PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: videoholic on May 22, 2002, 07:43:06 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/678788.asp
Why didn\'t they just ask Gary Condit long ago?
-
I\'ve been hearing a lot of talk that Chandra learned of a conspiracy involving Condit to bury evidence of a planned attack on America months before 9-11.
According to police, the area in which her body was found had been thoroughly searched, but I heard one official say it was not the most accessible of areas. "Way out in the back of the woods" were his exact words.
A professional hit designed to look like a run-of-the-mill murder? Who knows? I wouldn\'t put it past the American government. And yes, I DO believe with all my heart that there are government officials who are as much to blame for the murders of thousands of people on September 11, 2001 as the actual murderers themselves.
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
I\'ve been hearing a lot of talk that Chandra learned of a conspiracy involving Condit to bury evidence of a planned attack on America months before 9-11.
She had been missing since 5/1/01.. Most of the talk about legitimate terrorist risks are from August.
I just don\'t get this corelation. You must be listening to Art Bell.
-
So, who is this lady? whats the story? Was she missing or something from 9/11?
-
She had an affair with this politician Gary Condit, and then ended up missing. 9/11 has nothing to do with it.
I think she was pregnant....
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
I\'ve been hearing a lot of talk that Chandra learned of a conspiracy involving Condit to bury evidence of a planned attack on America months before 9-11.
According to police, the area in which her body was found had been thoroughly searched, but I heard one official say it was not the most accessible of areas. "Way out in the back of the woods" were his exact words.
A professional hit designed to look like a run-of-the-mill murder? Who knows? I wouldn\'t put it past the American government. And yes, I DO believe with all my heart that there are government officials who are as much to blame for the murders of thousands of people on September 11, 2001 as the actual murderers themselves.
Your crazy, your conspiracy doesn\'t even add up, as videoholic said, I\'m sure that everything that goes wrong in this country has to be the governments fault, stop your bit*hing and stop blameing the govt. for everything that goes wrong in your life.
-
Plain Ole Adultury.. He was boinking her she got knocked up was gonna tell his wife and he had her offed to protect his Political life..
-
There\'s a growing volume of evdence that the roots of 9-11 began during the Clinton administration, and possibly even the Bush Sr. administration.
If you want proof that the 9-11 attacks aren\'t what they seem, consider the following:
- There was a large contingent of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the area of the World Trace Center at least 14 hours before the attack. Why were they there? FEMA isn\'t called in until after a catastrophe.
- Look at the way the WTC towers fell. They collapsed on themselves, didn\'t they? You would have expected them to more or less fall in the direction the planes were traveling. It\'s simple physics. But, the way they fell was consistent with a controlled demolition in that they imploded rather than exploded. If they had exploded, the damage to the surrounding area would definitely have been far greater. And there were numerous witnesses who reported hearing explosions inside the towers after the planes struck, but before they collapsed. Realize that being so tall, the foundations of the towers had to be built extremely strong to withstand not only the weight of the towers, but the constant shifting and swaying. Tower 7 had an acre of steel in its foundation alone, and a plane, even loaded with fuel would not have done that much damage. CNN interviewed a few witnesses who reported hearing the explosions, but never followed up on those reports. Why?
MJPS, don\'t you think every decent person has a right to complain now?
-
Who actually thinks President Bush fainted after choking on a pretzel?
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
There\'s a growing volume of evdence that the roots of 9-11 began during the Clinton administration, and possibly even the Bush Sr. administration.
If you want proof that the 9-11 attacks aren\'t what they seem, consider the following:
- There was a large contingent of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the area of the World Trace Center at least 14 hours before the attack. Why were they there? FEMA isn\'t called in until after a catastrophe.
- Look at the way the WTC towers fell. They collapsed on themselves, didn\'t they? You would have expected them to more or less fall in the direction the planes were traveling. It\'s simple physics. But, the way they fell was consistent with a controlled demolition in that they imploded rather than exploded. If they had exploded, the damage to the surrounding area would definitely have been far greater. And there were numerous witnesses who reported hearing explosions inside the towers after the planes struck, but before they collapsed. Realize that being so tall, the foundations of the towers had to be built extremely strong to withstand not only the weight of the towers, but the constant shifting and swaying. Tower 7 had an acre of steel in its foundation alone, and a plane, even loaded with fuel would not have done that much damage. CNN interviewed a few witnesses who reported hearing the explosions, but never followed up on those reports. Why?
MJPS, don\'t you think every decent person has a right to complain now? [/B]
Your silly little conspiracies they are good to discuss but to actually consider as fact is just retarded, the trade towers were designed to pancake like that, of course you are gonna here explosions dumba$$, all that jet fuel and fire, deerrrr. We are talking about New York City here the business capital of the world, the fema people could of been having a meeting, maybe there offices are based out of New York, you need to back up your words with facts.
-
I want to know about those chemicals that \'exploded\' by themselves in the basment of a NYC building.
How do chemicals just explode by themselves?
Why is it hushed up?
BTW Bush got drunk and fainted, he didnt choke on a pretzel.
-
Liberal:rolleyes: ?
-
"Pancake?" Hmmm... You\'re forgetting something: What about the explosions so many people reported hearing? Also keep in mind that the WTC had withstood one previous bombing back in 1993.
As for the FEMA "meeting" theory? That would have nice considering that they do have a New York office with 67 full time employees and can call upon a cadre of up to 700 reservists. But realize that the Region II office handles New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands (this information is directly from their own website (http://www.fema.gov/reg-ii/index.htm).) So, what were most of them doing in New York City 14 hours before the attack?
-
Hey Pizza maybe the govement did have some kinda crdiable warning and moved fema there "just in case" they have had a ton of such warning just now they are actually taking them to heart as for the BOMBING thats it exactly a bombing not a fire ever heard what happens to metal under extreme heat it MELTS..
-
I suppose you dont belive we actually landed on the moon either
-
I think we landed on the moon.
But, the government was clearly warned months before that an attack would occur. Did they do anything then? Did they put airlines on alert? Did they put anyone on alert? No!
-
Although Pizza it is apparent that you would like to be on constant alert and be running afraid over everything, we live in a country of freedom and in that comes an arrogance unfourtainatly we got taught a lesson but Im sure that we have had credible threats against the US for over 20 years and one got us it was terrible and tragic, but it happened time to move on, no matter WHAT and I mean no matter one if someone is intent on hurting another person or people the are gonna do it, your not gonna be able to stop them all. Could have alerted the airlines alerted the people but no matter what we were arrougant and would not have been able to stop it do to the disbelif that anyone could or would do it to us why Cause we a a great and powerfull nation. Im not trying to burn anyone and I wish this wouldnt have happend but we needed something to knock the chips off of our shoulders and unit as a people.
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
I think we landed on the moon.
But, the government was clearly warned months before that an attack would occur. Did they do anything then? Did they put airlines on alert? Did they put anyone on alert? No!
I don\'t think we landed on the moon, that was Cold War Propaganda, until they land on the moon today I will not believe them, but to say that the govt. intentionally let a group of terrorists slam three planes into buildings of mass importance to our country is LUDACRIST!!!
-
yeah, the US isnt a communist country, ya here!
oops...
-
I never said it was a commumist nation.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Your crazy, your conspiracy doesn\'t even add up, as videoholic said, I\'m sure that everything that goes wrong in this country has to be the governments fault, stop your bit*hing and stop blameing the govt. for everything that goes wrong in your life.
Well see, that is just it..most things that do go wrong on a large scale are due to the US government. No one is blaming what happens in our personal lives.
His conspiracy thoughts do kind of hold water. I have relatives living in spain who would ask me back in june of 01 if everything was ok in the states b/c they heard of said attacks. Funny how we didnt here anything of them untill the news was on that morning.
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
- Look at the way the WTC towers fell. They collapsed on themselves, didn\'t they? You would have expected them to more or less fall in the direction the planes were traveling. It\'s simple physics. But, the way they fell was consistent with a controlled demolition in that they imploded rather than exploded. If they had exploded, the damage to the surrounding area would definitely have been far greater. And there were numerous witnesses who reported hearing explosions inside the towers after the planes struck, but before they collapsed. Realize that being so tall, the foundations of the towers had to be built extremely strong to withstand not only the weight of the towers, but the constant shifting and swaying. Tower 7 had an acre of steel in its foundation alone, and a plane, even loaded with fuel would not have done that much damage. CNN interviewed a few witnesses who reported hearing the explosions, but never followed up on those reports. Why?
look here....the buildings stood for around an hour b4 falling. Those buildings were designed to withstand plane crashes. Have you ANY idea how hot jet fuel burns?????? Any support in that building was melted like butter...so naturally when the upper floor supports started to melt and warp...they couldnt withstand the load anymore. So one one floor falls...you have twice the weight on the floor below which also is weak in the first place..so now you have a domino effect and that is why the buildings fell in the manner they did.
-
Originally posted by luckee
look here....the buildings stood for around an hour b4 falling. Those buildings were designed to withstand plane crashes. Have you ANY idea how hot jet fuel burns?????? Any support in that building was melted like butter...so naturally when the upper floor supports started to melt and warp...they couldnt withstand the load anymore. So one one floor falls...you have twice the weight on the floor below which also is weak in the first place..so now you have a domino effect and that is why the buildings fell in the manner they did.
Thank you for agreeing with me and explaining this to him.
-
The twin towers were built cheaply, that is why they fell.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
The twin towers were built cheaply, that is why they fell.
Weren\'t they built in the 1972, so for the times technology I say they were pretty damn good. Its not like Mr. Brady built the building SHIZIT.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
The twin towers were built cheaply, that is why they fell.
uhmm..I hope you are joking..back when they were built, the towers were state of the art as far as design went. Even to some of todays standards they were.
-
Its support was its exosckeleton. Basically its support was the metal skin on it which melted in the jet fuel. Modern buildings use internal support.
If they were built in the 90s, they probably would have withstood the impact.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Its support was its exosckeleton. Basically its support was the metal skin on it which melted in the jet fuel. Modern buildings use internal support.
If they were built in the 90s, they probably would have withstood the impact.
NO the external skelton was the main support..hence the building had no center support columns..the floors still had to have support underneath them.
EDIT** They DID withstand the impact.....
-
You guys are saying the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Videoholic
You guys are saying the same thing.
Listen to video, that is exactly what I f*cking said, dip$hit.
-
CHEAPLY!!! The were hit by a couple of HUGE airplane and didnt not fall for almost an hour..
-
Originally posted by Kaldertaut
CHEAPLY!!! The were hit by a couple of HUGE airplane and didnt not fall for almost an hour..
If they where modern day, they wouldnt have fallen at all.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
If they where modern day, they wouldnt have fallen at all.
They weren\'t modern day that is the point, listen, so if they weren\'t modern day for being as old as they were, and the old technology means they did very good for there time.
-
You could say that.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
If they where modern day, they wouldnt have fallen at all.
No they probably would have fallen anyway..like I said..do you have any idea how hot jet fuel burns?
-
thank you that my point exactly no matter if they were modern or not I think as hot as the jet fuel was burning just the fact that they stayed up as long as they did was amazing
-
Odd how this post has gone from Chandra Levy to how the Twin Towers fell.
200 to go...
-
isnt it, I thought it was just me you know all I can say is at least her family can finally have a little CLOSESURE.. Maybe this thread can take some advice from that :bounce:
-
Any support in that building was melted like butter...so naturally when the upper floor supports started to melt and warp...they couldnt withstand the load anymore. So one one floor falls...you have twice the weight on the floor below which also is weak in the first place..so now you have a domino effect and that is why the buildings fell in the manner they did. - Luckee
Well that, and it also has a great deal to do with WHERE they were hit. I\'ll TRY to make a diagram
-----
| |
| <
| |
| |
| |
| | - Ok, the planes hit around here or a little higher. WHen the jets exploded, they spewed ignited Jet fuel everywhere inside those floors and melted the "weak" support inside. With the outter skin comprimised it couldn\'t hold up those damaged floors. It\'d be the same thing as if you just lifted up the top floors, took out the floors where the planes hit, and then dropped the top floors. The top levels compressed almost instantly creatting a "hammer like" blow streight down through the rest of the towers which were still structurally strong. In fact, the way the towers were built, the outer skins actually stood longer than the floors which were being torn out from the inside. That helped a great deal to control the spread of the damage. There wasn\'t enough weight on the top to topple the towers in any one direction. If something had toppled at an angle.. it would have only been the top floors above where the plane hit. If they had hit lower...
------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| <
| | - Then you\'d have a building severed from it\'s foundation. The bottom floors would have compressed first, and quickly. With no more room to pack in rubble, the remaining debris would have slid off the top of the pile and into the NYC skyline. A controlled blast take a building out this way.. but this wasn\'t a controlled blast. Also, if it\'d had collapsed from the bottom up, there\'d be nothing to support the debris from wind velocity as it fell... which could have worsend the scenario.
Here\'s an experiment. Take two empty pop cans and sit them on the ground. Take the first one and stomp on it as hard as you can streight down. Ooohhh.. look. It crushed into a nice neat little area barely bigger than the circumfrance of the can itself. Now take the other one and do the same thing, but this time, make a sizeable dent by the bottom of the can. Look at the difference between the two crushed cans... then think of those as the World Trade Center.
Oh, and about the explosions. Do you really think the WTC didn\'t have combustables inside? Fire Extinquishers expecially, in the upper floors, would make a sizable explosion when comprimised. In the lower floors.. well.. I doubt many of those eye witnesses have been in a collapsing building before. There could be a hundred different causes for those explosion sounds and most of them far-far more plausable than actual explosives.
Oh, and Mjps- Why don\'t you believe we landed on the moon? Been watching too many Fox specials again? Funny thing about that show.. at the same time there was a documentary on PBS about the moon landing.. and none of the pics or videos they showed had any of the "evidence" that the Fox program was talking about. Not to mention that it would have been a lot more credible if they had actual Nasa scientists there to refute the claims instead of one low-level peeon who was basically there to just catch hell and look stoopid.
BTW: If it was all just a conspiracy, why did we continue the facade for so long? Why include a disasater the size of Apollo 13? Why send back two more missions after that? If it was all just Cold-War posturing (which although, WAS, a good part of it).. why didn\'t we just thumb our noses at the Russians and start building stations and try to beat them at their newest endevors such as docking in space and such? Sure we built SkyLab.. but at a much later time than the Russians.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I don\'t think we landed on the moon, that was Cold War Propaganda, until they land on the moon today I will not believe them, but to say that the govt. intentionally let a group of terrorists slam three planes into buildings of mass importance to our country is LUDACRIST!!!
I agree with the above.
The government lies and covers up more then you think. You didnt actually believe Bush fainted after chocking on a pretzel, did you?
-
Originally posted by Pizza Guy
There\'s a growing volume of evdence that the roots of 9-11 began during the Clinton administration, and possibly even the Bush Sr. administration.
If you want proof that the 9-11 attacks aren\'t what they seem, consider the following:
- Look at the way the WTC towers fell. They collapsed on themselves, didn\'t they? You would have expected them to more or less fall in the direction the planes were traveling. It\'s simple physics. But, the way they fell was consistent with a controlled demolition in that they imploded rather than exploded. If they had exploded, the damage to the surrounding area would definitely have been far greater. And there were numerous witnesses who reported hearing explosions inside the towers after the planes struck, but before they collapsed. Realize that being so tall, the foundations of the towers had to be built extremely strong to withstand not only the weight of the towers, but the constant shifting and swaying. Tower 7 had an acre of steel in its foundation alone, and a plane, even loaded with fuel would not have done that much damage. CNN interviewed a few witnesses who reported hearing the explosions, but never followed up on those reports. Why?
[/B]
They Knew what they were doing when they hit the towers where they did..they are 25-30 years old.......the explosion was so hot the steel gave way and that is why the towers fell!
I didnt see your in depth post about the Scenario.........
:hat:Scottyj:hat:
-
The idea that the government had anything to do with the events of 9/11 is insane.
The towers did fall on their own after being hit by the planes, it had nothing to do with any other explosion.
And, if you want the truth, standards during the time the World Trade Center was built are much better than today\'s standards in a lot of ways. Just about any building today would have collapsed the same way. Buildings simply aren\'t made to take that type of side blow, and resist that type of heat.
If it was all just a conspiracy, why did we continue the facade for so long? Why include a disasater the size of Apollo 13? Why send back two more missions after that? If it was all just Cold-War posturing (which although, WAS, a good part of it).. why didn\'t we just thumb our noses at the Russians and start building stations and try to beat them at their newest endevors such as docking in space and such? Sure we built SkyLab.. but at a much later time than the Russians.
I\'m not saying it was a conspiracy, but I think it is possible. We would have naturally continued it, to make it seem like we weren\'t faking it. As for Apollo 13, we did send the shuttles into space for sure. Some think they just circled the earth though. If so, something could have just as easily gone wrong while doing that.
Also, with the way our space program had been going, getting to the moon in 69 would have been damn near a miracle. You want the real miracle of 69? Look at baseball history :)
Ah, I love tying the Mets into things randomly.
-
Baseball is boring as hell. Ahhh, I love tying that in with random things.
-
Well, I\'d tend to think that Hell wouldn\'t be that boring a place :p
-
How much money did they spend on going to the Moon?
-
Ok Clowd, were they just supposed to tear the buildings down because they weren\'t "state of the art" anymore and build two more buildings that are? Those buildings were still pretty safe with today\'s standards and would have done fine for a long time to come. If they were modern day they wouldn\'t have fallen at all? Pfft...like luckee said, the jet fuel would have burned the metal if it was a "new" building.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Well that, and it also has a great deal to do with WHERE they were hit. I\'ll TRY to make a diagram
-----
| |
| <
| |
| |
| |
| | - Ok, the planes hit around here or a little higher. WHen the jets exploded, they spewed ignited Jet fuel everywhere inside those floors and melted the "weak" support inside. With the outter skin comprimised it couldn\'t hold up those damaged floors. It\'d be the same thing as if you just lifted up the top floors, took out the floors where the planes hit, and then dropped the top floors. The top levels compressed almost instantly creatting a "hammer like" blow streight down through the rest of the towers which were still structurally strong. In fact, the way the towers were built, the outer skins actually stood longer than the floors which were being torn out from the inside. That helped a great deal to control the spread of the damage. There wasn\'t enough weight on the top to topple the towers in any one direction. If something had toppled at an angle.. it would have only been the top floors above where the plane hit. If they had hit lower...
------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| <
| | - Then you\'d have a building severed from it\'s foundation. The bottom floors would have compressed first, and quickly. With no more room to pack in rubble, the remaining debris would have slid off the top of the pile and into the NYC skyline. A controlled blast take a building out this way.. but this wasn\'t a controlled blast. Also, if it\'d had collapsed from the bottom up, there\'d be nothing to support the debris from wind velocity as it fell... which could have worsend the scenario.
Here\'s an experiment. Take two empty pop cans and sit them on the ground. Take the first one and stomp on it as hard as you can streight down. Ooohhh.. look. It crushed into a nice neat little area barely bigger than the circumfrance of the can itself. Now take the other one and do the same thing, but this time, make a sizeable dent by the bottom of the can. Look at the difference between the two crushed cans... then think of those as the World Trade Center.
Oh, and about the explosions. Do you really think the WTC didn\'t have combustables inside? Fire Extinquishers expecially, in the upper floors, would make a sizable explosion when comprimised. In the lower floors.. well.. I doubt many of those eye witnesses have been in a collapsing building before. There could be a hundred different causes for those explosion sounds and most of them far-far more plausable than actual explosives.
Oh, and Mjps- Why don\'t you believe we landed on the moon? Been watching too many Fox specials again? Funny thing about that show.. at the same time there was a documentary on PBS about the moon landing.. and none of the pics or videos they showed had any of the "evidence" that the Fox program was talking about. Not to mention that it would have been a lot more credible if they had actual Nasa scientists there to refute the claims instead of one low-level peeon who was basically there to just catch hell and look stoopid.
BTW: If it was all just a conspiracy, why did we continue the facade for so long? Why include a disasater the size of Apollo 13? Why send back two more missions after that? If it was all just Cold-War posturing (which although, WAS, a good part of it).. why didn\'t we just thumb our noses at the Russians and start building stations and try to beat them at their newest endevors such as docking in space and such? Sure we built SkyLab.. but at a much later time than the Russians.
Then please explain to my stupid arse how exactly we got to the moon without being melted? Those space suits aren\'t that reputable.
-
ceramic plateing its much more heat resistant but you clouldnt build a building out of it.
-
Originally posted by Fayded
Ok Clowd, were they just supposed to tear the buildings down because they weren\'t "state of the art" anymore and build two more buildings that are? Those buildings were still pretty safe with today\'s standards and would have done fine for a long time to come. If they were modern day they wouldn\'t have fallen at all? Pfft...like luckee said, the jet fuel would have burned the metal if it was a "new" building.
Well there is the Empire state building which is much older, I dont think it should be tore down, nor the the wtc.
But its a shame archeticts have to consider planes flying into them.
As for metal being burned I\'ll have to look up more info on that. The steel support that holds up modern day buildings is different positions then back then so the position may help.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Well there is the Empire state building which is much older, I dont think it should be tore down, nor the the wtc.
But its a shame archeticts have to consider planes flying into them.
As for metal being burned I\'ll have to look up more info on that. The steel support that holds up modern day buildings is different positions then back then so the position may help.
first off, they have to account for ANYTHING when designing super structures..whether it be a skyscraper..off shore oil rig, long bridges...etc..
second..WTC has already been tore down(what was left anyway)
third....different positions has nothing to do with metal melting. I dont care how well a building is designed...a hot enough burn will melt damn near ANYTHING!
-
Something just came up in the back of my mind, I remember someone saying something about fire proof buildings.
You remember anything about this?
I think the WTC was suppose to be one of them
-
I doubt it..or its structure wouldnt have been melted. I doubt many buildings..if any are "fireproof". It would be wayyyyy to exspensive..especially in the case of the twin towers.
-
Originally posted by luckee
third....different positions has nothing to do with metal melting. I dont care how well a building is designed...a hot enough burn will melt damn near ANYTHING!
Look at what he just said, fire proof yes, melt proof no!!!
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Look at what he just said, fire proof yes, melt proof no!!!
ok man..why pick hairs? :)
-
Originally posted by luckee
ok man..why pick hairs? :)
I was just backin up what u said sorry, if you got the wrong idea i was talking about what clowd said not u.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I was just backin up what u said sorry, if you got the wrong idea i was talking about what clowd said not u.
I guess Im just simple tonight or something...sorry :)
-
Then please explain to my stupid arse how exactly we got to the moon without being melted? Those space suits aren\'t that reputable. - mjps...whatever
Uh, jus WTF do you mean by that? Who\'s doubting their reputability? Why would we melt in space? Sure the Earth\'s atmosphere protects us from a vast majority of the sun\'s heat and radiation.. but those same space suits we used to land on the moon were used in close earth orbit spacewalks. What do you think our astronauts wore when taking EVA\'s to fix sattelites and preform experiments? And why is it so hard to believe that those suits were heat shielded? Have you ever seen those suits scientists wear to study volcanos? Nothing but a thin sheet of aluminum foil!!
Or maybe you\'re talking about the Van Allen Radiation belts. Well, I\'m not an expert, but I found a quip from site at CalTech that might answer your questions.
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth\'s magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA\'s Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).
Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:
Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person\'s body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
^^^---- Now, if only they had some guys like THIS on that Fox special, there wouldn\'t be so many questions being asked. Of course, Fox\'s ratings probably wouldda gone down the tubes on this one too. : /
BTW: Didn\'t John Swigert from the Apollo 13 mission die of cancer?
Hmmmmm........
-
What about the pictures where a object in the picture was in front one of the x marks on the camera?
The X mark was on the camera lens so there was no way an object in the picture could be behind it.
-
Uhhh huh. Have you tried looking at those pictures outside of a Fox "conspiracy theory" program? That\'s part of what I was saying in my first post. At the same time those pictures were being shown on Fox, there was a PBS special about the moon landings that I was flipping back and forth between. They didn\'t have the "obscured" crosshairs. Just about everything Fox was showing, was also shown at one time or another on PBS.. and none of the "evidence" matched up.
Unless someone can provide a link to a credible source, I still find it much much easier to believe that Fox doctored the photos to make a griping and entralling show to entertain people and boost ratings, than Nasa faking a Lunar Mission.
Also, consider that the Russians knew full well that we were ready to land on the Moon. It\'s not like it was any big surprise or anything. There is documented communications between Russia and the US over weither or not Apollo 11\'s radio communications would interfer with Russia\'s Luna 15 probe which was already in orbit and preparing to make a remote landing to collect soil samples.
-
Why is there no stars in the pictures-videos?
Why does the flag wave in no wind?
-
Simple, the camera was out of focus.
And the exaust from the lunar lander caused the flag to move.
Wow, I could work for the government!
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Wow, I could work for the government!
Yeah, to help spread their lies....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Yeah, to help spread their lies....:rolleyes:
The government doesn\'t lie! They do everything right and are there for your benefit and protection :)
...no further questions...
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
The government doesn\'t lie! They do everything right and are there for your benefit and protection :)
...no further questions...
I hope you dont believe that
-
Actually...I believe about the opposite of that.
-
Isnt it cool how a thread can go from a dead girl to a World Trade Center Conpiracy to If we landed on the moon or not. So if we didnt land on the moon then what about the mars rover is that driving around some movie stuio (or not driving since i dont think it actually ever really worked)
-
Originally posted by Kaldertaut
Isnt it cool how a thread can go from a dead girl to a World Trade Center Conpiracy to If we landed on the moon or not.
yea, isnt thread jacking fun? :D