Talk:Iranian Air Force C-130 crash in Tehran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

Also can someone explain the reference "CLUMSY DRUNK FEMALE?" Is there a reference for this? Did someone listen to the tape of the tower communications that would explain this reference. In the interest of journalist rigourous-ness shouldn't there be a footnote explaining this reference? Or is it just a misogynous hack? -dm

Could someone explain why Iran has a C-130? Isn't it an US airplane?

I believe it is a pre-1970 aircraft. -XI

This is like September 11 for Iran. :( freestylefrappe 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Except not (apparently) a terrorist attack. violet/riga (t) 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not really.. its more a tragic accident, I hope. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hard to keep up with this pace! Slow down! ;-) -- Ajaxkroon
It's nothing of the sort - one was a terrorist act, one was an accident - both equally tragic.
The sanctions were no accident.. Commking 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it that sanctions prevent Iran from buying aircraft parts, yet they are capable of building nuclear reactors and enriching uranium? -XI

Sadly, I suspect Iran will not get the sympathy that was poured onto the USRob cowie 13:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a report in Japanese newspapers about an unnamed Iranian journalist criticizing his government for not buying another aircrafts and using homemade replacement parts to keep old American airplanes working instead. I'm not really sure why Iran didn't buy new aircrafts from Russia or Europe. I mean buying cargo crafts had to be lot easier than trying to build nukes and I don't think Iranian government has finacial troubles. -- Revth 08:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious to know the source of the claim that Iran has the worst airline safety record per capita. ---B- 07:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course Iran won't get the same sympathy as the US. It is a tragedy, yes, but on a tenth of the scale. Eightball

Contents

[edit] District

Virtually every source is quoting a different district:

The others report it as near the airport or just a "densely populated district" - I think we should do the same until it's clear. violet/riga (t) 16:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well BBC News and ABC News are always pretty accurate and reliable sources (I read BBC News quite a bit), so I'd say its Yaftabad district, and not the others. I've never heard of Aviation Safety Network before in my life, and I'm not sure if Sky News should be trusted. — Wackymacs 18:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
They're not reporting different districts. They're reporting "the Towhid residential complex in the Azari neighborhood, Yaftabad district". 69.156.204.37 19:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the map

Not neccessary, capital of Iran is not exactly a remote destination. Similar articles do not have maps unless needed Sherurcij 17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not remote, but hardly well-known. I think it adds to the article, and have replaced it. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
How the hell is Tehran not "well-known"? Sherurcij 17:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to its location. violet/riga (t) 17:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I never noticed that map was on the Tehran article, but that map is pretty low-quality. It's brightness and strange colors are also distracting. Any possiblity to find another map, for both articles maybe? 69.156.204.37 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of "Storey/Story"

Just to clear things up: Story and Storey (as in floor) are essentially the same word. So stop with the revert war. - Ajaxkroon

It's got an E in it. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just check it up, ok? Aren't you an adminstrator? - Ajaxkroon

Obviously I know about the Americans spelling it like that, but in this article it will be spelt with an E. violet/riga (t) 20:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I just find it odd since Story is far more common that Storey. - Ajaxkroon

Not in BE. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant in a broader sense. But it doesn't matter anyway, it's fine as it is. -- Ajaxkroon

This is Wikipedia English edition, not American. It's storey. Period. :P Jackk 21:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Storey is a variant of Story; therefore, Story is the more correct of the two.
Incorrect. Storey is the British English spelling and is the chosen version of English for this article. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when did we decide that this article has to be written in British English?

Since the very first edit used "storey". violet/riga (t) 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the very first edit used "storey" because it was the spelling used by whomever translates the news into English for ADKI (for whatever the Greek agency was called) and that is the original source. The vast majority of people who will visit this article are not going to see storEy as a correct spelling. It looks like a group of monkeys wrote it.

Sorry you disagree with the people that gave you a language. violet/riga (t) 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Be mature, ok? 67.51.52.63

I'm sorry we forgot to thank you for English, Brittan. Thanks, it's been swell.Vegasjon 01:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good lord, okay, so now we have "floor" in place of "stor(e)y", "plane" in place of "aero"/"air", and "excercises" in place of "man(o)euvers". Even though I'm an american, I'm starting to hate Noah Webster Jibbajabba 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number of casualties!

Similar to the district of the accident, every news agency reports a different number of casualties, Some say 120, some 128, some even put it at 134. I think we should leave the number as it is and change it when all the information about this tragic event is cleared up.

[edit] Duplicate liniks

I'm not sure about whether the same link should be present in footnotes and external links. On the one hand, it's redundant, but at the same time, it seems proper form. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia. Jibbajabba 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Firestotm

Did this building incinerate and self-implode on its own footprints by fire, or does only buildings owned by Larry Silverstein do that? --Striver 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • After seeing all the “Discovery Channel Documentaries” in the last 4 1/2 years about the Collapse of the World Trade Center, I too am curious why this building didn't collapse. In the case of the World Trade Centre burning jet fuel dripping down the building was deposited near the cores and footings of the towers. The steel became elastic and eventually gave out due to exposure to the intense fire. From what I have watched on the CBC this C-130 was just loaded up with fuel and did move down though the building. I am (obviously) not an architect or engineer, so I’m wondering if this building did not collapse because there was not as much load put on the structure as it is a much smaller building than the Trade Centre Towers? Was the fire quickly extinguished or was it not very intense because of the smaller fuel capacity of the C-130? Any other details about the design of this 10 storey building? --RPlunk 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Bro, its real simple: Take a 10 liters of gasoline or any random fuel and throw it on a 1:100 scale steel structure, and lit it. Then wait for it melting. You can wait the entire day, it wont melt. Actualy, you are only going to wait 20 seconds, by then is all the fuel lit and gone. That is the same thing as throwing 1000 liters of fuel on a real structure. Even if you throw 10 000 liters of fuel on a 1:100 model, not a shit is going to happen, execpt for the sheer presure of the fluid, nothing worse than water. Steel does not melt due to fuel, that is just a dump myth. C'mon, think for your self, forget media.
Think of a fire stove, when did you see it melt last time? Does your cooking equipment melt? Driping jet fuel? Are you kidding me? Did you see the fireball on 9-11 [1]? You realy think any "drops of fuel" escaped that? Stealthy drops of fuel that escape huge fireballs? That gives a new sense to "Cover operation". That huge fireball was over in 20 seconds, more like 15, and then there was no jet fuel. Then you hade 50 minutes of a totaly normal fire, you know, like furniture and stuff, and then they imploded it with explosives, just as Larry admited on television. Slow down the movie and you see the pufs of smoke from the explosion.
You will never ever again see any steel building collapse from fire. Never has, never will. Take a look at this [2], there you have a real fire, no shity fire wanabes like this [3]. Oh, you hardly saw it there... maybe here [4]. Oh, not there either? maybe here [5]? Man, that fire is realy hard to capture on film, i guess the fire is camera shy... Oh, maybe here [6]? Man, i cant see that fire... I wonder, how come there is no fire here [7]? Shoulden that woman be melted before the the steel? Maybe that is SteelWoman? There is no big fire, the "enourmous" "hell fires from the Islamic hell jihadist" is another myth. No fire, and even if there where any, it wouldent melt steel. A reminder: [8]. That building did not colapse.


Steel framed buildings collapsing due to melting from fire alledgedly happened only three times in history, all on the same day, all owned by the same guy. Aint that a coincidence? --Striver 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, see, the problem is that all you people are ignorant. It's not that it isn't possible. It's just that you don't pay attention to fact, to what is said, and thus conclusions are jumped to. No one every said the steel melted. The steel heated up, but not to the point of melting - only to the point of bending. And when it bent, it bent too far, it broke, and the building collapsed. I am not an engineer by any means, and I have very little knowledge of building structures, but when you have a building that is 110 floors high, and then one 10 floors high, I would say the 10-floor high structure would probably be slightly...stronger. Sorry for being logically and destroying some conspiracies. Eightball 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have studied mulitple clips from the fall, all possible angles. I have never seen a single steel column bend. Please provide reference for a steel beam being bended in the first second of the fall. The only thing i see is a tremeandous jet of debris being pushed out with great force. And im talking about the first second of the fall. No beam bending nowhere - The bending beams are a myth.


Just FYI in this instance the plane actually hit the ground. It's a big plane, so it took out some of the bottom of the building as the picture shows. But the main impact was the actual ground. Jackk 17:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. But did not all the jet fuel go into the building anyway? --Striver 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you can see the steel bending because there are these four things called walls surrounding it. Besides, the WTC is built with much of the main support structure in the center, which is the part that collapsed. Also, when you have a building that has just so much sheer mass, you only really need one part to fail before it all comes crashing down. And a 767 is about 65% larger than a C-130. Eightball 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

I'm incredibly busy at the moment with non-wiki things (life, ya know), but happened to notice that someone's managed to f#ck up the footnotes. Can someone with a little time please clean up this mess? What's footnoted doesn't correspond with the numbered footnotes. And people haven't used them in order either. So, it's really uh... f#cked up.

PS. I'm tempted to change "floor" back to "storey", "plane" back to "aeroplane" and exercises back to "manoeuvres".... Why can't we dumbass Americans leave proper English spelling alone? In a few generations, with the current immigration patterns, we'll probably be speaking spanish, and focus on contaminating that language... so you brits can have your language back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackk (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 December 2005.

I think it's because Wikipedia is an American website. CNN doesn't use storey, aero, and manoeuvres, just as the BBC doesn't say story, airplane, or maneuvers, so why should Wikipedia have to adapt to a language that it is not based on? Eightball 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but that shows a shocking misunderstanding about the way we approach languages here at Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistancy

The plane, bound for Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf, was carrying 10 crew and 84 passengers [...] of whom sixty-eight were reportedly journalists en route to watch a series of military exercises off the country's southern coast.

followed by

Tehran mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that all 94 people on board, including 40 journalists', were killed upon impact.

I cannot correct this, as I do not know what is correct. --Smári McCarthy 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/r/a/Talk%7EIranian_Air_Force_C-130_crash_in_Tehran_c5dc.html"