I did. As you noted, an explanation for the clarification was unnecessary. The original title was both uninformative and misleading.
I can see that an internal magazine explosion caused by enemy action is the big killer. A single bomb or torpedo dropped by a plane may not do much by itself - the goal is to use that as the trigger to ignite the battleship’s own weapons or fuel, thus the ship is made to destroy itself. Thing is, there’s no practical way to avoid this - to be effective on offense, a battleship has to carry explosives, and it’s not feasible to pack these explosives in some impregnable vault where they’d be safe, but also hard to get to in mid-battle.
You’d think so, but ship magazine explosions were actually fairly uncommon, even when enemy warheads exploded inside them. The high explosives used were surprisingly inert. The most effective way to sink a ship is with an underwater explosion, causing flooding.
<End history lesson>
First, you need to present some evidence.
An excessively long video with the bona fides and the quality of the standard “Was Nostradamus right?” or “Who REALLY buiilt the pyramids?” segment on some start-up cable channel is not evidence; it is an excessively long video with poor provenance and no reliability. If you found something on that video that you actually thought was evidence that the government was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, then quote the information or, at least, note the time stamp on the video.
As noted above, listing theories for motivations for conspiracies is nothing but mind games if the “conspiracies” have nothing to do with the events that occurred. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Free French all had motivations to get the U.S. to enter World War II, but the Pearl Harbor attack was not a false flag operation by one of those nations. It was a real attack by the Japanese Imperial Navy. All kinds of people might have all sorts of motives for making an attack on the U.S. in September, 2001, but the actual attack was carried out by 19 guys hijacking four airliners.
If you are not interested in actually presenting evidence, then I will close this thread, (and every future thread in which you engage in the same provocative but evasive behavior).
We’re all in on it, chappy. We are the ones who are covering it up.
Just wait right there by your computer. We’re sending a squad over to “talk” to you.
You really shouldn’t give away our secrets like that, silenus. :smack: You know the first rule about SDMB 9/11 Cover Up Club, right???
Also, please tell those rabid space assassin aardvarks to please, PLEASE put their masks on correctly this time before they go have a nice, um, chat with chappy, will you? Last time we had to send out several teams with neuralizers (and a sponge, as well as several mops) to clean up the mess. For some reason folks are horrified when seeing rabid space aardvarks with foam and blood on their snouts in good spirits after a well deserved hit…
How nice it would be if any of the wooists/conspiracy theory fans who post links to these videos followed this simple suggestion.
Wasn’t it supposed to be January when All Was To Be Revealed about the gigantic banking conspiracy? Can’t we coordinate these earth-shaking events?
In a few weeks, months or years when none of these dramatic predictions have come to pass, the CTers will have moved on to new forecasts of revelation and doom (and new videos!).
Well, I’m pretty sure I read some version of that asserted somewhere. Maybe it was “more by internal explosion than by enemy gunfire,” or somesuch.
Closest I can find at the moment is an online cite here, which only covers post-Dreadnought ships (and thus leaves out the Maine). That site at least has these estimates:
[Lost to] Surface Fire or Surface Torpedoes – 4 – 9%
Sunk by Internal Explosion – 4 – 9%
Although I am cherry-picking those two estimates (and conspicuously ignoring losses to aircraft), AND there don’t seem to be any peacetime internal explosions on that list (and we know there have been some) at least they’re showing rough equivalence between enemy surface attack and internal explosions, which sort of what I was getting at.
So apart from being completely misleading, they support your theory. 
It might be that more battleships have been lost to accidental magazine explosions than enemy guns setting them off, the numbers there would be pretty close.
(All this is a shameful hijacking of the thread, but is still marginally more useful than the content of the OP.)
Agreed. But it is a hijack, so move it to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Closing this thread because the OP has been banned.