Reply With QuotePeople used to think the earth was flat.
Are these people for real? I've seen these numb nuts pop up on Facebook a couple of times and just block them. They seem to quote pseudo science and bits of facts to try and support a conspiracy that the US government did this themselves. Some even say that planes weren't involved. Seriously?
I really don't know where to start. Many of us, including myself, watched this unfold live after the first plane hit. I worked in the travel industry so watched it keenly all day. There were definitely planes involved! And if there was a conspiracy, the sheer amount of people it would need coordinate and keep quite would mean at least one of them would come out and blow the whistle, if not from a moral standpoint then afterwards for a fat paycheck from the media. These lunatics need to seriously have a long hard look at their mental health and seek some help.
Rant over and apologies.
People used to think the earth was flat.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I was in manhattan on 911 and it was all too close and real for comfort. I was in the twin towers exactly 24 hours before the fell. It all seemed very real to me. I like a conspiracy theory but i struggle with these ones.
Originally Posted by seikopath
Look it up, there are lots that still do. Theyre called flat earthers. I thought it was a joke but they exist
I'll also add these conspiracy theorists will never not believe what they believe, they will find an angle somehow. There was a programme some time ago on BBC or channel 4 where a group of british people went to see the sites of the tragedies. When where the plane crashed in a field they met the mother of the man who called her to tell her he loved her and he wasn't going to make it. To her face, some of them insisted she was either in on it or the government cloned his voice and tricked her and he is now in hiding/living a new life elsewhere.
Last edited by SteveR; 3rd August 2017 at 22:57.
You should have a good look at U-toob, there are a hell of a lot of people who still do
I don't agree with them. Flat earth doesn't add up.You should have a good look at U-toob, there are a hell of a lot of people who still do
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Tower 7 fell of its own accord. Make of that what you will.
Building 7 wasn't even subject to any impact
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I can see this thread going on for a while
That would also apply to 34% of the Tz membership
who responded to this poll
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?402693-9-11
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
The problem is that none of it makes any sense. Take any one thing in isolation and you could explain it away, probably.
How, why, did WTC7 collapse? nothing struck it and there was only a minor fire on one side.
What happened to 1 million tons of steel and concrete? because there certainly didn't look like that amount of rubble, did it turn to dust?
Even NIST admitted that the 767's weren't capable of achieving over 500mph at the height they hit piloted by people who had a few lessons in light aircraft.
It goes on and on and this is why none of it adds up.
The biggest mystery for me is why nearly all conspiracies originate in America
I haven't cared enough to get involved with the different conspiracy theories. There are so many of them.
But how come the plane enters the steel metal wall like that... the plane go in like knife goes to warm butter. If you crash on something like that you would imagine that at least the plane wings (that are very light, fragile and made of kevlar) would break to thousands of pieces. But no... the plane goes directly through that steel frame wall.
That's the only thing I don't understand. I just think about the basic Newton physics' laws. When you see a plane crash you always see pieces flying everywhere.
(sorry English is not my mother language but maybe you got the point).
Explain this to me. Or maybe I'm missing something.
Last edited by JPE; 4th August 2017 at 00:00.
Tinhatters will tin hat
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I agree many are nuts...
But the plane that hit the Pentagon...and no video footage of it exists? It's the pentagon?
I find that very hard to believe.
If it weren't for the fact that the US government has done some awful things in the past to it's own citizens (deliberate infection with syphilis, sterilizations, uniformed non consensual radiation exposure, political destabilization) and abroad (it's a long list) i'd find the theories harder to believe.
Of course i believe the planes hit the WTC.
I believe much of it...but some of it...just smells wrong and has been leveraged to create a huge clamp down on many of the things governments like to clamp down on.
Then again...i'm very far away and not a structural engineer.
There's those on here that still do.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Ever seen an aircraft after a bird strike? It's incredible that something as small and light as a bird could smash through a cockpit canopy, wreck engines and bring down aircraft. Any object travelling at high speed carries a hell of a lot of energy which will go in, as you probably meant to put it, like a hot knife to butter. In the case of the knife, of course, the energy is thermal rather than kinetic, but the energy transfer is what destroys things...
If you took the pentagon one in isolation, it would be very, very hard to believe. But once people believe something, they cling to it like wine. It's like panerai releasing a really shit watch. If you love what panerai do, you won't see how shit it is, you just think it's a panerai
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Here are some psychological explanations as to why some people are susceptible to believing nonsense conspiracy theories...
'Scientific American':
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...acy-theorists/
'Time':
http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/
Last edited by CamCG; 4th August 2017 at 08:45.
People always tend to think of their view of reality as the best one. Sometimes they get really upset when this view is challenged. It's almost as if they can't cope.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
There's no doubt that it's bit of a psychological blind-spot for a lot of people - they really don't seem to be able to help themselves, even it involves adding increasingly preposterous counter-arguments to the rebuttals of their conspiracy. Once they've got their mind set, there's really no convincing them. (As has been said, the opposite of scientific method).
It's also the need to find greater meaning in the "why" - a simple explanation with the minimum of extraneous factors doesn't seem enough to explain really significant events or questions. (See also religion).
The reason why its such a big one is that if you accept that 911 was an inside job and not orchestrated by some geezer hiding in a cave in the mountains thousands of miles away, then you have to change your whole view of history of the past 17 years since that world changing event, the whole 'war on terror' etc. Of course, it's difficult to accept, the closer your emotional involvement, the less easy to accept it is. Things are easier to accept with the passage of time. For example, there are loads more Americans who now belive that JFKs assassination was an inside job. At the time, that was only believed by a small group of crackpots who were also vilified and ridiculed by society and debunked by the mainstream press.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I can't be bothered to look into the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know something about explosives and their practical use. Taking down a skyscraper is a job of such magnitude that it just can't be done without people noticing it. There just aren't James Bond type explosives where you take a briefcase of potent stuff and blow up an industrial complex. A truckload of cardboard boxes full of bland looking stuff and a dozen porters hauling them for a full day just doesn't look good on film, I suppose. Not to mention the several hours needed just for wiring the detonators. Humbug.
Possum. I have learnt that just because I don't think something is possible, it doesn't mean that it is impossible.
People don't make new discoveries by staying within the paradigm of what is possible
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I find the various conspiracy theories, and especially the fact that large numbers of people believe them, quite fascinating. The one that dismays me the most is the Fake Moon Landings theory. Recently, as some have pointed out, a new Flat Earth movement has started to gain traction. The Paul Is Dead theory though takes some beating - the idea that a man hurriedly assimilated into The Beatles because of his voice and looks, albeit assisted by plastic surgery, to replace a dead McCartney, then went on to be one of the most successful songwriters and performers on the planet. That one's a belter.
The Internet and social media spread stupid and paranoid ideas like a disease, and I'm afraid that's a phenomenon that has started to corrode our politics as well.
I don't doubt you're right.
But that being the case...why on earth did the skyscraper that wasn't hit fall down?
It does rather beggar belief.
And the Pentagon...no video AT ALL of a monster jet flying into one of the most secure buildings in the world?
There's this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zac9vt3a4Ug
Doesn't really reinforce either side's position, but there it is
The only video that does exist of the impact doesn't even show an aircraft. This is attributed to the tape being of poor quality.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Sure, o' great Nose. Nothing is impossible, but being able to secretly demolish a skycraper using high-ex is so improbable IMO that I don't believe it can be done. If that means there is a flaw in my thinking process, then so be it. Let's face it, I'm not one to invent the zipper anyway.
Do you think it is possible that there were explosive technologies available at the time to do the job of which you are still not aware?
Let's just suppose for one minute for the sake of argument IF it was an inside job, then do you not think if such technologies were available at the time, then the perpetrators would not have been some of the very few people on the planet to have had knowledge of such technologies and access to them?
Last edited by seikopath; 4th August 2017 at 09:49.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Weren't they both hit? I'm confused!!!
In addition to this I find all he Madeline McCann conspiracy theories really distasteful
Both WTC towers were hit, but other tall buildings in the vicinity came down.
First of all, what I am not! I am not conspiracy theorist. Although, official theory that WTC towers were demolished as a result of plane hitting them is by definition conspiracy theory. It states that 19 hijackers conspired, kidnaped the planes and steered them into buildings with the intent to demolish the buildings. What I am? I am aircraft structural engineer and aeronautical engineer with more than 25 years of experience in the field. I worked with military and civilian aircraft alike. So, supposedly I would like to think that I have my toolbox properly set to asses man made structural things around me, especialy if involving flying objects.
What happened on 9/11 is not a matter of opinion, although it is presented as such, it is a matter of scientific possibility. Important thing is to asses scientific soundness of all hyphothesys presented. Because, believe you me or not, none of the explanations up to the present day were not explanations as such but rather hyphothesys not yet proven. Is there a try of scientific explanation of events? Yes, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) tried to do that and miserably failed. If you don't believe me read the report, it is accessible over internet on their pages. Carefuly read at the beggining of the report what are they concentrated within report to. To discuss this matters this part is important because, as I stated, although emotions are involved in the matter it is just exercise in our understanding of the world around us. By doing this also you are showing that you want to discuss matters seriously, not based on the emotions and opinions only (remember dirty Harry famous line about opinions here). The real answer what happened also is important because of the fact that it can form some new extension of paradigma important for civil engineers around the world. Because, just to remind you, no building made of structural steel has colapsed due to the fire ever... in known human history! So, events on 9/11 are exception to all civil engineering scientific facts known to the present day.
Some facts:
1. Speed of aircraft at the moment of impact, as established by NIST report, is impossible at sea level - for the aircraft that suposedly hit the buildings. For them it was important as stated in the report because of the energy input in buildings that would support the theory they established. Why it is impossible? Every aircraft within pilot's manual has, so called, velocity vs. height diagram. This diagram shows the maximum velocity reacheable at different heights of flight to keep structural integrity of aircraft intact and jet engine(s) operation kept within limits of normal operation. Lower the flight, due to the air density, lower the maximum permissible speed of flight. That is why almost all commercial flights are operated at higher altitudes. This enables higher speed of flight than at the sea level and less fuel consumptions for the engines. At the moment of impact both aircraft had speed outside of the diagram.
2. Aircraft that hit Pentagon building before hiting it and according to radar data performed combat manouver known as combat turn (change of flight direction by 180 degrees with rapid altitude loss). Although tried in simulator by experienced pilots, could not be duplicated in full. Either radius of turn, either loss of height, either time to perform was not duplicable.
3. Aircraft that hit Pentagon building for more than a mile before hiting flew at the height above the ground that is impossible for the aircraft of that size (according to theory lower parts of engine's naceles were less than 2 meters above ground). Cannot and never will be possible to duplicate this in simulator or in real life. This is because of so called air cushion effect that is dependable on the size of the aircraft. Smaller aircraft can fly nap of the earth lower than bigger aircraft. It is aerodynamics, known for hundred years, and cannot and will not be changed by "opinions".
4. WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand aircraft impact and stay structuraly intact. This was one of the requests during the design phase because after WW II B-24 Liberator aircraft hit the Empire state building flying in fog and designers of the WTC buildings were asked to forsee this possibility. During the 70-ies biggest aircraft was Boeing 707 so they used this aircraft to model the structural response to impact. Boeing 707 is quite similar in dimensions to aircraft that hit the buildings except the amount of fuel it carries.
5. Now, a little bit about kerosene initiated fires after impact. Aircraft structural engineers know about this because fire hazard is quite important topic to be dealt with in aircraft community. Facts are: most of the kerosene within aircraft after impact was burned immediately (obvious as fire ball outside of the buildings at the exit points of aircraft noses, btw also very interesting how the noses exited the buildings structuraly intact), kerosene spilled within building joined in fire with office furnishing and parts of the building, fire was oxygen starving that means low temperature (How we know this? Thick black smoke as a result of burning is clear sign of oxygen lacking in burning process), as a result temperature of fire could be established in and around mark of 400 degrees Celsius.
6. When structural steel reaches temperature of approx. 600 degrees Celsius it looses 50% of it's carrying capacity. AHA, someone will say... but! It means uniformely 600 degrees, across it's cross section, not only on outside surface. Remind you, in the core there were 49 steel beams with dimensions 50x25 centimeters each and thickness of walls from 5 centimeters (at the bottom of building) to 2 centimeters (at the building top). Difference of wall thickness was because of carrying capacity (change of inertia momentum with height), lower parts of the building have to be stronger than upper parts. Also, all structural elements of the core were designed with safety factor of minimum two. This means that it could carry twice the load at any given moment, or you can remove half of the beams at any given moment and building would still stand. Simply put, fire was not hot enough and it was burning not long enough to melt the structural steel or even to change it's properties. This are facts, scientific!
...
I could go one, but I will stop for now and continue if I see that there is a need... :)
I realy don't care how someone will call me and I don't care what other people believe or "believe". Also, I don't want to deny hurt and suffering some people felt because of the events in question. But, I think that truth can help in this situation more than non-critically adopted believe system.
My 2c :)
Last edited by gollUM; 6th August 2017 at 23:40.
You may think of a bird as a bundle of feathers but it is still made of bone, muscles etc. Ever been hit by a bee when on a motorbike?
I've seen plenty of bird-strike damage on fast jets and in general they deflect off curved surfaces and the wall of air being pushed in front of the plane.The whole purpose of a jet engine is to suck and blow so you see the problem. It's unlucky when a bird (or any object) gets sucked into jet engines and a single engine jet is worse off obviously.
However in the case of WTC an alleged aluminum (mostly) plane hits a solid steel and concrete building, purposely built to withstand aircraft strikes and cuts through into it like a knife into butter. No debris? And this happens twice in exactly the same way? Aviation fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F) although it is posited that the steel in WTC did not need to melt but just be weakened and bring down a 500,000 ton building, twice.
This and many other bizarre facts(?) is why the conspiracy goes on and on.
I think that comparing religions and their followers to the conspiracy theories and theorists mentioned in the two articles I provided links to is an erroneous analogy to make (and I don't believe either of the two articles makes such a comparison).
Superficially, conspiracy theories attempt some explanation of the world around us, but the differences with religion are vast.
Taking Christianity as an example, skepticism and uncovering the truth are core tenants of the religion, alongside faith itself.
Furthermore, requirements for one to believe and spread consiracy theories (eg feeding fear and preying on ignorance and gullibility, as well as a heavy emphasis on worldly matters) are evidently un-Christian.
Still, this doesn't seem like an appropriate time or place for such a complex and delicate topic, so I won't go into it any further.
The guardian article alludes to photos taken of plane wreckage, bodies on the ground etc after the incident at the pentagon.
What are they?
If you Google 'pentagon crash photos', all you get are links to various media outlets displaying the same set of 25 photos released by the FBI.
Personally, I find these photos really unconvincing. They look like they are straight off a Hollywood film set.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Some people would say that 'feeding fear and preying on ignorance and gullibility' is exactly the preserve of mainstream organised religions, the Catholic church being a prime example.
For me the 911 debate is interesting, precisely because it challenges the nature of our belief systems.
Rationalists often cite science as the antidote to religious belief. What they don't realise is that science is nothing other than another set of beliefs which are also built upon assumptions of what criteria are valid and what are not valid when it comes to understanding reality and accurately interpreting events in our environment and our role within it.
Last edited by seikopath; 4th August 2017 at 10:50.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I don't want to trawl through the evidence enough to be able to form an opinion to your first question.
I believe there must be a lot of footage of the Pentagon incident, but that would be classified no matter what. You never know what kind of harmful information the enemy might glean from it.
Possible, sure. Still I don't think so. To my understanding, to make the jamesbondian explosives, they'd need to be a lot faster than current explosives and they'd need to be able to produce a lot more heat. I don't know enough about the heat aspect to go into that, but I believe that the practical limit of explosive speed is the current about 10000 m/s. It is possible to make faster stuff, but it becomes too unstable to handle.
After all the ifs, yes.
Last edited by Possu; 4th August 2017 at 11:47. Reason: missing but
It's genuinely dismaying how some people get irrationally obsessed with this idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, which is all so easily debunked as to be laughable, yet don't seem to be bothered about the obvious and actual conspiracy leading up to the wholesale invasion of the Middle East which is certainly one of the biggest crimes that's ever been committed.
There is only one way to deal with conspiracy lunatics:
Explosives haven't really changed much since WW2 in terms of power, a few percent here, for the kind of shift you're talking about it would require a massive increase in power to have an explosive powerful enough to take down a huge skyscraper, yet small enough to not require a lot of work in setting up, i.e. drilling into structures, using many massive pallets of explosives placed in exact areas and so on without anyone noticing.
The difference is that science is a constantly evolving set of "beliefs" that accept/reject assumptions as they are proved/disproved. Good example is Einstein et al overturning Newton. (Although this also shows that science can be "wrong"!). Science is howvever open minded, and even asks for its assumptions to be disproved. Religion is largely a set set of beliefs that asks to be accepted, even when the facts appear to disprove its assumptions. I'm all for a wider view of reality, but conventional religion doesn't provide it.
Amen to that, brother. Seeing a man in his seventies ring the bell of the bloated ignorant loudmouth who's harassing him is outstanding.
Just to be precise, if I may. :)
Newton was not "overturned" by Einstein, much more complemented... like Einstein stepped on his shoulders. :)
Newtonian dynamics and Newton laws are still valid and used today... for the speeds not close to the speed of light.
For example, all calculations for space travels are performed using Newtonian dynamics, Einstein is too complicated for that and error margin for the speeds involved is acceptable with Newton. Einstein was just covering broader field more precisely! :)
I think like most things this isn't black and white. Sure, there are people at each end of the spectrum who respectively believe it is all a complete set up and those who believe the aircraft theory as presented must be correct, that no conspiracy happened and that anyone who thinks there might be must be barking mad loons.
For me, I'm somewhere in between the two extremes. There do seem to be enough strange aspects to all this to make it worth thinking about.
@catch21
You can not wiggle out of it! :)
Dog either hunts or not! No middle ground...
It's a very difficult line of enquiry. You really need to have an open mind. It is always apparent in threads like this how hard that is to have.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
To be fair, my knowledge of physics isn't really up to making that sort of distinction - overturned is too strong a word (or in scientific terms, "wrong") . What it is, I believe, is an example of science thinking it fully understood something i.e. the motion of objects, finding anomalies/exceptions, then doubting/rethinking what were accepted to be fairly fundamental "truths".
Ofcourse, but as Mark Twain would say: "When you find yourself thinking as all around you, it is time to pause and rethink!" :)
Posting Permissions
