Theories on theories

Ok,as i have stated before:

I have totally read the fact. A very interesting theory indeed but if there is such a big conspiracy, why did it start? Someone must have first discovered the ice wall and the flatness of the earth, right? So did he start the conspiracy and if so, why do you think so? Lets say he told others. What would stop them from telling more?"

I add more to this "theory on theory." Let say the man (who discovered the ice wall) in an alternate outcome saw no ice wall and in fact came around the earth, proving it was round! Once he told those people (stated previously) and they told more, then fact was fact. The earth is round! Many people knew this by now and would tell generation after generation. There would be too many people who know the truth to bring up a conspiracy, and why would they make one in the first place?

That's all fine and well, except the FE theory didn't come about because someone found the ice wall.

This is true. It came from: look around you, the earth looks flat. what are these crazy people who insist it is round thinking?

look around you, the earth looks flat. what are these crazy people who insist it is round thinking?

Look around you.  Matter looks continuous, and infinitely sub-dividable.  What are these crazy people who insist that matter is atomic thinking?

There aren't any stars in NASA's Apollo pictures, WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON.

There wasn't a huge 747 hull in the Pentagon, when a car crashes into a building, it's mostly intact.  IT WAS A CRUISE MISSILE.

Our gut responses can fail us at times.  When we see something that contradicts our ideas of correct outcomes, there are two reactions, re-visualize out idea of a correct outcome, or demand that it was a mistake/lie.

In the above, the camera settings were to take a picture of a guy dressed in white illuminated in brilliant sunlight, not of the dim stars behind them.  Therefore, the stars are massively underexposed and don't show up.

A plane is not a car, a plane has much less matter per volume than a car. When a car hits a retail shop at 20 miles an hour, it smashes through the front window and stops, breaking a whole bunch of stuff, but the car itself is more or less intact.  When a 747 hits a bulletproof, bombproof, reinforced concrete wall with kevlar lining at 500 miles an hour, the thin aluminum skin shatters, the engines take the path of least resistance, folding in with the wings (after they hit the wall), and smashing through the main hole that was caused by the nose and a couple of interior walls as well.  The huge intakes and nozzles are ripped to shreds, and you are left with something not much bigger than a car engine, of which we have photographic evidence.

No 747s were hijacked on 9/11.

There were four planes hyjacked on September 11th, 2001.  You just dispute who they were hyjacked by.  It was either Al Quaeda or the US government.  

If it was Al Quaeda, then it played out more or less like what the government says it did.

If the feds did it, then why the heck didn't they just fly the dang planes into the buildings?  They had to hyjack the planes, murder everyone on board, and probably kill a whole lot of their own people as witnesses, so why wouldn't they just fly the dang plane into the dang building?

There is as much evidence as can possibly be given that the world trade center was hit by a 747 (the second building's hit is indisputable given the videos we have).  

There is also a decent amount of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.  The "global hawk" theory is a joke.  The only evidence for it is an outline drawn on a gas station's camera that vaguely resembles a global hawk plane.  However, have the outline is still there three frames later.  *Gasp*  It's the tree line, not the outline of the plane.  A cruise missile would not explain the bodies and massive amount of aluminum at the crash scene (there is no aluminum in the Pentagon's contruction).

The towers collapsed as the steel slowly gave way in the heat (we actually proved this was possible in material science class).  As a mechanical engineer, you know all about creep (put a weight on something and it will slowly stretch, like a piece of taffy, just some things stretch faster than others), and how it is massively exponential with temperature (piece of steel that lasts a thousand years at room temperature, lasts about a couple of hours at 1000 K).  No bombs or explosives necessary.

The Pentagon attack is consistent with what would happen if you hit a 747 into a fortress.  Heavy local damage, but mostly intact.

I have seen all the "evidence" produced for the 9/11 conspiracy, and it is founded on poor logic, misunderstanding of the basic nature of the attacks, taking minor flaws and mistakes and throwing them out of proportion.  The only part that makes any sense is questioning about the lack of damage to the Pentagon that I have attempted to explain earlier.

I would prefer to take this to another forum.  This is for the Flat Earth theory, not 9/11 theories.

It looks flat!? You base this on how it looks?! You know how far the united states is? How do you think "Well I see about 10 miles of flat ground so its a flat earth!" NO! The human eye can only see so far! Its not like if the earth was round you would actually see the curve!

And i didnt say the THEORY came out of:

I have totally read the fact. A very interesting theory indeed but if there is such a big conspiracy, why did it start? Someone must have first discovered the ice wall and the flatness of the earth, right? So did he start the conspiracy and if so, why do you think so? Lets say he told others. What would stop them from telling more?

I said a CONSPIRACY.

I said a CONSPIRACY.

The FE theory didn't come from the conspiracy, either.

Benjamin.  NO 747s WERE HIJACKED ON 9/11!  They were all 757s and 767s.  Maybe actually read what TheEngineer said instead of going off onto that boring tangent that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

DG.  It's a gut reaction.  When I hear someone say "no 747s were hyjacked on 9/11", I get angry.  I don't say into "Hmmm, what were those planes anyway?"  The first thought to my mind is that he was denying any planes were hyjacked.  If he wished to say that they were 757s and 767s, then he should have said as much.  Until Engineer posts otherwise, I still believe that is what he meant.

Considering that this forum (and this thread in particular) is about conspiracy theories, I find it completely relevant.

No, Engineer is a pilot, and wanted to emphasize that they weren't 747's.  I'm sure of it.

DG.  It's a gut reaction.  When I hear someone say "no 747s were hyjacked on 9/11", I get angry.  I don't say into "Hmmm, what were those planes anyway?"  The first thought to my mind is that he was denying any planes were hyjacked.  If he wished to say that they were 757s and 767s, then he should have said as much.  Until Engineer posts otherwise, I still believe that is what he meant.

Considering that this forum (and this thread in particular) is about conspiracy theories, I find it completely relevant.

Making assumptions about what people are trying to say will usually just make you look stupid.  Strawmen arguments lead you open to being made a fool of.  Debate what people say, not what you think they mean.

He said, letter for letter "No 747s were hijacked on 9/11."

What does that sound like?

Any rational person listening to this would think that he is denying 9/11 ever happened.  If a person knew Engineer well (as no doubt you two do), then perhaps they would come to the conclusion he was talking about the classsification of the planes.

I assumed nothing, I merely read.  Beast, I will reply to what you mean if you say it clearly.  Curt, dismissive sentences with no explaination merely elicit the wrong reply.  I say, "Say what you mean".

He said, letter for letter "No 747s were hijacked on 9/11."

What does that sound like?

Any rational person listening to this would think that he is denying 9/11 ever happened.  If a person knew Engineer well (as no doubt you two do), then perhaps they would come to the conclusion he was talking about the classsification of the planes.

I assumed nothing, I merely read.  Beast, I will reply to what you mean if you say it clearly.  Curt, dismissive sentences with no explaination merely elicit the wrong reply.  I say, "Say what you mean".

I'm rational. I didn't even notice the poster before I guessed that he meant the planes were something other than 747s. He didn't say "no planes were hijacked", he said "no 747s were hijacked". Of course, this is an emotional subject, so it's not surprising you reacted with something other than your brain. Just don't try to justify the logic of it after the fact.

He said, letter for letter "No 747s were hijacked on 9/11."

What does that sound like?

It sounds like someone letting you know that none of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 747s.

the earth is round period.