[Archived] Mandela Effect

[Pedro]

Interesting thought. The scattering effect makes the sea appear blue, because it's the only colour light to get through the atmosphere. Surely once reflected off the sea, it would appear blue no matter how high off the Earth you were?

I also argue that if the footage was fake, how did they fake the Galileo experiment 'on Earth'? It would only work on the Moon, surely?

I'd have to go in to space to see but there is plenty of footage taken directly above the ocean where the water is just dark due to depth or transparent. In my opinion it all depends on the angle you view it at. My thoughts on it though are we are within the scattered light looking back towards the source, but once you are outside of it looking down, you wouldn't experience the light being scattered in a uniformed fashion.

As for the experiment. Watch it closely. Although this is awful quality footage (another hint that something could be amiss as it can cover a multitude of sins) you can see the 'feather' rotates. That should not be possible because air resistance makes an object rotate...but as per the experiment it is a vacuum!

I have no idea if it is genuine or not but you could easily get around it by having objects of the same mass dropped at the same time. It wouldn't be difficult to have a dense plastic feather or one weighted with a metal core dropped alongside a hollow hammer.

Impossible to prove either way unless you've been there, seen it and done it yourself. I love the topic and love the debate around it.

[BlueMonday]

Was wondering when someone would pick up on that.

Thats how you JUMP into space.

[yoda]

I thought you could see the ISS with decent binoculars

[Mike E]

I'd have to go in to space to see but there is plenty of footage taken directly above the ocean where the water is just dark due to depth or transparent. In my opinion it all depends on the angle you view it at. My thoughts on it though are we are within the scattered light looking back towards the source, but once you are outside of it looking down, you wouldn't experience the light being scattered in a uniformed fashion.

As for the experiment. Watch it closely. Although this is awful quality footage (another hint that something could be amiss as it can cover a multitude of sins) you can see the 'feather' rotates. That should not be possible because air resistance makes an object rotate...but as per the experiment it is a vacuum!

I have no idea if it is genuine or not but you could easily get around it by having objects of the same mass dropped at the same time. It wouldn't be difficult to have a dense plastic feather or one weighted with a metal core dropped alongside a hollow hammer.

Impossible to prove either way unless you've been there, seen it and done it yourself. I love the topic and love the debate around it.

Similarly to the flag any rotation would be caused by how it was dropped; by movement imparted on it by the astronaut.

The debate is very interesting, but I do believe it to be absolutely true. I don't believe thousands of people could be 'bought' into telling the exact same lie. Don't get me started on 9/11 theorists.

[Amo]

Don't get me started on 9/11 theorists.

What theories would these be, Mike?

[Mike E]

What theories would these be, Mike?

Theories that are utter BS

[yoda]

Theories that are utter BS

How would you go about proving that

[BlueMonday]

I don't know about you lot, but my Tin Foil Hat is starting to chafe.

[Mike E]

How would you go about proving that

Just point towards the news from all sides of the political spectrum from that day onwards. Or several excellent documentaries about the myths (usually talking crap with rubbish sources of info), or documentaries that debunk those myths.

Or better yet, the experience of a schoolfriend's father in NY on the day itself. I feel that conspiracy theories about that day tend to trivialise the deaths of thousands of people.

[Amo]

Theories that are utter BS

I'm not saying that I know who was behind any conspiracy, because the way I see it, the US Government is not one homogeneous organisation, and only a complete clown would believe that Dubya was calling the shots. But if you're asking me if I think there was more to that day than meets the eye? Then absobloodylutely.

One of the first red flags I had about 9/11 was actually this video. Not long after the Twin Towers collapsed, FOX interview a 'freelancer' on the street who is dressed like your average Joe Schmuck. He tells them "I watched the towers fall.... due to structural failure because the fire was too intense." First of all, no normal person talks like that. Second of all, there were fire crews who still didn't know for sure WTF was going on and thought they heard explosions going off, but here's this random guy primed and ready to sell the official story, whilst flanked by dudes in black who look like CIA handlers. Is this real life?

There's also the matter of WTC7 collapsing from an office fire. If you recall, this skyscraper wasn't struck by any plane, but they want us to believe that falling debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers set-off an office fire in one corner of the building that weakened its internal structure until it pancaked to the ground. Despite the fact that WTCs 5 & 6 which were closer to the damage and burned out for much longer than WTC7 but for the most part were still standing.

Finally, for all their multi-billion, sophisticated missile defence systems, how come they weren't able to intercept ANY of the hijacked airliners that day, even the one that was heading towards the goddamn Pentagon? It had been reported lost for over 40 minutes before it eventually crashed. And speaking of which, why haven't they released the full security footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? All we have to go on is one crappy, low-quality video that shows a blurry white object in one frame then an explosion. That's it. The rest of the security tapes were never released in the interests of "national security". Okay then.

[Mike E]

I'm not saying that I know who was behind any conspiracy, because the way I see it, the US Government is not one homogeneous organisation, and only a complete clown would believe that Dubya was calling the shots. But if you're asking me if I think there was more to that day than meets the eye? Then absobloodylutely.

One of the first red flags I had about 9/11 was actually this video. Not long after the Twin Towers collapsed, FOX interview a 'freelancer' on the street who is dressed like your average Joe Schmuck. He tells them "I watched the towers fall.... due to structural failure because the fire was too intense." First of all, no normal person talks like that. Second of all, there were fire crews who still didn't know for sure WTF was going on and thought they heard explosions going off, but here's this random guy primed and ready to sell the official story, whilst flanked by dudes in black who look like CIA handlers. Is this real life?

There's also the matter of WTC7 collapsing from an office fire. If you recall, this skyscraper wasn't struck by any plane, but they want us to believe that falling debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers set-off an office fire in one corner of the building that weakened its internal structure until it pancaked to the ground. Despite the fact that WTCs 5 & 6 which were closer to the damage and burned out for much longer than WTC7 but for the most part were still standing.

Finally, for all their multi-billion, sophisticated missile defence systems, how come they weren't able to intercept ANY of the hijacked airliners that day, even the one that was heading towards the goddamn Pentagon? It had been reported lost for over 40 minutes before it eventually crashed. And speaking of which, why haven't they released the full security footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? All we have to go on is one crappy, low-quality video that shows a blurry white object in one frame then an explosion. That's it. The rest of the security tapes were never released in the interests of "national security". Okay then.

Re: the journalist, they do tend to talk how they'd type tbh. Rather like solicitors when explaining law, or teachers being patronising I'd believe at least one talking like that.

The damage to the buildings, that's for a structural engineer to prove/disprove. I'm willing to believe it simply because I've seen thick logs snap under fire quicker than thinner ones (can you tell I've been bored on camping trips?)

The footage, I admit I've wondered about that myself. Surely the Pentagon is COVERED with cameras.

[T J Hooker]

its always seemed to me that american government(or whoever) knew exactly what was coming and just let 911 happen

[Pedro]

Similarly to the flag any rotation would be caused by how it was dropped; by movement imparted on it by the astronaut.

That's plausible although if that were the case I'd expect the rotation to be instant within a vacuum, not after apparent resistance works against it.

Have you ever seen the footage of the astronaut being hoisted up off the floor? To me, that is one of the most damning.

[BlueMonday]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there is definitely something suspect about the 'collapse' of the World Trade Towers. You can only describe them as controlled demolitions. There is footage that shows small explosions as it goes down. A structural expert said it would have stopped about half way down if it was collapsing under its own weight and wouldn't have fallen at almost free fall speed, the physics is all wrong. Hydro Carbon fire would not be hot enough to melt steel. If you accept this then you have to question the whole event.

[Pedro]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there is definitely something suspect about the 'collapse' of the World Trade Towers. You can only describe them as controlled demolitions. There is footage that shows small explosions as it goes down. A structural expert said it would have stopped about half way down if it was collapsing under its own weight and wouldn't have fallen at almost free fall speed, the physics is all wrong. Hydro Carbon fire would not be hot enough to melt steel. If you accept this then you have to question the whole event.

One thing that has never been established about 911 and the Twin Towers, is the exact whereabouts of Fred Dibnah on that day.

[Mike E]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there is definitely something suspect about the 'collapse' of the World Trade Towers. You can only describe them as controlled demolitions. There is footage that shows small explosions as it goes down. A structural expert said it would have stopped about half way down if it was collapsing under its own weight and wouldn't have fallen at almost free fall speed, the physics is all wrong. Hydro Carbon fire would not be hot enough to melt steel. If you accept this then you have to question the whole event.

It wouldn't melt steel, correct. But at 1,100 degrees, steel is only about 50% strong. What theorists argue is that the towers couldn't collapse because the steel isn't completely liquid.

It's like saying water isn't hot until it's completely boiled.

[BlueMonday]

One thing that has never been established about 911 and the Twin Towers, is the exact whereabouts of Fred Dibnah on that day.

I don't know if it was reported, but if there were loads of tractor tyres piled round the bases of the Towers, you have your smoking gun

It wouldn't melt steel, correct. But at 1,100 degrees, steel is only about 50% strong. What theorists argue is that the towers couldn't collapse because the steel isn't completely liquid.

It's like saying water isn't hot until it's completely boiled.

I hear what you say Mike. The steel would soften and distort at these temps, but structural engineers state that wouldn't cause the collapse we saw. Resistance would have stopped it as the steel lower down would be stronger. It collapsed almost at free fall with no resistance.

[yoda]

I don't know if it was reported, but if there were loads of tractor tyres piled round the bases of the Towers, you have your smoking gun

I hear what you say Mike. The steel would soften and distort at these temps, but structural engineers state that wouldn't cause the collapse we saw. Resistance would have stopped it as the steel lower down would be stronger. It collapsed almost at free fall with no resistance.

I thought the reason was the burning fuel from the aircraft made its way down the central service shafts and caused damage on the lower floors as well which aided the collapse, it is now viewed as a design flaw as know one expected jets being flown into towers

[Reedy You're A Star]

I thought they were designed specifically to withstand being hit by Boeing 707s?

[Pedro]

I thought they were designed specifically to withstand being hit by Boeing 707s?

Yes, that's true.

I personally don't believe that you can make two 400m towers free fall and seemingly turn into dust with just twenty odd thousand gallons of kerosene...one within an hour! When they fall they show no resistance and just crumble - seemingly turning into dust...and from the top down! I certainly don't believe WT7 would naturally get in on the act too.

[Amo]

Re: the journalist, they do tend to talk how they'd type tbh. Rather like solicitors when explaining law, or teachers being patronising I'd believe at least one talking like that.

You're missing the point. At this early stage for someone to come out and state authoritatively in such a scripted, rehearsed manner that it was "caused by structural failure because the fire was too intense" is sketchy as @#/?.

Why do they need people like this planted in the media if there's nothing to cover-up?

The damage to the buildings, that's for a structural engineer to prove/disprove. I'm willing to believe it simply because I've seen thick logs snap under fire quicker than thinner ones (can you tell I've been bored on camping trips?)

Judge for yourself, Mike:

No plane crashed into WTC7, so do you think THIS building was brought down by an office fire?

The footage, I admit I've wondered about that myself. Surely the Pentagon is COVERED with cameras.

Exactly. They could quash a lot of the controversy surrounding Flight 77 if they released those tapes. For what possible reason would the US government withhold and suppress this information?

[Baz]

I don't know if it was reported, but if there were loads of tractor tyres piled round the bases of the Towers, you have your smoking gun

I hear what you say Mike. The steel would soften and distort at these temps, but structural engineers state that wouldn't cause the collapse we saw. Resistance would have stopped it as the steel lower down would be stronger. It collapsed almost at free fall with no resistance.

But surely once the first few stories collapsed, the weight of the falling material would add increasingly as more and more of the building fell? There is a massive difference between holding a static weight, and slowing / stopping a moving weight.

The buildings where designed to survive the impact of 747's, which they did.

[Pedro]

The buildings where designed to survive the impact of 747's, which they did.

You are going to have to run this by me Baz 😃

[donnermeat]

I find it hard to believe that a nation like the US, the most powerful and technologically advanced, with huge budgets, that deals all sorts of shady goings on all over the world that people don't know about (C.I.A. etc) would or could leave major 'plot holes' (so to speak) such as the ones that people have said over the years. I just really struggle to swallow that. Unless someone just came up with the idea on the back of a fag packet.

There's enough grounds for reasonable doubt there, of course, just would an organisation that massive leave glaring mistakes? It's easy to paint a picture telling one side of the story, which goes for both sides of the argument.

[BlueMonday]

But surely once the first few stories collapsed, the weight of the falling material would add increasingly as more and more of the building fell? There is a massive difference between holding a static weight, and slowing / stopping a moving weight.

The buildings where designed to survive the impact of 747's, which they did.

Im repeating what Ive read from structural engineers, and it sounds the more plausible explanation. As it collapses yes the weight increases, but so does the resistance as the steel structure wasn't as damaged further down. It certainly wouldn't happen at free fall speed. And such a collapse doesn't explain why the concrete was turned into micro fine dust. The only thing that can explain this is high explosives.

Of course Im no expert and Im sure there are engineers that could counter argue this. Thats why conspiracy theories can go wild.