In 1945, a plane hits Empire State building killing 13, the year nineteen fourty five

OU812

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLWh8Rbp7o

It happened this day in 1945. How do you think it would be reported if it happened today (assuming 9/11 already happened first), social media, CNN, Fox News etc all jumping to terror related or would we get the calm "business as usual" type in the newsreel?

py2006

Ah for a sec there...

razorblunt

Not really, there was that Cessna that crashed in New York since 9/11 and they didn't jump on the terror button straight away, same as the helicopter crash in London.

For Forks Sake

For some reason I think I should invest in War Bonds.

Wanderer78

For Forks Sake wrote:

For some reason I think I should invest in War Bonds.

According to Jim Richards, team America is going to war with north Korea next year, might be worth a punt

First we'd get the clickbait misleading topic titles on social media...

SEPT 23 1989

King Kong seems to have been edited out of that film

techdiver

razorblunt wrote: »

Not really, there was that Cessna that crashed in New York since 9/11 and they didn't jump on the terror button straight away, same as the helicopter crash in London.

I was on holiday in New York the day Cory Lidle (yankees pitcher) crashed his plane into the apartment block. I remember being in the Manhattan Mall when the news broke. Whilst what you say is true to an extent, there was some over the top reporting and reactions.

I remember having to calm a woman down who thought a second plane had hit, but it was just the same report with different pictures.

team_actimel

Would you feck off with your clickbait.

My heart leapt when I read the thread title :mad:

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Schtap with the clickbaitiness

donegaLroad

except it wont be really a war with North Korea, USA will just bomb the fcuk out of the place with drones.

Nicolas Cage

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod: Schtap with the clickbaitiness

...then we'd get the Mods, who remove the clickbait element rendering your observation puzzling, and doomed to not even get c10-15 likes when it was a sure fire 30+

Wanderer78

donegaLroad wrote:

except it wont be really a war with North Korea, USA will just bomb the fcuk out of the place with drones.

So bombing by drone isn't an act of war, how very interesting! What's happening barack?

Dravokivich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So bombing by drone isn't an act of war, how very interesting! What's happening barack?

I think he just means in comparison to what's usually considered war, as a series of battles involving ground forces.

War in itself is meant to evolve to be effective. I find it a bit bizarre that it can progress to a position where it's remote control and/or automated. Armies are going to spend a fortune on something they expect to be destroyed.

Wanderer78

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think he just means in comparison to what's usually considered war, as a series of battles involving ground forces.

War in itself is meant to evolve to be effective. I find it a bit bizarre that it can progress to a position where it's remote control and/or automated. Armies are going to spend a fortune on something they expect to be destroyed.

show me a war thats been 'effective'!

FrancieBrady

We'd have several pages of 'I'm not racist but bomb them back to desert where they belong'.
Then silence as the truth emerges.

Dravokivich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

show me a war thats been 'effective'!

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Effective does not have to assume efficiency, or less casualties on either side. Just what works to achieve the over arching objective.

There's plenty. History is littered with them. As it so happens.

Wanderer78

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Effective does not have to assume efficiency, or less casualties on either side. Just what works to achieve the over arching objective.

There's plenty. History is littered with them. As it so happens.

as far as i can see, no war has ever been effective for the benefit of mankind

Dravokivich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

as far as i can see, no war has ever been effective for the benefit of mankind

Well, you're talking about something else completely then. Not war on the basis of war itself.

It's more effective to swim with the current than against it, but mankind is better off in a boat. So lets not talk about swimming?

Wanderer78

Dravokivich wrote: »

Well, you're talking about something else completely then. Not war on the basis of war itself.

It's more effective to swim with the current than against it, but mankind is better off in a boat. So lets not talk about swimming?

swimmings nice though in all fairness:D

evil_seed

In 2017, I made a comment on a sh*tpost, the year twenty seventeen

Ralf and Florian

OU812 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLWh8Rbp7o

It happened this day in 1945. How do you think it would be reported if it happened today (assuming 9/11 already happened first), social media, CNN, Fox News etc all jumping to terror related or would we get the calm "business as usual" type in the newsreel?

I love that in the absence of actual footage of the crash they added a cartoon explosion for dramatic effect.

Syphonax

Wanderer78 wrote: »

show me a war thats been 'effective'!

The Byzantine–Ottoman wars were pretty effective, for the Turks that is.

Riddle101

Off topic but, am I the only one who wonders what it must have been like building the Empire State Building? I've seen pictures of people working on that on that building just sitting on steel beams or ledges overlooking the city, no safety harness or any real protection. I'm not afraid of heights myself, but I would be practically sh*ting myself if I ever had to work on a building that high up in the sky.

Imagine being this man.

thelad95

"Engineering experts assure that Empire State Buildings structural integrity will be maintained as jet fuel not capable of melting steel beams"

WHIP IT!

Riddle101 wrote: »

Off topic but, am I the only one who wonders what it must have been like building the Empire State Building? I've seen pictures of people working on that on that building just sitting on steel beams or ledges overlooking the city, no safety harness or any real protection. I'm not afraid of heights myself, but I would be practically sh*ting myself if I ever had to work on a building that high up in the sky.

Imagine being this man.
[/IMG]

I'm so bad with heights that even the picture of that bloke on the ledge gives me the heeby jeebies...

I tried to watch the Netflix doc about the guys from the "lunch atop a skyscraper" pic and it actually took me two attempts - first time I was a bit hungover and it made me dizzy, so watched it again with a clearer head and was (mostly) grand

McMurphy

razorblunt wrote: »

Not really, there was that Cessna that crashed in New York since 9/11 and they didn't jump on the terror button straight away, same as the helicopter crash in London.

I arrived in New York for a long weekend that very day. There was an unbelievable calmness over the city.

The howls of sirens were the only giveaway.

OU812

evil_seed wrote: »

In 2017, I made a comment on a sh*tpost, the year twenty seventeen

* wasn't the original title of the thread

longshanks

Fourty?

Ulysses Gaze

Riddle101 wrote: »

Off topic but, am I the only one who wonders what it must have been like building the Empire State Building? I've seen pictures of people working on that on that building just sitting on steel beams or ledges overlooking the city, no safety harness or any real protection. I'm not afraid of heights myself, but I would be practically sh*ting myself if I ever had to work on a building that high up in the sky.

Imagine being this man.

Look at these guys :eek:

Wanderer78

thelad95 wrote: »

"Engineering experts assure that Empire State Buildings structural integrity will be maintained as jet fuel not capable of melting steel beams"

.....but is it tin foil hat proof????