[Archived] Mandela Effect

[Baz]

You are going to have to run this by me Baz

The buildings survived the impact, which is what they where designed to do.

They fell due to the fire.

[Baz]

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.

The resistance doesn't increase as the building falls. The falling mass of the building would increase the more of the building is dropping (basic physics) so once the building starts to fall, there is less and less chance of it being stopped.

As for the concrete being turned into microfine dust, Im pretty sure that was only a %, the falling debris took down a couple of nearby buildings too. As for high explosives being the only explanation of this, wheres your evidence? Imagine the weight of the building falling on top of itself, that would pulverise all bar the last few stories alone.

I think you are selectively looking for evidence that doesn't exist.

[Pedro]

The buildings survived the impact, which is what they where designed to do.

They fell due to the fire.

Sorry Baz, I can't agree with that. Let's pretend the official account is true, they fell due to being hit by planes - unless they were expecting water powered ones.

[Baz]

Sorry Baz, I can't agree with that. Let's pretend the official account is true, they fell due to being hit by planes - unless they were expecting water powered ones.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/wtc.architect.cnna/

Interesting article from CNN the day after the attack from one of the architects.

I understand your point that they fell because of the planes, but they survived the actual impact, and only fell due to the fire/fuel. My point really is that if they had failed because of the impact, then many many thousands more would have died. Splitting hairs?

[Amo]

Just remember, Larry Silverstein had taken out a very lucrative insurance policy on WTC7 less than a year before it collapsed, that included an act of terrorism. That building also housed confidential information from several intelligence agencies.

[BlueMonday]

The resistance doesn't increase as the building falls. The falling mass of the building would increase the more of the building is dropping (basic physics) so once the building starts to fall, there is less and less chance of it being stopped.

As for the concrete being turned into microfine dust, Im pretty sure that was only a %, the falling debris took down a couple of nearby buildings too. As for high explosives being the only explanation of this, wheres your evidence? Imagine the weight of the building falling on top of itself, that would pulverise all bar the last few stories alone.

I think you are selectively looking for evidence that doesn't exist.

It's just an opinion I have formed from what I've read and seen on TV.

Basic physics means there would be resistance. the building is already holding its own weight, and at each floor there would be small amount of resistance until it failed, hundredths of seconds only maybe, but that would happen at each floor. It would not fall at FREE FALL Speed which is what is seen.

[Paul]

I know nothing of the detail on the conspiracy theories so I'd like to ask someone who believes or gives credence to the stories one question. Why??

If there are credible explanations for 9/11 not being a terrorist attack presumably someone will also have created some sort of theory as to why these events took place?

I doubt it was an insurance scam.

[Mike E]

I know nothing of the detail on the conspiracy theories so I'd like to ask someone who believes or gives credence to the stories one question. Why??

If there are credible explanations for 9/11 not being a terrorist attack presumably someone will also have created some sort of theory as to why these events took place?

I doubt it was an insurance scam.

While I don't believe it was a conspiracy, it was definitely used as an excuse to invade Iraq for oil.

Wonder why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia or Lebanon (y'know, the nationalities of the people involved)?

[Amo]

I know nothing of the detail on the conspiracy theories so I'd like to ask someone who believes or gives credence to the stories one question. Why??

If there are credible explanations for 9/11 not being a terrorist attack presumably someone will also have created some sort of theory as to why these events took place?

I doubt it was an insurance scam.

Let's see, there's the pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq, as well as increasing military spending and restricting civil liberties.

[Paul]

I find it hard to believe a democratic government would be prepared to launch a potentially uncontrollable attack on itself to justify an arms race and military invasion. 3,000 dead which could easily have been many, many more - who could be certain of the effects of the impacts?

I feel something a touch more concrete is needed.

[Mike E]

I find it hard to believe a democratic government would be prepared to launch a potentially uncontrollable attack on itself to justify an arms race and military invasion. 3,000 dead which could easily have been many, many more - who could be certain of the effects of the impacts?

I feel something a touch more concrete is needed.

I generally agree, but to play devil's advocate: This is a nation that sees no problem with shooting each other. Not beyond the realms of possibility that power-mad Yanks felt ok using huge winged bullets full of kerosene...

[Amo]

I find it hard to believe a democratic government would be prepared to launch a potentially uncontrollable attack on itself to justify an arms race and military invasion. 3,000 dead which could easily have been many, many more - who could be certain of the effects of the impacts?

Never heard of Operation Northwoods?

It was a proposal from the Pentagon to stage false flag ops on civilians & military as a pretext for war with Cuba. The Kennedy Administration vetoed the proposal (and JFK was assassinated a year later) but it shows what lengths the US military are willing to go in order to further their agenda.

[Paul]

No I hadn't heard of Operation Northwood. I've only read the Wikipedia content so can't claim any expertise but it does seem to confirm a view the American military are very aggressive group of people who can't wait to justify their existence.

Certainly attitudes displayed by some American politicians or would be politicians are very scary. I'm sure large sections of the American population have little problem with the shoot first, ask questions later approach regardless of the scale on which it is acted out.

I'm not convinced 9/11 was a similar effort. One of the main reasons for this is conspiracy theorists are extremely good at dissecting the minutiae of events to provide evidence. Taking the moon landings as an example the shadows on the moon being incorrect, movement of feathers etc. but from what I know seem unable to provide the level of detail as to why.

The "why" always seems to be very general whereas the evidence is provided in minute detail.

[Pedro]

No I hadn't heard of Operation Northwood. I've only read the Wikipedia content so can't claim any expertise but it does seem to confirm a view the American military are very aggressive group of people who can't wait to justify their existence.

Certainly attitudes displayed by some American politicians or would be politicians are very scary. I'm sure large sections of the American population have little problem with the shoot first, ask questions later approach regardless of the scale on which it is acted out.

I'm not convinced 9/11 was a similar effort. One of the main reasons for this is conspiracy theorists are extremely good at dissecting the minutiae of events to provide evidence. Taking the moon landings as an example the shadows on the moon being incorrect, movement of feathers etc. but from what I know seem unable to provide the level of detail as to why.

The "why" always seems to be very general whereas the evidence is provided in minute detail.

Some of the whys I ask myself surrounding things are the following:

Moon Landing:

Why for something so momentous, is the footage so bad?

Why is the footage a copy of a copy then filmed off a screen?

Why are there no true images of Earth in its entirety?

Of all of the images available, why do they not correlate in terms of size, land mass and colour?

Why did NASA loose the original moon landing footage, along with the blueprints to replicate Saturn V rockets?

Who panned that camera up when the men left the moon?

Why does the footage just look slowed down?

Who obviously pulled that astronaut up when he fell over?

Why do the rockets always veer off towards the sea after a minute or so then the camera cuts to an internal view of the cockpit?

How was that chap just writing away merrily in last week's 'rocket launch' next to a thumbs up guy with a swingy thing (for effect) next to him when NASA state that they are travelling at 3000 miles per hour?

Why did NASA (Neil Armstrong specifically) give the Dutch Royal family Moon rock...that was actually petrified wood?

Smoke, mirrors and showmanship if you ask me.

[Paul]

But these are the wrong "whys," the point is why bother?

I've read 400,000 people worked on or were engaged in working connected to the Apollo project over 10 years. Yet in the following 46 years not one whistle blower has stepped forward - or do the potential ones get taken out before they can speak?

[Stuart]

Some of the whys I ask myself surrounding things are the following:

Moon Landing:

Why for something so momentous, is the footage so bad?

Why is the footage a copy of a copy then filmed off a screen?

Why are there no true images of Earth in its entirety?

Of all of the images available, why do they not correlate in terms of size, land mass and colour?

Why did NASA loose the original moon landing footage, along with the blueprints to replicate Saturn V rockets?

Who panned that camera up when the men left the moon?

Why does the footage just look slowed down?

Who obviously pulled that astronaut up when he fell over?

Why do the rockets always veer off towards the sea after a minute or so then the camera cuts to an internal view of the cockpit?

How was that chap just writing away merrily in last week's 'rocket launch' next to a thumbs up guy with a swingy thing (for effect) next to him when NASA state that they are travelling at 3000 miles per hour?

Why did NASA (Neil Armstrong specifically) give the Dutch Royal family Moon rock...that was actually petrified wood?

Smoke, mirrors and showmanship if you ask me.

I can 'understand' scepticism in the moon landings, simply because they were so long ago and there is little information about any return journeys - presumably with no rich materials up there it simply isn't worth the effort. But you think last week's launch was also fake? And presumably by extension the International Space station is also fake? Do you believe that aeroplanes can take off?

The problem I have with conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people who would have to be "in on it" though.

[ABBEY]

Not one for agreeing with you Paul but when in discussion with toppers on stuff like this you will do well to remember he denies the holecaust actually happened.

[Mike E]

The one thing I'll always pull it back to is that Russia congratulated the US on winning that particular Space Race rather than denying it happened.

If there is ANYONE to dent it for good reason, it would be the Russians.

[Amo]

Not one for agreeing with you Paul but when in discussion with toppers on stuff like this you will do well to remember he denies the holecaust actually happened.

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion? Or are you just here to stir the proverbial?

[Pedro]

I can 'understand' scepticism in the moon landings, simply because they were so long ago and there is little information about any return journeys - presumably with no rich materials up there it simply isn't worth the effort. But you think last week's launch was also fake? And presumably by extension the International Space station is also fake? Do you believe that aeroplanes can take off?

The problem I have with conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people who would have to be "in on it" though.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I haven't said anything is for a fact, fake Stuart -I have just posed questions.

I think at the start of it I mentioned man may have gone to the moon, but that footage (in my opinion) simply isn't from there. The fact that the original stuff is lost and cannot be analysed (at NASA'S admission), photos have been doctored - as many an expert has verified and there is plenty of questionable footage, then why shouldn't people doubt it?

I am a skeptic and the thing that really opened my eyes to being more sceptical was when I realised that the ISS is only 200 miles up. I presumed that it was thousands of miles up so accepted the imagery but straight away after realising it is so low, I realised that all of those images of distance and curvature etc that I have been shown cannot possibly be from such a low altitude - it is absolutely impossible. I then scrutinise what I am being told I am watching - and so often the picture doesn't always match the narration. I have no idea what is true/false etc. I have no idea why we are provided with so many untruths etc. (Across the board) There's probably a valid reason, or a subverting one.

[Stuart]

Forgive me if I am wrong but I haven't said anything is for a fact, fake Stuart -I have just posed questions.

I think at the start of it I mentioned man may have gone to the moon, but that footage (in my opinion) simply isn't from there. The fact that the original stuff is lost and cannot be analysed (at NASA'S admission), photos have been doctored - as many an expert has verified and there is plenty of questionable footage, then why shouldn't people doubt it?

I am a skeptic and the thing that really opened my eyes to being more sceptical was when I realised that the ISS is only 200 miles up. I presumed that it was thousands of miles up so accepted the imagery but straight away after realising it is so low, I realised that all of those images of distance and curvature etc that I have been shown cannot possibly be from such a low altitude - it is absolutely impossible. I then scrutinise what I am being told I am watching - and so often the picture doesn't always match the narration. I have no idea what is true/false etc. I have no idea why we are provided with so many untruths etc. (Across the board) There's probably a valid reason, or a subverting one.

There are actually a lot of reasons to be sceptical about the moon landings, not least the danger/chance of success vs political pressure at the time but I'm always tempered by the lengths that the conspiracies go to in Oder to try to discredit things. Creating hoax 'truths' even. It's funny though, when it suits people, e.g. UFOs or 9/11 conspiracies then "the military have access to technology 50 years ahead of what if commercially available" yet when they want to discredit advanced like the moon landings they throw all of the scientific reasoning why it wasn't possible.

I think there is a lot of money to be made from conspiracy theory syndication. David Icke has made a (second) career out of it. They also seem to push their opinions down everyone's throats to the point that anyone who believes is 'naive' or 'stupid'.

[Pedro]

There are actually a lot of reasons to be sceptical about the moon landings, not least the danger/chance of success vs political pressure at the time but I'm always tempered by the lengths that the conspiracies go to in Oder to try to discredit things. Creating hoax 'truths' even. It's funny though, when it suits people, e.g. UFOs or 9/11 conspiracies then "the military have access to technology 50 years ahead of what if commercially available" yet when they want to discredit advanced like the moon landings they throw all of the scientific reasoning why it wasn't possible.

I think there is a lot of money to be made from conspiracy theory syndication. David Icke has made a (second) career out of it. They also seem to push their opinions down everyone's throats to the point that anyone who believes is 'naive' or 'stupid'.

I totally agree. The same people that claim one thing as possible, will contradict themselves by stating something else is impossible. The topics discussed interest me greatly but if you buy into anything, you have to trust the source - I rarely do. I think I said early on that we will never know the absolute truth, to be honest, if we did we'd still moan.