Pakistani man unwittingly tweets bin Laden raid in real time - Polidicks

[quote=The Telegraph]Osama bin Laden dead: Accidental reporter IT worker relays raid on Twitter The news of the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound was unwittingly broken by a University of Central Lancashire graduate living in the town, who described the attack on Twitter. By Victoria Ward 12:29AM BST 03 May 2011 Sohaib Athar, 33, a Pakistani computer programmer who completed a two-year MBA in marketing at the university in Preston in 1998, tweeted events as they unfolded hours before they were announced officially. Shortly before 1am (9pm GMT), Mr Athar wrote on the website that a helicopter was hovering overhead, a "rare event" in Abbottabad, 30 miles north east of Islamabad. He complained and joked that he would take a "giant swatter" to the helicopters. But moments later, he reported a large explosion: "A huge window-shaking bang. I hope its not the start of something nasty." In conversations with fellow Twitter users, he questioned what he was witnessing. An hour later he wrote: "The few people online at this time of the night are saying one of the copters was not Pakistani." He told online friends it was "too noisy to be a spy craft" before saying that one aircraft had apparently been shot down. At 3.25am GMT, the news was broken in America, again on Twitter. Keith Urbahn, former chief of staff to Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary, said he had been told by a "reputable person" that bin Laden was dead. He later said this source was a TV news producer. Seven hours after he began tweeting, Mr Athar noted that the crash site had been cordoned off and that door-to-door searches were being conducted. He later wrote: "Uh oh, now I'm the guy who liveblogged the Osama raid without knowing it."[/quote] [img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01885/tweet_osama_1885487c.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488794/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Accidental-reporter-IT-worker-relays-raid-on-Twitter.html]Source[/url]

Fox News tonight, Twitter is aiding terrorists in finding troop positions. More at 11.

[url]https://twitter.com/#!/ibi2010/status/64825777694318592[/url] I thought no one was injured in the assault and crash?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29587606][url]https://twitter.com/#!/ibi2010/status/64825777694318592[/url] I thought no one was injured in the assault and crash?[/QUOTE] You're probably right, that tweet is probably not entirely accurate.

[QUOTE=SBD;29587683]You're probably right, that tweet is probably not entirely accurate.[/QUOTE] Well helicopter crashes are hardly non-fatal most of the time

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;29587729]Well helicopter crashes are hardly non-fatal most of the time[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised, helicopters can sort of 'glide' if you turn the engine off. Modern helicopters are also designed to have car-like crumple zones and in-built shock absorption in the airframe and seats. Also most helo pilots wear crash helmets, unlike fixed-wing pilots.

[QUOTE=SBD;29587808]You'd be surprised, helicopters can sort of 'glide' if you turn the engine off. [/QUOTE] They can glide, however they have to disconnect the rotor transmission from the engine. If they do that, then there is no chance they can ever restore connection to the engine - it's a risk they have to take, and the indecisiveness can lead to a crash (probably a factor on missions where the helicopter is the only way out).

[quote]"Safer" is a relative term that has lost its meaning in Pakistan[/quote] Badass.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29587606][url]https://twitter.com/#!/ibi2010/status/64825777694318592[/url] I thought no one was injured in the assault and crash?[/QUOTE] Maybe nobody was injured in the Assualt, but they were in the crash, which was completely unrelated (it could have just as easily happened during a training mission, rescue, etc) and thus wasn't counted as a casualty of the operation?

No, there was no crash. The machinery in the helicopter malfunctioned and they had to blow it up so it wouldn't get in the wrong hands.

[QUOTE=Mr._N;29588688]No, there was no crash. The machinery in the helicopter malfunctioned and they had to blow it up so it wouldn't get in the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] Its a UH-1Y... lots of them have gotten into enemy hands. Its not like it runs on anything secret.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29589716]Its a UH-1Y... lots of them have gotten into enemy hands. Its not like it runs on anything secret.[/QUOTE] The one they used during the mission ran on applied phlebotinum that we couldn't risk falling into terrorist's hands. :colbert:

I think "mechanical failure", is the way to discretely tell that someone shot their airplane/helicopter down. I mean, mechanical failure can occur when helicopters get shot at. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zSy0s.jpg[/IMG] This sure looks like some kind of crash to me.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29587972]They can glide, however they have to disconnect the rotor transmission from the engine. If they do that, then there is no chance they can ever restore connection to the engine - it's a risk they have to take, and the indecisiveness can lead to a crash (probably a factor on missions where the helicopter is the only way out).[/QUOTE] No, you just need to stop power going to the rotor.

[QUOTE=SBD;29591748]No, you just need to stop power going to the rotor.[/QUOTE] And to do that, they disconnect the transmission. The gliding comes from the rushing air making the rotor turn. It can't turn on it's own if the connection to the engine remains. [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] It's the same reason that rolling in neutral in your car will last longer than rolling in first gear - engine braking. [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] That and they turn the pitch of the rotors.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29591829]And to do that, they disconnect the transmission. The gliding comes from the rushing air making the rotor turn. It can't turn on it's own if the connection to the engine remains. [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] It's the same reason that rolling in neutral in your car will last longer than rolling in first gear - engine braking. [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] That and they turn the pitch of the rotors.[/QUOTE] The technique is known as Autorotation. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_%28helicopter%29[/url] Still don't entirely understand it, but apparently part of training involves landing it like this. Holy tits. My dad went to helicopter school a few years back, never got his license though as the company/school went under. D: He might pick it up again later and finish off his hours once he's got the free time.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;29589884]I think "mechanical failure", is the way to discretely tell that someone shot their airplane/helicopter down. I mean, mechanical failure can occur when helicopters get shot at. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/zSy0s.jpg[/img_thumb] This sure looks like some kind of crash to me.[/QUOTE] I heard that a journalist asked a whitehouse spokesman about it and they basically said that no one had claimed it was a mechanical failure. I think this discussion was had here a while ago in a thread about that US jet that crashed in Libya, an aircraft being shot most certainly leads to some sort of mechanical failure. I get the feeling that that phrase is used sometimes to say "we got shot down" without actually admitting it.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29587972]they have to disconnect the rotor transmission from the engine. If they do that, then there is no chance they can ever restore connection to the engine.[/QUOTE] What? As far as I know most helicopters use a two-stage "free turbine" power system, where the main stage of the turboshaft engine isn't connected to the power stage and the flow of gases through the engine drives the power turbine(purple part [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turboshaft_operation.png[/url]) that is connected to the gearbox (that drives the rotors). With this kind of a setup there isn't any need to disconnect anything. Also my quick searches right now seem to indicate that somewhere along the line there's a one way clutch that allows to rotor to turn faster than it's being rotated by the power system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprag_clutch#Helicopters[/url]

[QUOTE=Jsm;29602184]I heard that a journalist asked a whitehouse spokesman about it and they basically said that no one had claimed it was a mechanical failure. I think this discussion was had here a while ago in a thread about that US jet that crashed in Libya, an aircraft being shot most certainly leads to some sort of mechanical failure. I get the feeling that that phrase is used sometimes to say "we got shot down" without actually admitting it.[/QUOTE] Military airplanes are built with tenfold more advanced backup-upon-backup systems than what the civilians get to use by default, but then again, I doubt that they had a RPG at the mansion. So I'm neutral in this case.

[QUOTE=BMCHa;29606607]Also my quick searches right now seem to indicate that somewhere along the line there's a one way clutch that allows to rotor to turn faster than it's being rotated by the power system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprag_clutch#Helicopters[/url][/QUOTE] Yep. What do you think the clutch is connected to? The transmission / free turbine (free turbine is the transmission in helicotpers). As far as I know, they cannot restore power if they choose to let rotor rotate against the clutch.

[QUOTE=SBD;29587808]You'd be surprised, helicopters can sort of 'glide' if you turn the engine off. Modern helicopters are also designed to have car-like crumple zones and in-built shock absorption in the airframe and seats. Also most helo pilots wear crash helmets, unlike fixed-wing pilots.[/QUOTE] Also known as Auto-rotation. The flow of air past the rotors cause them to rotate by themselves, still generating enough lift to soften the landing somewhat. r8 myself l8 m8

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;29587516]Fox News tonight, Twitter is aiding terrorists in finding troop positions. More at 11.[/QUOTE] lol, more like Huffington Post

[QUOTE=Jsm;29602184]I heard that a journalist asked a whitehouse spokesman about it and they basically said that no one had claimed it was a mechanical failure. [/QUOTE] because of how the walls and buildings of the compound affected the movement of air, the helicopter (which was never supposed to land in the first place) could not rise out of the compound, so they landed it and destroyed it with explosives as they withdrew. no crash [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tyrannosaur;29612175]lol, more like Huffington Post[/QUOTE] oh snap wow you sure turned that around wait huh

[QUOTE=Jsm;29602184]I think this discussion was had here a while ago in a thread about that US jet that crashed in Libya, an aircraft being shot most certainly leads to some sort of mechanical failure. I get the feeling that that phrase is used sometimes to say "we got shot down" without actually admitting it.[/QUOTE] Actually helicopters are really prone to mechanical failure. They crash fucking constantly, early in the Iraq/Afghanistan war it'd be every other week that you would read about a helicopter going down due to breaking or pilot error.

This is pretty late