Revisiting 9/11? - Page 6 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Revisiting 9/11?


Recommended Posts

Also, when you're talking about seeing further, what actually allows you to see further is catching more light. In Astronomy you can do that by either increasing the collecting area of your telescope or by looking for longer and integrating over time. How far we can see in astronomy is directly related to how much light we can collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 minutes ago, biffer said:

Again, I know from having actually done the experiments, in the lab, that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energies at different wavelengths in a way that other atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen) don't. It's a reasonably straightforward piece of first or second year university maths to then work out that more heat will be retained than expelled over a given period of time with a constant input source. Equally it's straightforward physics to demonstrate that the earth is about 15C warmer than it should be - this is because of the natural greenhouse effect of the CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere (again, not a hugely complicated thing to work out if you understand the maths). So if we're with the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere it doesn't take a rocket scienst to work out that there's going to be an effect. 

As a layman that all sounds reasonable. 

What do you think of the scientists who disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

 I said we can see further in line of sight, but that doesn't work horizontally because the earth is round.

It does.

The distance you can see depends on the strength of what you are looking through.

30 minutes ago, kumnio said:

I'm not sure if you're at it anymore. 

Ok, lets say the earth is flat, as with any conspiracy, lie, etc, someone wants to gain from it. Who gains from telling the masses that we live in a globe?

The enemy.

The only explanation for a flat stationary earth with the sun and moon orbiting it would be special creation.

No big bang, and no evolution.

Telling us that we are just a 'random' speck in an expanding universe on a planet that orbits a sun very cleverly hides God.

Satan doesn't want us to know about and be reconciled to God (hence the deception).

37 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

While we're at it, 

Man made climate change, anyone else think it could be either complete nonsense or exaggerated? 

I subscribe to weaponised weather.

33 minutes ago, kumnio said:

Is this not the problem though, you are learning from fcked up sources. 

I (like you should be) am open to listening to ideas outside the box.

29 minutes ago, Parklife said:

A source that doesn't back up his preconceived theory/notion will be dismissed. 

I'm not publishing a paper.

I'm discussing on a message board and show my reasoning where I can.

30 minutes ago, biffer said:

Because it isn't quite that simple. Every optical setup has a limit of the smallest separation between two objects that it can see. It's dependent on the size of the aperture and the wavelength of the light. With a pair of binoculars, because the aperture is bigger, you can distinguish between two objects at a distance at which you can't just with your eyes. I know this to be true because I've actually run experiments to measure and test it.

No argument. (They are still aids that show that what we believed to be the 'horizon' in fact wasn't.)

28 minutes ago, kumnio said:

It's kinda to be pitied a bit. From one obsession to another.  

Historically, it's never been easy for the truth seeker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kumnio said:

A fckin YouTube search, is that. What next, young earth explained by The Flintstones, look, there's video evidence right there. 

Phart said something similar to me yesterday, but he usually lectures about playing the man and not the ball.

It shouldn't matter what form the information comes in.

Just challenge the information itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'm not publishing a paper.

I'm discussing on a message board and show my reasoning where I can.

.

That may be so but selectively choosing your information sources is going to lead to you reaching only the conclusion you want to reach, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

It does.

The distance you can see depends on the strength of what you are looking through.

You could use a telescope capable of showing you detail 10.000 miles away up in the sky - line of sight - but you cannot flip it horizontal [across the Atlantic for example] and see America. Why is this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'm searching only for the truth (whether I like it or not).

Nope. You're searching for YOUR truth, not THE truth. 

Youre searching for the "truth" which suits your faith. P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scotty CTA said:

Ironically that thinking suits the way you want things to be.

The truth is that I found The Truth (Jesus) by genuinely looking for the truth, and all of the jigsaw pieces now fit the puzzle.

Yes, I don't doubt that. 

Youre now searching for every other thing to fit in with the "truth" you've already found. Hence why you're ignoring the science which contradicts your flat earth "truth". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, and its a ish thing to say, but werent you addicted to drugs/alcohol, and the good lord saved you?

It looks like an addictive personality issue to me.

The jigsaw fits together cause you ignore the thousands of pieces that dont fit together, when you get an elephant and a skyscaper piece that just randomly fit together, you think it means something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

As a layman that all sounds reasonable. 

What do you think of the scientists who disagree?

You'd struggle to find any scientist who would disagree with what I've said. What they disagree about is how much earth as a system can bend and absorb changes. Those of them who aren't being flat out paid to do bias research that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

You could see thousands of miles as long as there isn't any mountains/elevation in the way.

(Do you have access to a telescope that can show detail thousands of miles way?)

No, but I know people who have access to telescopes that can show detail hundreds of millions of miles away (but you don't believe that exists, even though the people I work with every day build the imagers that take these pictures). They don't point them towards mountains thousands of miles away because the earth is round and gets in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

No argument. (They are still aids that show that what we believed to be the 'horizon' in fact wasn't.)

 

No, because they could show more detail, they showed ships going over the horizon and coming back. Because the earth is round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

Hence why you're ignoring the science which contradicts your flat earth "truth". 

I'm not ignoring any real science (just haven't seen any that contradicts the flat earth).

41 minutes ago, kumnio said:

I may be wrong, and its a ish thing to say, but werent you addicted to drugs/alcohol, and the good lord saved you?

I used to take drugs and alcohol but I've never been even remotely addicted to anything.

44 minutes ago, kumnio said:

The jigsaw fits together cause you ignore the thousands of pieces that dont fit together...

And?

37 minutes ago, biffer said:

No...

Is it possible for a normal (non NWO) person to get a hold of a telescope that can show us images that are 2,000 - 3,000 miles away on land (or are they too big, rare, and expensive?)

40 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

No, it's because they don't need too...

PolarRoute.png

1. and 2. Those flight paths look pretty straight to me. (The odd wee dogleg in the graphic is just for effect.)

3. Try booking a direct flight between Argentina and Australia or South Africa and Australia over the 'South Pole' and see how you get on.

43 minutes ago, biffer said:

...they showed ships going over the horizon and coming back. Because the earth is round.

They didn't.

They showed a lens zooming in and zooming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many have you hooked Scotty? This is hilarious! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

1. and 2. Those flight paths look pretty straight to me. (The odd wee dogleg in the graphic is just for effect.)

Of course they're straight, they're the fastest routes from A to B over the globe.

 

38 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

3. Try booking a direct flight between Argentina and Australia or South Africa and Australia over the 'South Pole' and see how you get on.

 

There's one airborne the now! Seems to be following the route in the map above too...

jai8sz.jpg

 

Edited by Toepoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'm not ignoring any real science (just haven't seen any that contradicts the flat earth).

I used to take drugs and alcohol but I've never been even remotely addicted to anything.

And?

Is it possible for a normal (non NWO) person to get a hold of a telescope that can show us images that are 2,000 - 3,000 miles away on land (or are they too big, rare, and expensive?)

1. and 2. Those flight paths look pretty straight to me. (The odd wee dogleg in the graphic is just for effect.)

3. Try booking a direct flight between Argentina and Australia or South Africa and Australia over the 'South Pole' and see how you get on.

They didn't.

They showed a lens zooming in and zooming out.

How big is the thing you want to see at 3000 miles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

You think that you can see further by moving away from the horizon?

 

No - i'll keep it simple

Stand next to but at the bottom of a relatively high sand dune where you can see the ocean that there is a ship on

When you lose sight of the ship walk to the top of the sand dune and you will see a wee bit of it again

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...