Speculation based on a lack of knowledge. Even a "retrofit" of the towers would not have insulated them enough to sustain the kind of extended duration high temperature fires that brought them down. It would have been expensive, and ultimately worthless. The designers of the towers were well aware of the risks of an extended fire, wjhich is why the towers were designed to pancake like they did.
7gt; Um. Hellloooo? We are talking about shooting down planes, not people.
I was trying to demonstrate that any high caliber weapon is not a toy-something to be relegated to speculation and "impossibilities."
No you weren't. You were attempting to sidetrack the issue with an irrelevancy as a vain and childish attempt to "gain points". Your point was spurious, because you have contributed nothing to this discussion except speculation. And even your specualtions are wrong and easily disproved. Where are your facts? You have none. Everything you have mentioned has been speculation or irrelevant attempts to divert away from your wrong position. You have not once even bothered to disprove a single fact of the matter I have mentioned, because you can't.
>ignorant and petulant
Working on those SAT vocabulary builders huh?
Another pathetic attempt at a sidetrack for "points". Well, to humor you, I sat the SAT decades ago, and, while I don't remember my score, I remember I did extrememyl well on it (only to find out it wasn't needed for the college I eventually went to).
So I have a large vocabulary. I see no reason why I shouldn't use it, even when "debating" (if you can call this mismatched exercise a debate) the ignorant and callow.
> The towers were not designed to withstand intense fire.
They could have been, that's the point. Furthermore, the building could have been retrofitted to better withstand a large fire-they just never thought of it.
Ignorant speculation. And wrong. And people DID think of it. Why do you think they designed the building to "pancake" like they did? You still have not addressed that issue.
The same way people never think about people with large weapons firing at commercial planes at airports.
Again with the ignorant speculation. The same scenario has, in fact, been bouncing around for quite some while. Many people with a lot more knowlede than you have considered the problem and come up with the same conclusion: impossible. I first heard about this supposed "threat" in the early nineties. Since then, I've seen a lot of variations on the same ignorant theme: "the .50 caliber shoot down police helicopters, it can shoot through boats, it can shoot through tanks, it can say bad words around your virgin daughters." Take a look at some old gun grabber propaganda some time. CNN was basically just reheating some already discredited gun grabber lies in the hope of finding a new gullible audience.
Thirdly, what if the terrorists had used the same right-after becoming citizens-to bring even larger weapons on board?
First of all, you are speculating that these "terrorists" would become citizens. Secondly, you wrongly think giving your hypothetical terrorists "even larger weapons" makes them more of a threat. You still do not understand that with firearms bigger is not necessarily better. Terrorists with larger weapons would be seen, and countered by the much greater number of law abiding citizens with concealed, smaller arms that are much easier to wield in the confines of an airplane cabin. Even better, the terrorists would have no idea as to the level of resistance they would get from armed citizens, would have no clue as to their chances of success, and would try a different tactic. Thanks to airline "gun control", the terrorists knew exactly how much resistance they would receive: none.
Some old lady with a pea shooter won't stop 5 well armed terrorists.
More ignorant speculation and hyperbole like this does not benefit your position. For one thing, you have no idea what "well armed" means. I know for a fact that this old lady with her Glock 27 could account for three at least three. The September 11 thugs would have stood no chance.
> And yet, even with six guns blazing, this aircraft often failed to bring down German bombers even after giving them their full load of ammunition.
They were bombers, not commercial aircraft.
They were World War Two bombers. Modern commercial aircraft are much much more robust than any world War Two bomber. I did explain this. Yet you continue to spout the same incorrect, ignorant, and now disproven assumption.
The .50 BMG is a World War Two era munition barely adequate to bring down World War Two era aircraft, even when used in multiple fully automatic machine guns. The same cartridge has no chance against a modern commercial airplane.
"Men will never fly faster than sound," "the atom will never yield useful energy." People used to know a lot of stuff was impossible, humph.
All of which were based on ignorance. A lot of ignorance. People who said "people will never fly faster than the speed of sound" were ignorant of what future planes would be capable of. However, saying "people in the airplanes of 1940 could not fly faster than the speed of sound" is knowledgable and correct. And since we (well, not you apparently) know the capabilities of the .50 BMG and modern commercial aircraft, the statement "shooting down a modern commercial airplane with a .50 BMG rifle is impossible" is also knowledgable and correct.
You seem unable to determine the difference between speculation and knowledge. Which makes a bit of sense, because specualtion is all you have.
What would you know about cowardice or bravery? Probably nothing. Talk is cheap, serve in a war-or some parts of america-if you know so much about it.
A lot more than you, apparently. And I have. You are still making incorrect assumptions and ignorant conjectures.
> Duck hunters use shotguns because the spreading pattern of the shot means they have that much more of a chance that one of the pellets will hit the fast target of the duck flying against the difficult to track background of the sky.
The plane is larger than the duck, therefore easier to hit, nuff said.
Such stalwart ignorance. Larger targets are not always easier to hit. If you had any experience or knowledge of shooting, you'd know that. The speed and distance of the target are more important than its size. There are easily obtained gunnery manuals from the U.S. Navy that explain these concept in small, easy to understand words.
Also, Once again, because you just do not seem to be able to comprehend this very simple fact: the "plane" is not your target. Your actual target is a critical component of the plane which could cause the plane to crash if it is destroyed. So far, you have completely failed to address (and haven't even tried) this very damning disproof of your ignorant speculations.
Suppose you do manage to get off a one in a thousand shot and hit the airplane. Unless your shot has the extreme luck to hit one (and thanks to redundancy probably more than one) of the critical companents, the plane will keep flying. And these components make up only a very small amount of the total area of the plane, and are scattered within it. You'd have to fire a a whole lot of rounds to have a chance that one will be lucky enough to hit enough critical systems, which is why all anti aircraft systems using the .50 BMG cartridge used multiple fully automatic machine guns. Intentionally hitting any of these systems, which are small, travelling very fast, and hidden from your view behind the aircraft skin, is impossible. Hitting enough of them to bring down the airplane is even more impossible.
> I know the size of the target. I know the speed of the target. I know the approach angle of the target. I know the history of the weapon and it use against similar slower and weaker targets.
Your name isn't Muhammad, is it?
Again, your lack of any knowledge or rational arguments to support your incorrect and ignorant position has led you to resort to irrelevant cheap shots. And it is not helping your case.
> And as to the "one or more shots", you really don't know what you are talking about.
One or more shots, means one or more people-think.
I already considered this, but I though it was too stupid an arguement for even you to make.
Every shooter means a larger conspiracy, thus increasing the chance of detection before the attempt. Every shooter also doubles likelihood of detection during the attempt. These rifles are physically large and heavy. It is barely conceivable that a single shooter could remain concealed, but two, or three or more? They won't be able to cluster together, but they's still need to coordinate their attack on a single plane, also increasing the odds of detection. These heavy rifles will need some form of large support just to keep them aimed upwards and steady while firing into the air, thereby decreasing their already pathetic "concealability". More shooters means more expensive rifles; two Barret 82A1's cost much more than a single RPG. And you would need hundreds (if not thousands) of shooters for one of them to be even a close approximation of the firepower of even a single M2, and for enough of them to be lucky enough to somehow hit enough critical components on the airplane. The simple logistics of the exercise make it impossible, even before anyone pulls a trigger.
Try again.
Look son, I really don't think you know the definition of cowardly-you spineless litte turd.
Again with the "son". Do you even bother to read my posts before spewing out the same ignorant speculations? And such a vile personal attack still doesn't help your arguement. Also, you keep repeating the same incorrect speculations about the "power" of the .50 caliber and the "fragility" of commercial airplanes, without any actualy knowledge. If you can come up for another reason for what I'll sympathetically call your irrational and baseless "concern" about the situation besided simple fear, I'd sure like to hear it.
> Also, I'm older than you. Guaranteed.
You should put that guarantee of yours on a box. It's sooooo believable that I'm sure it will sell well.
The let me put it this way. Even if you do somehow have my decades, you sure haven't demonstrated the knowledge or maturity (not to mention the debating skills) that generally comes with it. So far, I've taken your lack of a rational arguement to be a sign of youth and inexperience. It would be very pathetic for an adult to have posted what you have.
7gt; Once again, the airplane is NOT the target.
Okay your majesty-whatever you say.
You're only digging your hole deeper. You need to target small components of the plane to hit it critically and bring it down. Are you even going to try to counter this fact? You have missed many opportunities so far, so I can only assume you cannot (actually I know you cannot, because it can't be done).
>Who said anything about "mach speed"?
Usually when people say things like that, they are trying to make a point. "It's raining cats and dogs" means that it is raining hard, etc.
Well, what you were doing was trying to extend your arguement with hyperbole instead of facts. And it didn't work. As I already explained, even the 155 mph takeoff speed of the 747 (well below the speed of sound) is more than fast enough to make the shot impossible. I note you have ignored those facts completely, but instead try to weasel out of your previous sad little arguement.
You're one of those militia guys/gals right? Mirror glasses, dark shirt, cameo pants and cap, A.K. 47. Nice to meet a non-cowardly person like yourself.
How cute: a speculative straw man arguement. And, even better, one that completely misses the mark. Now your collection of incompetent debating techniques is complete. I guess that without any facts to back up your claims, the only thing you can do is resort to fabrications in a sad attempt at character assasination. How very Clinton of you.
Besides just shooting down a plane, part of a terrorist's job is to "terrorize." Shooting at a plane with a powerful weapon would accomplish that(that's part of what CNN was saying)- and don't say they would be caught.
Somehow, I fail to see the terror of a plain not crashing. CNN and big media tried to push the "laser" scare a few weeks back, and yet it also was not sufficient to bring down a plane. That didn't scare me, and neither does the .50 caliber "threat".
And they would be caught. The guy with the laser was, in fact, caught, wasn't he? The laser was much smaller and less easy to track than a large rifle. Think about it.
Have they arrested the anthrax mailer yet?
Another irrelevant side track. Posting a letter is a lot more circumspect than hanging around and airport with a very large rifle. A better analogy would have been the D.C. snipers, except, oops, they were caught.
Alright then, if it will make you happy, I will totally do that.
It won't make me happy or unhappy. I don't really have the same emotional investment in this that you have. Be sure to tell us here at FR who you talk to and what you learned. You might some day also be able to help someone out of their CNN generated ignorance on the .50 caliber.
And if it will make you even more happy, I will completely agree with you that shooting down a plane with a .50 BMG is tremendously difficult.
But do you actually know it? More to the point, it's so tremendously difficult that it's simply not a threat. We have better things to do to stop terrorists than push for more "gun control". The border is a much bigger (and real world) threat, and not just because it porosity makes it possible for terrorists to smuggle in arms like RPG's (which do have a credible chance of bringing down a commercial airplane). Why hasn't CNN covered that risk?
Another point to the story is that it could be used in an attempted assassination of the president-or other people.
Which, again, can be more easily accomplished with other weapons. CNN also completely failed to mention any of the real world problems with such an attack, but sure tried to play up the "threat". They specifically mentioned the .50 caliber can punch through the armor of the presidential vehicles, but they utterly failed to mention any of the other relevant factors that make such an attack impossible. They didn't even try.
Does CNN seriously think the Secret Service hasn't accounted for the .50 caliber rifles in their protection schemes? They sure want their audience to think so. Have you ever seen an armored presidential motorcade? I have (Bill Clinton had a talent for stopping the freeways at the most inconvenient times). They are comprised of several armored vehicles, all with glass you can't see through. Sure, a .50 BMG could penetrate the vehicles' armor, but which vehicle? And which seat is the president sitting in? If you don't know where your target is, and you can't see it, what chance do you have of hitting it? You are also exposed to all the associated surveillance from some very sophisticated equipment in two of the vehicles and also a couple of overhead helicopters. Somehow, considering all the facts of the matter (that CNN neglected to mention), I'm not afraid for the president where the .50 caliber is concerned. The roadside bomb tactics that terrorists actually use have a much greater chance of success (which is why they use them).
You're getting caught up in one aspect of the story. I don't see how reporting on the dangers of that is anti-gun.
Actually, I had problems with all aspects of the story. Especially the parts that weren't in it. And it was these very omissions that made the report anti-gun, because anti-gun arguements simply do not hold water when confronted with the real world facts about firearms. If CNN had wanted to produce an unbiased (or, wonder of wonders, a pro-gun) report, why did they not mention the extreme difficulty of actually bringing down an airplane with a .50 BMG? Why didn't they mention the difficulty in countering the security measures around the president in their hypothetical assasination attempt? Why didn't they bother to talk to anyone fropm the FCSA, or any other group with direct knowledge about the real world capabilities of the .50 BMG? Why didn't they show a comparison of the "power" of the .50 BMG with any other rifle, or even give any context at all?
Nope, their report was nothing more than an irrelevant demonstration of the "power" of the .50 caliber, a repeat of several anti-gun catch phrases like "anyone off the street" and "unregulated", and a collection of ignorant conjectural (not to mention cockamamie) "threats" involving the .50 BMG. While the report did not call for a ban, that was not it's purpose. CNN leaves it to it's allies in congress (like Fineswine and Schumer) to call for the ban. CNN's intention was to plant a disingenuous seed of ignorant fear among their uneducated viewers so that when the ban called for by their gun grabbing buddies comes up, enough americans will be complacent enough about it to get it passed. I fail to see how, in the light of actual facts about the .50 caliber and firearms in general and the politics thereof, any intelligent viewer could see this as anything but an anti-gun hit piece.
Humph! Let me tell you something you uneducated little nut, you're not half as smart as you think. When It comes to buildings, you don't know a third as much as I do, guaranteed.
It would have been expensive, and ultimately worthless.
Shows how little you know. People like you said the same thing about cockpit door reinforcements, too expensive. But had they been there, 9-11 would never had happened.
Spraying on the insulation was a mistake, period-despite what your incredible highschool level diploma says.
There have been many examples of flaws in New York buildings that were realized and fixed before it was too late. For example, the citigroup building was nearly destroyed by a hurricane in the 90s (luckly the hurricane diverted outward further into the Atlantic ocean) because the building's I beams were bolted together instead of welded. An engineering student accidentally uncovered this and informed the architect. He realized that if a strong wind were to hit the building at one of its corners, the the bolts would fail, sheer, and send the building tumbling down (not cascading downward) onto the streets. They were so panicked that they worked at nights, placing welded plates over the joints, so as not to set off a panic.
Had the citigroup building fell, I'm sure that you would have argued incorrectly that a retro-fit was too expensive.
No you weren't.
Uh, yeah I was.
I stopped reading you attempt at attention at this point. I figure that you're probably some little 14 year old Internet turd who desperately needs somebody to talk to besides mommy. Bye-and try to accept reality sometime in the future, huh.