I often watch WWII documentaries with actual combat footage, and bombs always seem to whistle before they hit. Was this true? Is it true today? Or is it just an effect added so you know bombs are falling in the scene?
213422
Personally, I've never heard a mortar... until it hit.\n\nArtillery does have an "incoming" sound, but the time between you hearing the whistle and the impact of the round is literally a split second (presumably because of the speed of an artillery shell).  I only know this from video of incoming rounds (shot from the perspective of the enemy), I've never been on the "wrong end" of artillery.\n\nIt is interesting that people have named mortars as making a sound, it was my understanding that, because of their   (comparatively) low speed they DIDN'T make a sound.  This is experience from 2 Iraq tours, countless indirect fire attacks (usually mortars), and living closely with a 80mm mortar platoon.\n\nRockets also make a sound, but that could be from the motor.  I've never been under an air strike, so I couldn't tell you about dropped munitions.
338748
Whoa, let's sort out this question, you're actually talking about several different things.  First of all, yes, the entire electromagnetic spectrum involves the electromotive force.  But electrons themselves are not examples of the electromagnetic spectrum, even though in quantum theory they are represented by waves.  Certain particles, such as neutrinos, which are now suspected to have mass, do in fact pass through our bodies "harmlessly", because 1) they are uncharged, and 2) their mode of interaction with matter through the electroweak force makes it extremely rare that they would actually "collide" with anything.  Now, exploding bombs that produce shock waves that damages our bodies, again, are not examples of the electromotive force in action, but ordinary air being compressed and moving along like sound waves.  The speed, in fact, is the speed of sound.  What makes an explosion destructive is the degree of overpressure, or pressure differential, across the shock wave.  And destruction to bodies by this overpressure occurs so rapidly, it's not really a matter of friction, but more by net mechanical force.  Now, it's possible to damage or kill people using electromagnetic waves, which is the theory behind high energy focused microwaves, or even lasers, but this time it's a matter of absorption of energy, rather than a mechanical interaction as with shock waves from ordinary explosions.
53351
Hmm, think hard_then speak has an interesting one, although the answer is reasonably well known.\n\nFollowing the WWII I'd interview Werner Heisenberg in 1944 to see if he was really NOT trying to build an A-bomb for Nazi Germany, or if that is just what he said after the war. (And after he learned he was going about it in the wrong way.)
259782
I'm not to sure of this ,but I think I once read somewhere\nabout bomber crews of the R.A.F. and the U.S.A.A.F.(as it was then)reporting strange looking aircraft that they saw in European skies,try the reference library,a fascinating subject,best of luck with it
326240
i want a pilot to answer me.i am not a susspecting person.i have been flying single prop planes as a hobby for the last 15 years.i cant immagin how can a man who just compleated his primery flying training flies a jumbo jet,aim it to a building and hit it so accurately\nhow both the hita came in places that led to the collapse of both the towers in a short time\ni really wonder,could the engeneers who designed the tower  know that such critical points exist in their towers.i dont belive in consperacy theoty,but honestly i am unable to immagine this.i am totally against terrorisim,totally against killing even an insect.i cant immagin the savage act of killing 3000 innocent people at all.
501050
I got interesting answers to this question and it may be the only time I gave a Shiraz best answer\n\nHEY, you people who advocate "nuking". Do you know the effects of nuclear bombs?
402585
Essentially, blanks are the regular cartridge, but instead of the shell (the pointy bit, otherwise known as the bullet), there is a round circle of cardboard.  The gun still fires as usual, but is much lighter (how arnold can shoot a big gun with one hand).  In theory, the cardboard should be burned and harmless, but for the first second or so, it's still dangerous.  So, it's a yes and no.  If you're wearing proper protective gear and are more than a foot from the person who's firing at you, you should be fine.  \n\nAn aside: A bullet has three main parts, the shell (the one that kills people) the cartridge (what holds the gunpowder) and a starter (what the hammer hits and what ignites the gunpowder).  For hollywood, if they show somebody loading bullets into a gun, they use bullets with deactivated starters, no gunpowder and regular shells.  Then, for firing, they use blanks.\n\nI would say that you should express your concern to whoever is running the wargames and see what they say.  they could be using a special setup, i don't know.  \n\nI know that was complicated, but best of luck!\n\n-Belril
353478
the answer is in the army files of every nation that ever had a war.\nmachine guns spit out bullets very fast. Or I suspect the old Tommy gun in the 20s' was the one. Gangsters perhaps in Chicago.\n\ngl
640704
Some of what is presented in "loose change" can be disputed to the point of possibly being coincidental or hear say.\n\nBut there are also things that are pointed out in the film that cannot be disputed, as it would violate the laws of physics for them to have occurred in the way that our government has led us to believe.\n\nI have been doing research on both sides of this issue and there are several items that violate physics.\n\n1. No mater how structurally compromised the struck floors were, the towers could not have fallen at free fall speed. This can only occur when there is no support anywhere under the falling structure.\n\n2. You cannot take out multiple light poles on the way into the pentagon with out leaving massive amounts of debris in the path from the poles knocking chunks out of the plane much less the flaming fuel spill it would have produced. The Boeing fuel tests proved that a plane hitting even a single light pole would rip the wing off creating a huge fireball immediately. There was no debris or scorch marks anywhere other than the scorch marks at the building itself.\n\nThe laws of physics do not conveniently change for anyone no matter how much rhetoric that people spew. We will probably never know the truth about who was responsible, but we do know that the story our government has fed us doesn't hold water.
305205
During battles on some of the islands approaching the main Japanese islands, it became clear that their soldiers would fight to the last man.  A full-blown invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and Japan would have ended up a wasteland.  Aside from that, there was just no way that the Japanese would surrender unconditionally without the bomb being dropped.  And remember, it took two A-bombs before they surrendered.
147627
For some detonations, they wanted to learn how the air around  the blast moved.  Just before the bomb was detonated, they launched small rockets with smoky trails.  Then, when the bomb went off, the smoke trails showed how the air moved.
615695
Yes.  I have seen it.  Furthermore, I recommend it to any and everyone.  Many may see in it what they want to, but where there is smoke, there is some fire.\nYou are right about the buildings coming down in a suspicious fashion, as well.  While I am not a demolisions expert, it appears to be a "controlled" drop.
220559
There is no wing shaped damage to the right and left of the hole...  Since the Pentagon is built very strongly, It seems to me that the wings would have sheared off upon impact and there would be many pieces lying in front of the building on either side of the hole.  There isn't.  Commercial jet liners don't 'vaporize'... That's preposterous.  Water vaporizes.  Liquid nitrogen vaporizes.  Aluminum and titanium do not.  They eventually will melt, but due to the quick response of the firefighters, I doubt the fire got hot enough for long enough to melt an entire plane.  Even then, there would be many tons of melted metal to pick up.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm no idiot either.  There is something wrong with the government's version of what happened at the Pentagon.
116749
Isn"t that when germany was attacking them? I have friends in England, she's english, he's polish and it was in that time period that he came as a tank driver from poland  to england to help defend from the germans, and that's when they met and fell in love & got married.  He told me the germans were trying to blow up the old historic sites in particular. Sorry, that's all I know, which isn't much.
296038
there was a book i had once...i think called "worlds worst aircraft" and it was full of fun planes, many made by germany during ww2.  my favorate was their vertical take off and landing plane that had the gear mounted on the tail so one had to pull the plane up to 90 degrees, then slowly "back" it down. (looking over the shoulder and everything)  the test pilot reports all said it was a good plane, but they suggested not trying to land it.
656764
I highly recommend "NOT" doing this. A loud noise suggests some "sharp" release of energy; and believe me, from past experience, there is nothing "non-dangerous" when playing with pyrotechnics of any kind. They all can remove fingers, toes, and appendages depending on size (either blowing them off, or burning them severely). Do not mess with explosives! \n  A "stink bomb" (non-explosive) can be made from a little soft cardboard (like found in some egg cartons- the grey ones) and a little sulfur. A dab of the sulfur in an indentation in a small piece of the cardboard and pinch it closed over the top. When lighting this, if a flame occurs "blow it out".  It should only smolder, and the smoke created will be like rotten eggs.  Just don't use too much, since a lot of Sulfur dioxide can be harmful.\n\nIf you simply MUST have a loud noise, blow some air into a plastic bag and pop it quickly.
526634
i have seen movies showing the v2 rockets(my mum called them doodlebugs she was in London at the time) but sorry i cant recall the names of the movies\n\n\nPS they were in use in the latter part of the war 1945 i think it was