total energy of the plane is something like 3 times this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgLzgdbfeJE

In other words, infrastructure did not play a pivotal role.

sudikics
March 19th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Er, any response?

Loki
March 19th, 2009, 03:41 AM
Any response to what?

Your egotistical little mind-wank?

sudikics
March 19th, 2009, 04:02 AM
My, my -- aren't we snappy today. :D

Winwun stopped responding. I'm inquiring about his whereabouts.

rzm61
March 19th, 2009, 04:48 AM
He's just snappy cause he's horny. Sciky, don't let him get near your legs.

djura
March 19th, 2009, 10:37 AM
I'm going to crunch some numbers.

Flight 11 was carrying approximately 38000 L of jet fuel when it hit the North Tower. Commercial jet fuel has a density of 0.8075 kg / L, and a specific energy of 43150000 J / kg. Therefore, Flight 11 was carrying about 30685 kg of jet fuel at time of impact, and therefore the jet fuel had a specific energy of about 1324057750000 J, or 1.324 * 10^12 J. That's about 316 tons of TNT.


As far as I know, though I'm not a chemist...
TNT packs its own O2, which makes is detonate even under water with no external catalysts to further lower the activation energy and speed up the chemical reaction.
Jet fuel, on the other hand, uses O2 from the air. So on impact, provided there war enough heat present to set the fuel on fire instantly, initial explosion would be only as powerful as amount of O2 present in the air of confined space it took place in. Further more the initial blast would create a volume on low atmospheric pressure within the blast radius that would slow the reaction even further. In other words, after initial explosion that took place eminently after impact, or short time after, the reaction slowed down significantly (this is why we see an exploding cloud decreasing in velocity).
In short, 300 tons of tnt would definitely make the building crash the vary second it detonated (after all they tare buildings down with much less), and would certainly cause for some horizontal movement of remaining structure, given the fact the plane crashed to a side of the building.
Again, I'm not a chemist or a physicist, but this is how it looks to me.

winwun
March 19th, 2009, 10:59 AM
Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure . . . .

If you can't dazzle them with facts, baffle them with BS . . .

You must have been taking an Energizer laxative -- you just keep going.....................and going......................and going................

Listen, the potential of the total energy of the plane's impact, kinetic plus chemical, was expended within three to five minutes after impact . . .

People stood and watched a miniscule portion of the towers suffer destruction and the rest of the structure stood tall and sound, UNTILL the (relatively) small damage inflicted by the plane and fuel caused the inadequte integrity of the structure to collapse, like a house of cards when one is removed.

All your razzle-dazzle BS notwithstanding, millions witnessed the horrible fact of the building being so weak it could not withstand a relatively minor bit of damage in a small portion of its entirety . . .

If you want to discuss theory and hypotheticals, consider that if every round fired in the southeast asia debacle had been properly applied, they were sufficient to have killed every man, woman, and child on earth, the White House crowd, first, hopefully . . .

djura
March 19th, 2009, 11:05 AM
I'm not sure I understood your last post...

winwun
March 19th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Just a simple explanation of theory vs reality, with a hypothetical illustration . . .

sudikics
March 19th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Djura: Ah, yes, I didn't take the surrounding oxygen into account. Still, I've shown that the force would have been enough to take down pretty much any infrastructure.

Winwun: Please, let's not start arguing over whether theory backs up fact. It does. Two planes hit. Two towers fell.

winwun
March 19th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Sure, two towers fell -- my point, EXACTLY, and what has NOT been disproven is that had better construction methods/materials and better fire codes been extant, two towers would STILL be STANDING ! ! !

Loki
March 19th, 2009, 07:40 PM
winwun - I get your point mate but what about so-called "fail to safety"?

Every building will, given the right conditions, fail. Maybe an earthquake does it or maybe a jet liner piloted by nutters - whatever.

What would have been the death toll if the Towers had toppled forwards instead of falling in a reasonably controlled way?

Catastrophic failure is considered when designing a high-rise building and, as our knowledge of materials and failure modes increase, we implement those design changes.
Sure, the twin towers were old(ish) and were designed before the current available knowledge - but it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

Just my opinion by the way - I've not seen the design specs of the WTC so I'm probably talking out of my arse :D

Daruko
March 19th, 2009, 10:35 PM
Sure, two towers fell -- my point, EXACTLY, and what has NOT been disproven is that had better construction methods/materials and better fire codes been extant, two towers would STILL be STANDING ! ! !
OMGZ! STFU Homophobe.

djura
March 20th, 2009, 10:49 AM
Towers ware built back in the day when such possibility sounded so remote noone payed any attention to it. The main goal of any tall building, like Taipei 101 for instance is no to create more office space (after all if all people on earth would to come to Texas, each one would have >48 sq meters of individual space, and my flat is 55), but rather to show off, a look-what-we-can-do kinda thing.
Record braking structures aren't being built with everything in mind, simply because human imagination if far more productive with destruction in mind.
There is no building in the world that can't be demolished, and no matter what you do, what materials you use, and how many brilliant scientists you put to work, it is eventually going to be demolished...

sudikics
March 20th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Towers ware built back in the day when such possibility sounded so remote noone payed any attention to it. The main goal of any tall building, like Taipei 101 for instance is no to create more office space (after all if all people on earth would to come to Texas, each one would have >48 sq meters of individual space, and my flat is 55), but rather to show off, a look-what-we-can-do kinda thing.
Record braking structures aren't being built with everything in mind, simply because human imagination if far more productive with destruction in mind.
There is no building in the world that can't be demolished, and no matter what you do, what materials you use, and how many brilliant scientists you put to work, it is eventually going to be demolished...
1. The WTC were most certainly designed to withstand an impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Aircraft_impact
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

2. The WTC were designed to hold more office space. Yes, they wanted to build the tallest building possible, but the architect developed a new layout of elevator shafts to maximize office space. You make it out to seem as if the WTC were built recklessly.

3. See http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 again. The architect himself states that the building could be brought down in a controlled demolition.

4. I've already shown that it would be nearly impossible to build a tower which would have survived the impact of a full Boeing 767. (Even the architect's calculations used a Boieing 707.) The amount of energy released on each square meter of infrastructure wudl have been enough to pulverize it, and the materials required to withstand the impact would have been too heavy for the building to support itself.

winwun
March 20th, 2009, 02:17 PM
To those who have eyes and will not see . . .

Can you not see and comprehend what is painfully obvious, that the impact/fire did NOT bring down the towers, but was instead the causative factor in a chain of events that, had proper construction methods/materials as well as proper fire codes been utilized/in place, the damage would have been localized, and relative to the total structure, of a very minimal amount ? ? ?

Ten floors and beyond, both above and below the impact was NOT disturbed AT ALL by the impact and resultant fire, and suffered ONLY because factors that would have limited the fire damage were shamefully, and I suggest, criminally, absent.

Visualize a system that would, after sensing a temperature rise of 5 degrees within a 3 minute period, would flood the area with fire-supressing foam -- does any more than this need saying ? ? ?

Of course, such a system would have been expensive to install, but how expensive was it to NOT have the system in place ? ? ?

How can you PERSIST in arguing against the obvious ? ?

Say what you will, likely in the obvious femminine vein of "getting in the last word", but if the last word is meaningless, then it is of little value.

Have a good day -- I am SO OVER IT . . .

Yiuel
March 20th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Someone cannot live without being absolutely certain he'll be in security in his little house and workplace? And that everything should be able to prevent anything? Such people should be thrown out : living is taking risks.

Now, we know that crazy people can and will take planes and crash them into buildings where there are only civilians. When the TT were built, it was not the case : the Japanese army, the only one who came close to that, restricted itself to military targets AFAIK. They were, somewhat, saner (not that waging war is anywhere close to being a sane thing...).

Don't like the idea that you cannot prevent evreything? Kill yourself : you'll never be able to prevent everything. You cannot know all the possibilities life can bring to you without actually meeting them, sometimes in a very hard way. Whether you like it or not, your doomed to live uncertainty.

I am sorry for the people who have died then. Noone deserved death in those towers that way. They were victims to madness of fucking idiots.

But it is not the architect's fault. He did a fine job, really. It is the fault of stupid idiots waging war on each other and willing to kill anyone just to give people traumas so they will fear you. They are the fucking idiots, the most stupid idiots, those who should be blamed.

Wanna blame the architect over the stupid faggots? Be my guest, but I certainly won't support you in your misguided quest : you'll just be wasting your own time into destroying the life of someone who did his job very well. Get a life and solve the real problem here : people willing to kill people just to cause deep phobia and wrecking the very foundation of society, faith in each other. Cālisse de tabarnack.

I feel better now, thanks.

sudikics
March 20th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Calm down winwun....
To those who have eyes and will not see . . .
Ad hominem is fallacious.
Can you not see and comprehend what is painfully obvious,
Argument from assertion is falacious.
that the impact/fire did NOT bring down the towers, but was instead the causative factor in a chain of events
Of course the fire didn't directly bring down the WTC. The fire simply weakened the infrastructure, which buckled under the immense weight of the floors above.
that, had proper construction methods/materials as well as proper fire codes been utilized/in place, the damage would have been localized, and relative to the total structure, of a very minimal amount ? ? ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Fire_protection

The Fire Departments were actually upgrading the fire system during 9/11.
Ten floors and beyond, both above and below the impact was NOT disturbed AT ALL by the impact and resultant fire, and suffered ONLY because factors that would have limited the fire damage were shamefully, and I suggest, criminally, absent.
Let's look at a Jenga tower for a moment. If I violently knock out a few bricks from the middle, just a few levels above and below the tower will remain unchanged. Will it still fall over? Certainly. You don't need to destroy the entire tower to get it to collapse.
Visualize a system that would, after sensing a temperature rise of 5 degrees within a 3 minute period, would flood the area with fire-supressing foam -- does any more than this need saying ? ? ?
Rapid pressure fronts, sunrise, failed AC on a hot day can cause that kind of rise.

And again, the NYFD was installing fire retardants up to and during 9/11.
Of course, such a system would have been expensive to install, but how expensive was it to NOT have the system in place ? ? ?

Sprayed-fire resistant materials (SFRMs) were used to protect some structural steel elements in the towers, including all floor trusses and beams. Gypsum wallboard in combination with SFRMs, or in some cases gypsum wallboard alone, was used to protect core columns. Vermiculite plaster was used on the interior-side and SFRMs on the other three sides of the perimeter columns for fire protection. The 1968 New York City building codes were more lenient in some aspects of fire protection, such as allowing three exit stairwells in the World Trade Center towers, instead of six as required under older building codes.
More fireproofing was added after a fire in February 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished. After the 1993 bombing, inspections found fireproofing to be deficient. The Port Authority was in the process of replacing it, but replacement had been completed on only 18 floors in WTC 1, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires on 9/11, and on 13 floors in WTC 2, although only three of these floors were directly affected by the aircraft impact.
The 1968 New York City building codes did not require sprinklers for high-rise buildings, except for underground spaces. In accordance with building codes, sprinklers were originally installed only in the underground parking structures of the World Trade Center. Following a major fire in February 1975, the Port Authority decided to start installing sprinklers throughout the buildings. By 1993, nearly all of Tower 2 [South Tower] and 85 percent of Tower 1 had sprinklers installed, and the entire complex was retrofitted by 2001.
How can you PERSIST in arguing against the obvious ? ?
Argument from assertion is fallacious.
Say what you will, likely in the obvious femminine vein of "getting in the last word", but if the last word is meaningless, then it is of little value.
Ad nominem and argument from assertion are fallacious.

Will.
March 20th, 2009, 03:38 PM
Meh, the laws of physics are questionable for they are unique creation of man and his encounters, now how would one know exactly how a big building like that would react with the introduction of an airplane? Has it happened before? I think not. So it is safe to say that the physics behind the crash are questionable at most. - Will.

sudikics
March 20th, 2009, 05:28 PM
Meh, the laws of physics are questionable for they are unique creation of man and his encounters, now how would one know exactly how a big building like that would react with the introduction of an airplane? Has it happened before? I think not. So it is safe to say that the physics behind the crash are questionable at most. - Will.
Actually, I'd say that collision mechanics have been well-understood since the 1700s.

Sister Faith
March 20th, 2009, 11:36 PM
Ad nominem and argument from assertion are fallacious.

What's an ad nominem? :icon_lol:

Loki
March 20th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Buggered if I know Sis :D

PS - I love it how folks ignore my posts on a subject I actually know something about :D Story of my bloody life LOL

Paris Hilton
March 20th, 2009, 11:49 PM
As far as the relevance of technology bit...
I'm still fighting with the facts that surround the Great fire of Chicago.

tagnostic
March 20th, 2009, 11:52 PM
Buggered if I know Sis :D

PS - I love it how folks ignore my posts on a subject I actually know something about :D Story of my bloody life LOL

we keep forgetting that you know something about another thing

that we dont know anything about, and while your up to something

your not online and the thing is we tend to forget things

Loki
March 21st, 2009, 12:01 AM
Yeah - I realise it's a bit tricky relating my on-line persona to my IRL one - that's why I joined the Samaritans - make 'em mad then talk them out of it...it's a win win situation - again :D

djura
March 21st, 2009, 11:35 AM
1. The WTC were most certainly designed to withstand an impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Aircraft_impact
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698


Sure it was, no argument there, and so are pretty much all structures on Earth. How big an impact is a whole different story. My argument is that no matter how hard you try to make something disaster-proof, you can never be fully successive, mostly because idiots will eventually come up a bigger plane to crash.


2. The WTC were designed to hold more office space. Yes, they wanted to build the tallest building possible, but the architect developed a new layout of elevator shafts to maximize office space. You make it out to seem as if the WTC were built recklessly.


No, that was not my point by any mean. WTC was built as safe as possible for time period it was built in. All buildings are built this way, especially the really tall ones.
Office space of the WTC was not fully utilized until mid 80's. My point being that really tall buildings throughout the world are'nt really built out of necessity, as there are many other ways to create office space. Rather, they serve as symbols of techological achivement or monuments to civilisations evergroving economy - these are nice to have, but are not really nessesery.


3. See http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 again. The architect himself states that the building could be brought down in a controlled demolition.

4. I've already shown that it would be nearly impossible to build a tower which would have survived the impact of a full Boeing 767. (Even the architect's calculations used a Boieing 707.) The amount of energy released on each square meter of infrastructure wudl have been enough to pulverize it, and the materials required to withstand the impact would have been too heavy for the building to support itself.


Again, all buildings are built this way - so they could be brought down some day.
Even if you could build a building that could withstand a Boing 767, what about Airbus A380? Or some even bigger plane like Antonov 225?
There will always be a way, and if you wont to be safe, don't do dangerous things.

And btw, Winwun, I know a little bit about fire safety in buildings - All steel / installations / cables are standardly covered in fire retardant foam. Open hatches are sealed with fire retardant materials and foam in order to keep the fire contained to one level. This has been done since 1950's, and even though materials have changed since, wary little improvement has been made. This means that WTC was as fireproof as any other building out there. The problem is you can't mess around with jet fuel without causing serious damage to the structure - can't be done. Monsters behind 9-11 knew that.
One other thing, you can't put jet fuel out with water and even foam does wary little. Only way to do this is to use some inert gas (they do this on submarines in compartments that hold weapons) - that would kill everyone in building in a matter of minutes.

sudikics
March 21st, 2009, 03:02 PM
Sure it was, no argument there, and so are pretty much all structures on Earth. How big an impact is a whole different story. My argument is that no matter how hard you try to make something disaster-proof, you can never be fully successive, mostly because idiots will eventually come up a bigger plane to crash.

No, that was not my point by any mean. WTC was built as safe as possible for time period it was built in. All buildings are built this way, especially the really tall ones.
Office space of the WTC was not fully utilized until mid 80's. My point being that really tall buildings throughout the world are'nt really built out of necessity, as there are many other ways to create office space. Rather, they serve as symbols of techological achivement or monuments to civilisations evergroving economy - these are nice to have, but are not really nessesery.

Again, all buildings are built this way - so they could be brought down some day.
Even if you could build a building that could withstand a Boing 767, what about Airbus A380? Or some even bigger plane like Antonov 225?
There will always be a way, and if you wont to be safe, don't do dangerous things.
OK, then we agree. Good.

Daruko
March 21st, 2009, 05:09 PM
As a PHYSICS STUDENT, I shall NAO point out to YUO the TRUTH! The building was modelled to disappear the INSTANT we stopped LOOKING at it! It's a CONSPIRACY! Why can't yuo SEE that?! Why do yuo all PERSIST in ignoring the OBVIOUS?!

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 03:59 AM
letś condense this
a bunch of assholes that couldnt get laid
crashed a couple of big jets
loaded with jp4 and civilians
hoping to get laid in an afterlife
buildings came down
assholes are dead
along with civilians
and were still putting troops on the ground
in the wrong place
(they were Saudi not Aghani or Iraqi)
when carpet bombing would convince them
not to do it again

rmw
March 22nd, 2009, 04:41 AM
We bombed Afghanistan because there were Al Qaeda training camps located in the country. We bombed Iraq because ? Well, there are a myriad of reasons and theories why we bombed Iraq that I'll not get into here; suffice it to say Saddam Hussein was not connected to 9/11. We didn't bomb Saudi Arabia because of their oil reserves. There are also al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan, but because we're hoping they'll be an ally in this "war against terror," (a misplaced hope, IMO), we didn't bomb them.

Looking at this in a cold and calculated way that ignores the moral issues and costs--both monetary and human--of war, it seems pretty obvious that we declared war on the wrong countries. Looking at the political liabilities of a full-scale war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, would it not be more cost-effective and political palatable to do what we did in the "good old days" of the Cold War, and take out their leaders and install somebody more sympathetic to our cause? I must say I'm surprised we didn't go that route, given the fact that you had the likes of Cheney, Rummy, and Condi in high offices, they would've taken the "Cold War approach." /cynicism

winwun
March 22nd, 2009, 12:36 PM
Reckon maybe we find another Pahlavi, give him another Mustang and put him in Arabia . . .:icon_rolleyes:

I get so fed up with all the p***y-footing around -- does anyone not agree that a continued supply of reasonably priced oil is in the national interest ?

Why put up with the Saudis ? -- go in and TAKE the damned oil, and tell them to deal with it, and any of their rag-head buds who try to step in get nuked or nerve-gassed -- case closed . . .

sudikics
March 22nd, 2009, 02:07 PM
So basically you're saying you want war with Saudi Arabia.

I'm really glad you're not an official in Obama's cabinet.

Daruko
March 22nd, 2009, 05:15 PM
Reckon maybe we find another Pahlavi, give him another Mustang and put him in Arabia . . .:icon_rolleyes:

I get so fed up with all the p***y-footing around -- does anyone not agree that a continued supply of reasonably priced oil is in the national interest ?

Why put up with the Saudis ? -- go in and TAKE the damned oil, and tell them to deal with it, and any of their rag-head buds who try to step in get nuked or nerve-gassed -- case closed . . .
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2013/1196879698148iv1.jpg

Sister Faith
March 22nd, 2009, 06:40 PM
and take out their leaders and install somebody more sympathetic to our cause?

That trick always comes back to bite you in the ass. Wasn't that how Bin Laden came to be?

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 06:53 PM
And besides that what right does america have to just modify another culture to fit their preferance?

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 06:55 PM
every culture
that could
get away
with it
has done so

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 06:59 PM
Every murderer who could get away with it has done so too. Is murder acceptable? Every bank robber who could get away with it has done so too. Is armed robbery a-okay?

rmw
March 22nd, 2009, 07:02 PM
That trick always comes back to bite you in the ass. Wasn't that how Bin Laden came to be?

Yep, and Saddam.

And besides that what right does america have to just modify another culture to fit their preferance?

I'm not saying the US has that right--I'm saying that's how things were done during the Cold War, and I was (cynically) surprised Cheney, et al. didn't pursue this route, and instead went for an all-out ground war.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 07:03 PM
nope,
but why single out
the current country?
people in groups
tend to impose their
world views on everyone else
itś not a recent occurence
and someday it will be another group/culture
itś how it is

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 07:31 PM
You're probably right tag. We might as well just accept racism too, since it's always been around. Sexism too. And murder and theft. I mean we've given stopping them a good crack, right? Time to just accept them.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 09:10 PM
have at,
itś been tried
what is your solution?

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 11:22 PM
That's easy: The solution is education

rmw
March 22nd, 2009, 11:36 PM
Yes, education is the solution, but how would you overcome resistance? I'm not talking about extremist groups--I'm talking about your average person. Take my grandfather: he believes that it should be illegal to be in an inter-racial relationship. How do you overcome the beliefs that a person have become ingrained in a person's mentality?

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 11:36 PM
who is doing the educating?
and what is the curriculum?

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 11:50 PM
who is doing the educating?
and what is the curriculum?

Difficult questions for sure. Does that mean we shouldn't try to work it out?

rmw
March 22nd, 2009, 11:53 PM
Difficult questions for sure. Does that mean we shouldn't try to work it out?

No. It means, that even with education, it will be an uphill battle against racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other -isms. A worthy fight to be sure, but not easily won.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 11:54 PM
hehehe
i didnt say dont try,
i asked what you were teaching
whoś playing solipsist now?:icon_razz:

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:09 AM
even with education, it will be an uphill battle against racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other -isms. A worthy fight to be sure, but not easily won.

agreed.

hehehe
i didnt say dont try,
i asked what you were teaching
whoś playing solipsist now?:icon_razz:

Hey! I'm trying to help my fellow man! I wouldn't do that if I were a solipsist :P

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 12:14 AM
tag,
your it
and your really
bustin my chops
this afternoon, :icon_eek:
big fun