240 if you answer these series of questions in less than three minutes of

[Cap]

my posting it, I will watch one 9/11 conspiracy video and consider you somewhat knowledgeable on military facts, police, etc.

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!

[240 is Back]

no clue man.

if you're attempting to discredit my 911 thoughts because I don't know machine gun information, um, okay.

[Cap]

no clue man.

if you're attempting to discredit my 911 thoughts because I don't know machine gun information, um, okay.

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.

[240 is Back]

about the pentagon?  it's more about the hole.  i don't see how an airplane could have dug that hole, and no one here seems to be explaining it.

[Hedgehog]

my posting it, I will watch one 9/11 conspiracy video and consider you somewhat knowledgeable on military facts, police, etc.

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.

4. The Delta.

-Hedge

[Cap]

3. Navy SEALS.

4. The Delta.

-Hedge

I would have accepted SF or SEALS for #3.  4 is correct Hedge. 

[G o a t b o y]

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?      

I suspect your average infantryman knows as much about missles as your average 60-year-old grandma.

[Cap]

So everyone who has served in the military is suddenly a missle expert?      

I suspect your average infantryman knows as much about missles as your average 60-year-old grandma.

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.

[240 is Back]

 

I remember when I was 20 and knew everything.

[Cap]

Here we go.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Cap]

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.

[240 is Back]

No, like I said, just your military knowledge.  This is basic stuff.  Bunker busters do much different damage.

Agree or disagree?

The military definitely owns a missile capable of doing the damage we saw at the pentagon.

[240 is Back]

I don't know your answer, i don't want to assume.

[G o a t b o y]

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.

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.

[Cap]

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?

[tu_holmes]

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.

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.

[Cap]

This is true, but once you go through basic... you go do your job.

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. 

[tu_holmes]

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.

Although, it is funny to see a dentist wear a Government issued .45

[Cap]

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.

Although, it is funny to see a dentist wear a Government issued .45

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.

[tu_holmes]

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.

Not really sure, but I know a guy who was a dentist during desert storm and he was firing from behind sand dunes with his red cross band and a 1911... Might have been a Kimber for all I know.

[240 is Back]

cap, come on.  I know a ton about the pentagon attack.  Countless hours of reading, films, and debate.  it's a hobby of mine.  When you read about it on getbig for 30 minutes, then declare you KNOW the US govt doesn't have a missile capable of punching thru the 3 outer layers of the pentagon, I gotta call bullshit. 

(I think that's what you're saying - you said it would break either 2 of the buildings or 4, but not 3.  Very odd there...)

I put out ideas for debate.  If I am wrong about a missile being able to carve that kind of precise damage, tell me, then tell me what a more likely cause is.  Instead, you give no explanation of any alternative theory, and you actually start a thread about army machine guns.

Classic "attack the messenger" tactic.  You still have not answered, so let's make it easy:
In your opinion, what object penetrated the 3 outer walls of the pentagon with such precision then disappeared, and how? Thank you.

[Cap]

You put alot of words in my mouth as I never answered the original question be thought you would read me correctly.  I thought you didn't assume.   

I posted a quick blurb and a site, which as I guessed, was ignored.

I never said that it couldn't or could do anything.  A bunker buster with impact on earth can do 100 ft of damage and 20 ft with reinforced concrete.  My point is what would stop it from going further and creating another hole past where it stopped

I also asked how many feet it was from hole to hole, start to finish and never got an answer.  Can you povide me with it?

I'll get back to this when I can if you answer my questions first.

Never assume...

[240 is Back]

my point is that our military has missiles that can penetrate whatever depth the mission calls for.

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.

[Cap]

my point is that our military has missiles that can penetrate whatever depth the mission calls for.

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.