The Satisfying Anger Thread

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

My main concern about that "The Flat Truth" video I posted in the OP is... have you ever eyeballed the horizon on a trans-oceanic flight? Is it just me, or could I see the Earth curve last time I did that?

You could probably *just* see it if your plane was flying particularly high. I've never quite managed it, but based on my KSP-RSS experiences, at the altitudes that commercial aircraft fly the curvature should be slightly visible. I've never really been able to see it, but one day...

[Motokid600]

You'd also need an abnormally clear horizon to observe the curvature from a passenger jet.

[razark]

3 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

My main concern about that "The Flat Truth" video I posted in the OP is... have you ever eyeballed the horizon on a trans-oceanic flight? Is it just me, or could I see the Earth curve last time I did that?

This is an obvious one.  The point closest to you appears the highest.  As you look at other points further away, the light has to travel through more air to reach you.  This atmospheric lensing effect causes the horizon to appear curved, even though the earth is actually a flat disc.

[Guest]

I should probably stay out of this thread, seeing how my avatar is a clue of my fascination with conspiracy, but, anyway, here I go. Back to the twin tower molten steel thing. Is it true or not true that molten steel was observed not only falling from the towers before they fell, but was also found in pools in the rubble afterwards? Just curious.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Otis

[Matuchkin]

1 hour ago, Motokid600 said:

You'd also need an abnormally clear horizon to observe the curvature from a passenger jet.

When I fly Toronto-Cuba every winter, I pass through the Caribbean Gulf. With flat ocean all around you, you can see the curvature.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Matuchkin

[Matuchkin]

52 minutes ago, Otis said:

I should probably stay out of this thread, seeing how my avatar is a clue of my fascination with conspiracy, but, anyway, here I go. Back to the twin tower molten steel thing. Is it true or not true that molten steel was observed not only falling from the towers before they fell, but was also found in pools in the rubble afterwards? Just curious.

1. Fascination with conspiracy is encouraged, and is awesome. It is the over-obsession (and later belief) with conspiracy that gets people. So don't be shy here. 

2. I think that, after a 767 rams into a tower and explodes in a kerosene fireball, there is going to be a lot of weak/soft steel involved. Not molten as in "liquid", but weakened, like cork or sludge (in the worst cases).

Quite slow gif of the fireball, frame-by-frame.

Speaking of stupid conspiracies, this gif was called "wtc+UFO_animation"

1 hour ago, razark said:

This is an obvious one.  The point closest to you appears the highest.  As you look at other points further away, the light has to travel through more air to reach you.  This atmospheric lensing effect causes the horizon to appear curved, even though the earth is actually a flat disc.

A few nanoseconds of travel time to your eyes? I don't think so. There isn't even any significant gravity in play here (you know what I mean by significant).

Edited January 27, 2016 by Matuchkin

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

A few nanoseconds of travel time to your eyes? I don't think so. There isn't even any significant gravity in play here (you know what I mean by significant).

We're not talking about gravitational lensing (which is next to nothing on Earth), we're talking about atmospheric lensing which is much more significant and definitely noticeable. The atmosphere curves light which can lead to strange side effects such as being able to see the Sun for a little while after it's actually under the horizon because the light curves around the atmosphere. It's the same reason that things look funny when underwater viewed from the air. I don't think this would affect your view of the curvature very much, and even if it does it would probably have the opposite effect, actually making the horizon seem more distant and the curvature less because you can see further, as if you were on a slightly larger planet.

Edited January 27, 2016 by cubinator

[lajoswinkler]

7 hours ago, Otis said:

I should probably stay out of this thread, seeing how my avatar is a clue of my fascination with conspiracy, but, anyway, here I go. Back to the twin tower molten steel thing. Is it true or not true that molten steel was observed not only falling from the towers before they fell, but was also found in pools in the rubble afterwards? Just curious.

Sparks were seen. Sparks doesn't automatically mean "molten steel". Saying otherwise is a fallacy.

The best explanation, considering the fact they fell from a spot where most of the plane rubble was compressed and the fire had most air supply (burning brightly and furiously), was that it was a mixture of molten aluminium and partially burned stuff, carbonized organics (office stuff) composing slag/dross. Molten aluminium gave it mobility and other stuff gave it glow when it was falling through air.

It's basically what had to happen because: a) happens in any building fire when there's aluminium present, b) there was a large supply of aluminium from the plane and building cladding.

Interesting to note is that it occured right after floor sagging was observed, minutes before the outer wall caved in. Obviously, there was a local pool of this mobile material which partially poured out.

Also one significant fact - one of the floors involved was a mechanical one, meaning it had plenty of lead battery banks for emergency energy supply. Lead probably contributed to mobility.

 

6 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

1. Fascination with conspiracy is encouraged, and is awesome. It is the over-obsession (and later belief) with conspiracy that gets people. So don't be shy here. 

2. I think that, after a 767 rams into a tower and explodes in a kerosene fireball, there is going to be a lot of weak/soft steel involved. Not molten as in "liquid", but weakened, like cork or sludge (in the worst cases).

Quite slow gif of the fireball, frame-by-frame.

Speaking of stupid conspiracies, this gif was called "wtc+UFO_animation"

A few nanoseconds of travel time to your eyes? I don't think so. There isn't even any significant gravity in play here (you know what I mean by significant).

That fireball contributed to zero significant heating. It was a visual spectacle that broke lots of windows and ignited office stuff. Kerosene spread around, ignited, burned for few minutes, and was spent. Basically did nothing for structural weakening (plane's kinetic energy did it), but the combustibles it ignited did. It was a classical office fire, but suddenly over multiple floors, something that no office building was ever designed for, especially when weakened by stress way more powerful than designed for.

The fact the buildings stood for so long is a proof of superb engineering.

[Crystal_Mace]

I'm not sure this constitutes anything resembling proof, and my reasoning may in fact not be more valid than the "It was faked!" crowd's lack of same...but this is why I've always believed we did in fact go to the Moon:

We spent a good deal on getting as far as Earth orbit on the Mercury, Gemini, and earlier Apollo flights, not to mention everything else we put up along the way.  Having spent that much to begin with, would faking the actual landing have cost enough less to justify it?  Making movies with convincing special effects (without the benefit of CGI back then) while not as expensive presumably as a Moon landing, was still not cheap on top of everything else.  I once heard the counter argument that including putting up all the Saturn V launches, the cost of the cover up with so many people having to be involved, the fact that we'd have to fool the Soviets (and their spy network) with it as well, might as well ACTUALLY go to the Moon.  I mean, why not? Just to be able to get away with lying to us?

This is roughly akin to the old joke about knowing politicians are lying "because their lips are moving."  No politician EVER tells the truth.  Politicians say we went to the Moon.  Therefore, we didn't. The hard part accomplished in their minds, the fakery believers now feel they only need suspicious (to them) looking proof that we went to 'prove' we DIDN'T go. "The CIA denies it, so of course it must be true."  "A liberal/conservative thinks this is a good thing...it must be EVIL."  "Scripture is undeniably true because God says so.  We know this because scripture tells us this."   Unassailable 'logic'.

[Matuchkin]

It's quite surprising how people can start talking without thinking or researching. There are theorists speculating the lack of stars in the photo. Someone said that the ladder was not touching the ground, therefore it was all a hoax. I also just read about a belief that Gus Grissom, Edward H. White and Roger B. Chaffee were executed by the U.S government, which feared the astronauts were about to disclose the truth, but that's a whole 'nother case here.

Also, something else to chew on, keep this thread going: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

[Stargate525]

My favorite argument against the moon landing fakers is to walk them through the logistics of making such a film, and the logistics of the external presence of NASA during the 60s and 70s.

A film set requires dozens if not hundreds of people to work, especially for the many, many hours of film that were broadcast and released. Photos in the millions needed to be faked. You can't use the NASA people, as they don't have the required backgrounds in design and film to pull that off. So you have hundreds of secret editors, writers, filmographers, and actors working for decades on a project they cannot disclose.

Meanwhile, you have the entire structure of NASA building what are basically props. But the launches need to be real, the math needs to hold up. Saturn V needs to look like it'll make the moon. Civilians could watch the launches live. The rockets go into the museums to be closely examined. That's a lot of engineering.

Then you have to DOUBLE this amount of manpower in on the scheme, since the Russians were pulling the same prank.

There have been no leaks. Not in almost fifty years. The Soviet Union took all the records of their false moon landing to their grave. In a collapse which saw the disappearance of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the security of their moon attempts was ironclad (not to mention you need to accept that they faked reams of space activity documents that were highly classified and never meant to see publication in any form). The US Administration couldn't keep the bugging of a hotel office secret for more than a few months. In order to believe this, you need to ascribe a level of competence to the governments of both the US and the USSR that neither ever showed to have.

[razark]

Don't forget that not only did the Soviets track our Apollo spacecraft, many amateur radio operators from many different countries independently tracked and listened to the Apollo missions.  NASA had to convince governments and individuals around the world to go along with the conspiracy, and the U.S. government in the late '60s was not the most popular.  Either that, or NASA had to launch a fake spacecraft to broadcast fake missions in real time.

And if NASA was faking moon missions for prestige or whatever reason, why would they bother to fake a disaster like Apollo 13?!?

[GeneralVeers]

On 1/26/2016 at 2:35 PM, Matuchkin said:

My main concern about that "The Flat Truth" video I posted in the OP is... have you ever eyeballed the horizon on a trans-oceanic flight? Is it just me, or could I see the Earth curve last time I did that?

Not just you. You actually saw that. So have I. Problem is, it's an illusion. The Earth's atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, and you can actually only see around forty miles, tops, on a clear day. When you're above the surface (i.e. on that trans-oceanic flight), the limit of what you can see of the Earth's surface is, in fact, curved. But that's not actually the curvature of the Earth you're seeing. Your vision has limited range, that range takes the form of a circle, and being above that circle creates the illusion.

(Yes, the Earth IS actually spherical, but it's way to big to actually see the curvature unless you're in space)

[Stargate525]

6 hours ago, razark said:

Don't forget that not only did the Soviets track our Apollo spacecraft, many amateur radio operators from many different countries independently tracked and listened to the Apollo missions.  NASA had to convince governments and individuals around the world to go along with the conspiracy, and the U.S. government in the late '60s was not the most popular.  Either that, or NASA had to launch a fake spacecraft to broadcast fake missions in real time.

And if NASA was faking moon missions for prestige or whatever reason, why would they bother to fake a disaster like Apollo 13?!?

Most moon fakers say Apollo 13, Challenger, etc were either publicity stunts or executions.

With the amount of work needed to fake it, it's cheaper and easier to do the real thing. As Mitchell and Webb said 'we'll fake the moon landing and film it on the Moon.'

[Matuchkin]

5 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Not just you. You actually saw that. So have I. Problem is, it's an illusion. The Earth's atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, and you can actually only see around forty miles, tops, on a clear day. When you're above the surface (i.e. on that trans-oceanic flight), the limit of what you can see of the Earth's surface is, in fact, curved. But that's not actually the curvature of the Earth you're seeing. Your vision has limited range, that range takes the form of a circle, and being above that circle creates the illusion.

(Yes, the Earth IS actually spherical, but it's way to big to actually see the curvature unless you're in space)

So, what is the actual distance of the horizon from a human at 45,000 feet?

9 hours ago, Stargate525 said:

My favorite argument against the moon landing fakers is to walk them through the logistics of making such a film, and the logistics of the external presence of NASA during the 60s and 70s.

A film set requires dozens if not hundreds of people to work, especially for the many, many hours of film that were broadcast and released. Photos in the millions needed to be faked. You can't use the NASA people, as they don't have the required backgrounds in design and film to pull that off. So you have hundreds of secret editors, writers, filmographers, and actors working for decades on a project they cannot disclose.

Meanwhile, you have the entire structure of NASA building what are basically props. But the launches need to be real, the math needs to hold up. Saturn V needs to look like it'll make the moon. Civilians could watch the launches live. The rockets go into the museums to be closely examined. That's a lot of engineering.

Then you have to DOUBLE this amount of manpower in on the scheme, since the Russians were pulling the same prank.

There have been no leaks. Not in almost fifty years. The Soviet Union took all the records of their false moon landing to their grave. In a collapse which saw the disappearance of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the security of their moon attempts was ironclad (not to mention you need to accept that they faked reams of space activity documents that were highly classified and never meant to see publication in any form). The US Administration couldn't keep the bugging of a hotel office secret for more than a few months. In order to believe this, you need to ascribe a level of competence to the governments of both the US and the USSR that neither ever showed to have.

I do agree with the last paragraph. I believe its mainly the difference between the "strictness" and "order" of the democratic and Stalinist governments. I also believe that the multiple promises that a democracy has to fulfill for its people also played parts in this business.

[lajoswinkler]

6 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Not just you. You actually saw that. So have I. Problem is, it's an illusion. The Earth's atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, and you can actually only see around forty miles, tops, on a clear day. When you're above the surface (i.e. on that trans-oceanic flight), the limit of what you can see of the Earth's surface is, in fact, curved. But that's not actually the curvature of the Earth you're seeing. Your vision has limited range, that range takes the form of a circle, and being above that circle creates the illusion.

(Yes, the Earth IS actually spherical, but it's way to big to actually see the curvature unless you're in space)

True, you can't even see the curvature from stratosphere. Earth is one big ball and you basically need to be in near vacuum heights to see it's round. Even at the ISS orbit Earth looks absolutely huge and the curvature is very weak when observed with human eyes.

This is kind of what it looks like.

[GeneralVeers]

9 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

So, what is the actual distance of the horizon from a human at 45,000 feet?

My trig is a bit rusty, but assuming unlimited visibility through the atmosphere, I get about 270 miles.

 

[Dispatcher]

Actually, I've been on mountain peaks high enough that the curvature of the earth can be seen.  Flight and spaceflight are not required; they are just more interesting.

[Spaceception]

BUSH DID 9/11!!!! 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Spaceception

[Matuchkin]

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

BUSH DID 9/11!!!! 

HE DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT ONLY TO SPEND A DECADE PUMMELING THE MIDDLE EAST WITH DRONES, AND CRASHING SIKORSKYS? I DON'T THINK SO!

[insert_name]

"the zika virus was caused by gmos"

ive seen this a lot on comments sections on zika related articles its annoying

[BloodDusk]

On 1/28/2016 at 1:31 PM, lajoswinkler said:

True, you can't even see the curvature from stratosphere. Earth is one big ball and you basically need to be in near vacuum heights to see it's round. Even at the ISS orbit Earth looks absolutely huge and the curvature is very weak when observed with human eyes.

This is kind of what it looks like.

Yeah, but the Earth is not a big ball. A ball is not flatter around the poles.

Edited February 3, 2016 by BloodDusk

[lajoswinkler]

3 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

Yeah, but the Earth is not a big ball. A ball is not flatter around the poles.

I didn't mean geometrical ball, but just ball. Common ball. Doesn't have to be spherical.

[Matuchkin]

6 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

I didn't mean geometrical ball, but just ball. Common ball. Doesn't have to be spherical.

But what context does that have to the main argument? Anyway, the point of this article kind of derails here, so I'm giving another topic to discuss.

http://planetxnews.com/2015/07/08/top-10-signs-planet-x-nibiru-is-nearing-earth/

According to them, the object is unknown, therefore we're all gonna die from it.

[Stargate525]

That doesn't seem to even reference the new 10th planet (Pluto always). The last video said it would be visible two months ago. I don't remember seeing any big planet...