no clue man.No, just your military posts. Your missile post was out of line (for lack of a better phrase) and I think you should stick to other topics that you seemed to have researched more.
if you're attempting to discredit my 911 thoughts because I don't know machine gun information, um, okay.
my posting it, I will watch one 9/11 conspiracy video and consider you somewhat knowledgeable on military facts, police, etc.3. Navy SEALS.
1.) What service weapon is generally used to replace the M-60?
2.) What's the longest range of a Barrett 50 cal (approximate)?
3.) Who is our best Spec Ops unit for terror hunting?
4.) What miltary unit modeled everything and improved off of British SAS?
5.) What unit launched a faint manuever in Desert Storm to throw off the Iraqis?
It should be enough time for you
GO!
3. Navy SEALS.I would have accepted SF or SEALS for #3. 4 is correct Hedge. ;D
4. The Delta.
-Hedge
No, just your military posts. Your missile post was out of line (for lack of a better phrase) and I think you should stick to other topics that you seemed to have researched more.
So everyone who has served in the military is suddenly a missle expert? ::)Well, he never served and many see the explosions and would know general things. You give too much credence to 240 and too little to grunts.
I suspect your average infantryman knows as much about missles as your average 60-year-old grandma.
well, it's just that I've spent the last year learning a lot about 9/11. I could rant for days (like i did today lol) about the probs with the pentagon story. you discount it all because I haven't served. Sounds like you're attacking the messenger and not the message.No, like I said, just your military knowledge. This is basic stuff. Bunker busters do much different damage.
No, like I said, just your military knowledge. This is basic stuff. Bunker busters do much different damage.
Well, he never served and many see the explosions and would know general things. You give too much credence to 240 and too little to grunts.
Think of it this way. Say we have a sailor here who never saw combat but worked on fighter jets, munitions, etc. He/she would know something more having gone through basic. A grunt Marine or Army soldier would know about bunker busters. I'm not saying he is dumb but was out of his element on that post. Video, pictures, maybe (I don't know him well enough) but IMO not in military. Anybody know the rest?
Oh, I'm not saying 240 knows what he's talking about either, but to suggest being a soldier means you know something about missles or not being one means you don't is way off base.
Think of it this way. Say we have a sailor here who never saw combat but worked on fighter jets, munitions, etc. He/she would know something more having gone through basic. A grunt Marine or Army soldier would know about bunker busters. I'm not saying he is dumb but was out of his element on that post. Video, pictures, maybe (I don't know him well enough) but IMO not in military. Anybody know the rest?
This is true, but once you go through basic... you go do your job.True to a point. Making a bold statement that "in my opinion...." indicates a level of credibility that the author of those comments has not yet established.
Period... If you're infinintry, you know about hand weapons and hand to hand combat.
Military air traffic controllers know about controlling air space...
Cooks know about cooking and so on...
Everyone in the Military has a job, and that's the job they do... an IT guy in the Army does not know any more about missile guidance systems than you or me... hell, I may actually know more simply because of some of the system controls I've had to work with in my career...
I think the point is just that just because you're in the military, does not mean you know more about a specific specialty than your average citizen... It just means that you went through basic training and now do a specific job.
True to a point. Making a bold statement that "in my opinion...." indicates a level of credibility that the author of those comments has not yet established.
I see... well, I won't get into the ethereal point about whether someone has or does not have experience in a given subject matter... I was just pointing out how the military works.I know how the military works. To be credible on the topic one must either have established knowledge and/or experience on a topic. He did neither. There in lies the fault of that argument.
Although, it is funny to see a dentist wear a Government issued .45
:D
I know how the military works. To be credible on the topic one must either have established knowledge and/or experience on a topic. He did neither. There in lies the fault of that argument.
I wonder if the dentist were operational at one time, most likely as a conventional officer he would have carried a Beretta but if he were Spec Ops there would be a little leeway in choosing. Nothing beats a Glock IMO. 1911 is a great weapon but shooting a Glock is a thing of beauty.
my point is that our military has missiles that can penetrate whatever depth the mission calls for.So you are making your theory/assumptions based on "maybes", "might", and "I don't know but..". I think we are capable of making a variety of weapons but that does not mean they exist. Missiles don't keep going through targets. They explode and destroy everything.
what stops it is resistance from the reinforced building it's hitting coupled with rocket cutoff and/or detonation if applicable.
what controls penetrating distance is speed and weight, and thrust, plus surface resistance.
I do not know precise distance (you can find it online or look at the pics for scale on the building side.) However we both know it's impossible to measure the penetrable depth because 1) missile can be calibrated 2) we don't know what bbuster they used, and 3) we don't know resistance the reinforced building put up and 4) we don't know the speed.
And this "never assume...", come on dude. You're dodging simple questions after rebuking me for not being able to answer them. Lame.
So you are making your theory/assumptions based on "maybes", "might", and "I don't know but..". I think we are capable of making a variety of weapons but that does not mean they exist. Missiles don't keep going through targets. They explode and destroy everything.
So you are making your theory/assumptions based on "maybes", "might", and "I don't know but..". I think we are capable of making a variety of weapons but that does not mean they exist. Missiles don't keep going through targets. They explode and destroy everything.
Lol,
I would like to let our military folks here address this point.
Does the US military have a weapon which could punch a hole thru three buildings then come to rest?
Some missiles are not designed to explode. Some missiles are designed to penetrate and just use their concrete head to pulverize the targeted area without an explosion. We used them to take out homes or particular offices during shock and awe and during the saddam hunt. hell, google tha tpic of milosevic's office when we struck that. Looks a lot like that pentagon entry hole.Another bunker buster video
so yes - some missiles are designed not to cause a massive explosion, cap.
no fuze is not my gimmick. you lose cred when you make such accusations. are you as sure he is my gimmick as you are of your missile analysis?Lol, again with assumptions. God you look like an ass. You do have gimmicks and I know one for sure. Your missile analysis dude. You can't explain anything and have yet to rebut anything I have said except with "but they may have...". Never practice law, don't instruct your kid on debating skills and seriously, admit defeat or truce until you have concrete evidence and solid statements to make.
ok, i guess our debate ends here. I presented pics which don't match a plane, and instead of presenting a more valid theory, you just insult me and make it about debating skills.No you said you had studied for a year and are presenting what happened. You present nothing, you choose to learn nothing. I showed you a page on the size of the plane, how it could fit, hwo it did, how the object was too big to be a missile, how a bunker buster works, what the explosion looks like, etc. You do lose.
i'm not here to win an 8th grade debate. i'm here to learn more about what the hell really happened on 9/11.
have a nice day.
Hmm....what would you call an object (plane) converted into a destructive ear head? Every heard of analogies?? If you can't see what a bunker buster does then you're a moron. Simple as that. You present nothing. Too big of a hole and too little destruction to be a missile.
I wish I had a time machine so I could spank you with a history book.
I wish I had a time machine so I could spank you with a history book.