snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:27 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon18

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Well, we apparently don't notice the chemtrails or the NAFTA Superhighway, so maybe we're just gullible.
Hijack: A guy I was talking to at a party said that because snopes debunked the superhighway myth, he could be part of the conspiracy.

Presumably, Barbara is as well.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:31 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,296
Icon102

I wonder how they think conspiracies that big are created. Is there a really good buffet or something at the headquarters, so people won't leak because they want the food?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:39 PM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,151
Default

This is one of those conspiracies I Really Don't Get®. I vaguely understand that the chemtrails are some sort of government mind control. That the Superhighway will lead to our destruction because of immgration or job lost or some such nonsense. But what in the phuquing world is behind the 9/11 was a conspiracy by people other than the conspiring terrorists conspiracy? It makes no sense. Am I missing some huge clue?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:41 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Hijack: A guy I was talking to at a party said that because snopes debunked the superhighway myth, he could be part of the conspiracy.

Presumably, Barbara is as well.
And we are since we post on their messageboard. Why haven't I heard anything about this?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:47 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart View Post
And we are since we post on their messageboard. Why haven't I heard anything about this?
We're discussing it at the general meeting next week.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:53 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,296
Default

Is that before or after the meeting to revise the Homosexual Agenda®?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:54 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
We're discussing it at the general meeting next week.
And why wasn't I invited? *sulks*
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09 July 2008, 09:54 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Frying Pan

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Is that before or after the meeting to revise the Homosexual Agenda®?
We're discussing that at the separate caucus meeting.

You know the caucus: The Boyageurs.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10 July 2008, 12:29 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Duck View Post
This is one of those conspiracies I Really Don't Get®. I vaguely understand that the chemtrails are some sort of government mind control. That the Superhighway will lead to our destruction because of immgration or job lost or some such nonsense. But what in the phuquing world is behind the 9/11 was a conspiracy by people other than the conspiring terrorists conspiracy? It makes no sense. Am I missing some huge clue?
Missing it? You're the one who's getting it. I'm stunned by how many ostensibly well-educated people demonstrate such an astonishing eagerness to give credit to ideas that they won't spend ten seconds thinking about.

Do you remember the 9-11 UL about the guy who supposedly lived through the collapse of one of the WTC towers, by riding his floor down to the ground? I confess, with some chagrin, that I believed that one when I first heard it. The reason is obvious: I wanted to believe it. The story gives a weird kind of personal comfort; it says that maybe, just maybe, we might be that lucky if something awful happens. And, to be sure, such near-miracles do happen: there have been plane crashes, train wrecks, hotel fires, etc., where one or two people have lived, by nothing more than sheer good luck. But if I'd given it just a few seconds of thought, I'd have realized how the story simply was not possible. So...I'm as guilty of cluelessness as anybody else, I guess...

This is why snopes is such a valuable resource for those of us who believe that truth is more important than merely feeling comforted by illusions and fables.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10 July 2008, 01:32 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Posts: 3,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Hijack: A guy I was talking to at a party said that because snopes debunked the superhighway myth, he could be part of the conspiracy.

Presumably, Barbara is as well.
HA! Show's how much you know. They're the same person so of course "they're both" in on it.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10 July 2008, 01:44 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
HA! Show's how much you know. They're the same person so of course "they're both" in on it.
Pffft - the things you people believe. There is no 'snopes' or 'Barbara' as such. Both identities are creations of a secret agency responsible to the Bilderburg group. Their campaign of disinformation disguised as urban legend debunking is intended to lure people into a false sense of security.

I have documentation that the 'snopes' persona is actually an ex-KGB deep cover operative code-named 'Mikhail' (see the link with Mikkelson there even ex KGD agents can't help flaunting their secrets) while Barbara is actually a 73yr old former assassin known for impersonating hair dressers.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10 July 2008, 02:52 AM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
This is why snopes is such a valuable resource for those of us who believe that truth is more important than merely feeling comforted by illusions and fables.

Silas
Thank you , Silas. I have truly wondered why otherwise sane people believe some of the things they believe. You've helped shed light on this subject. I'm as guilty of indulging in comforting illusions as anyone else. (Heck, there are snopesters that would argue that my religious faith is nothing more than a comforting illusion. I don't agree with them but I'm willing to debate them.) But I'm willing to accept that maybe I'm wrong, which I suppose is the hallmark of a good snopester.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10 July 2008, 04:10 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Duck View Post
(Heck, there are snopesters that would argue that my religious faith is nothing more than a comforting illusion. I don't agree with them but I'm willing to debate them.)
Grin! I wouldn't put abstract religious faith in quite the same category as, say, "The Hanging Munchkin" or "Chemtrails." Faith, proper, is beyond verification or validation; it only trespasses the boundary (in the sense of "Non-Overlapping Magesteria") when it makes claims about the observable, testable, natural world. (e.g., the claim that prayer can cure cancer.) But faith that doesn't make concrete claims is, in my opinion, rather a matter of personal taste, like whether or not one likes white chocolate! If you believe in a universe that is personal and loving, and I believe in one which is impersonal and mechanistic, well, there isn't any way for us to test either proposition. Taking comfort from faith (or from unfaith) is okay with me!

Quote:
But I'm willing to accept that maybe I'm wrong, which I suppose is the hallmark of a good snopester.
And a good person all taken with all.

I once had a friend come up to me and tell me the "Mrs. Fields Cookie Recipe" UL. I told him to sit down and think about it. In less than ten seconds, he said, "Oh! That couldn't happen, right?" It is a little bit sad, but, as Patrick McGoohan said in "The Prisoner," "Many times bitten, forever shy." We have to give that extra bit of thought to pretty much everything we hear.

Silas (loves that white chocolate, just loves it, yum yum yum!)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10 July 2008, 05:40 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,200
Mouse

The trouble with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 is that they say two different theories: one, that the Bush administration is scarily competent and managed to execute the murder of 3,000 people with countless witnesses watching, yet at the same time they're so brutally incompetent that they can't bump off the idiots responsible for the Loose Change video. C'mon, they got away with murdering 3000 people, surely it can't be that difficult to cut someone's brake lines or something.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10 July 2008, 11:48 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,404
Default

Quote:
And what do you propose is the source of "the smell of fuel" if not the fuel itself? Once the fuel has burned it no longer smells of fuel.
I've not seen a jet fuel explosion, but I've seen petrol being ejected by compressed air and ignited into a flame tornado (three tangential nossles, aimed at about 45 degrees up on the inside of a 40 cm metal tube, each jet sucking fuel from a tank, much like a spray paint gun). Even though the fuel clearly burned and never even hit the ground, the smell was clearly there.

Quote:
And you know this how? The fuel in the wings was moving at a relative velocity equal to the plane right before it hit so once it hit and the wings broke off, any fuel that was still left (and remember, it was fully fueled so there is no way all of it vaporized, burned immediately, etc), would be moving at a high rate of speed and would easily have spread across the floors in which the plane hit and potentially down elevator shafts.
Some of it, yes. Some probably splashed off walls or passed through the building. However, it ignited the very moment it hit the building. Any splashes would ignite immediately and be consumed. Look at other violent crashes, such as the Rammstein disaster or some other disaster where there is footage. In a massive tank rupture like this, the fuel goes woof and is gone. It's not a coincidence that most disaster sites are burned out, with small fires burning in the bushes.

Look, for instance, at this video, specifically the B52 in the beginning which goes down hard. It's a huge fireball, but after a few seconds, it's gone and it's more or less just smoke.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GCI9_uhp8sE

Or look at this footage for the Ramstein disaster. Don't look if you are squeemish, this is the most disturbing disaster footage I've seen and I really don't like watching it. Once again, when the tanks rapture, it's a boom, than just black smoke. Of course, it's smaller aircraft, but that makes little difference in the chain of events, just the size of the fireball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d_mutYDteWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfV5NL3sKzI&NR=1 (longer version, where the following grass fire is clearly visible)

Or, an even better example: why would one add substances to the fuel to make it gelatineous when you make napalm? It's to slow down the fire, so that the fuel burns on what it hits, not in a big fireball.

Quote:
So we are not to believe what the witnesses say or heard at all?
To some extent we can believe them, but we must also be aware that it's a stressful situation, with lots of adrenalin pumping, confusion and the brain frantically trying to get what has happened and figuring out what to do. Under those circumstances, errors are made, and we must compare the statements with other statements and with hard facts. Witness psychology is an entire science.

Quote:
Fuel that was spread across the floor of the building....
It was an aircraft that hit the building, not a supertanker.

Quote:
Hmm....Popular Mechanics or Trobergs opinion?

I am going have to go with Popular Mechanics on this one, unless you can provide some reason why your opinion is far more factual than a bunch of people who actually know what they are talking about.......
How much fuel do you think an aircraft holds? I can tell you. It holds about one tanker truck worth of fuel, assuming we are talking about 737's. Most of that will end up on either outside of the building. The rest will mostly splash against walls and furniture and stuff. Remember, every splash means faster burn. Also, unlike a tanker truck, the fuel is spread over the entire wing span, so you don't get a single big torrent, you get a smaller burst over a wider area.

As the elevators are the sturdiest part of the building and placed at the center of the building, I doubt much fuel actually found it's way there. What little fuel that may have ended up there would have burned long before it had fallen all the way to the ground. Remember, fuel does not fall faster in an elevator shaft than it does outside the building. I still believe that it was the blast that travelled through the shafts.

I don't read Popular Mechanics, as it's not available here and I'm a bit allergic to any publication with the word "Popular" or "Illustrated" in the title, as they tend to be written by journalists rather than specialists.

Quote:
But I guess 10000 gallons of fuel is not a large amount
It sounds a lot because it's a big number. Calculate how big the tank would be so that you get a reference that the mind has easier to grasp. It's about one tanker truck.

Quote:
I want to know what point Troberg is really getting at.
That the idea of the fuel weakening the structure is wrong, and that the structure was destroyed by fires in the materials already in the building, such as walls, furniture, paper and so on, and by an insufficiant/damaged fire suppression system.

Quote:
Why is it so hard to believe that a commercial airliner crashing into a building could cause so much damage as to collapse it?
Read what I've written again. I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning the sequence of events that connects the plane to the collapse.

The sequence plane->fuel->collapse simply does not cut it. The sequence plane->fuel->secondary fire->collapse makes much more sense.

Some might argue that this is nitpicking, but for the technically minded like me, that's a huge difference. For me, it defines what I can safely do with jet fuel (for instance, if the fuel fire theory was true, a pulse jet engine made of (reasonable amounts of) steel would be a physical impossibility), for an architect, it defines how to build the next building strong enough to take such a hit.

It's not just a matter of A eventually led to Z, I, as an engineer, want to map the path between them as well.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10 July 2008, 12:02 PM
Dara bhur gCara's Avatar
Dara bhur gCara Dara bhur gCara is offline
 
Join Date: 05 August 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
How much fuel do you think an aircraft holds? I can tell you. It holds about one tanker truck worth of fuel, assuming we are talking about 737's.
Why are you assuming we are talking about Boeing 737s? The two planes that flew into the World Trade Centre were Boeing 767s, and the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon was a Boeing 757.

Both those aircraft have approximately double the passenger load and range of the Boeing 737, and would therefore, I imagine, contain a great deal more fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10 July 2008, 12:07 PM
Friends of Alfred's Avatar
Friends of Alfred Friends of Alfred is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2004
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,068
Default

Dara, is Troberg still blocking you I wonder?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10 July 2008, 12:44 PM
Dara bhur gCara's Avatar
Dara bhur gCara Dara bhur gCara is offline
 
Join Date: 05 August 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friends of Alfred View Post
Dara, is Troberg still blocking you I wonder?
I'm not sure. I know he was still at one point, because I wasn't able to respond to a PM that he sent me after our last little ruckus.

Either way, he doesn't seem to want to enter into debate with me anymore, which is entirely fair enough. He doesn't have to.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10 July 2008, 02:21 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Tsk, Tsk

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
I don't read Popular Mechanics, as it's not available here and I'm a bit allergic to any publication with the word "Popular" or "Illustrated" in the title, as they tend to be written by journalists rather than specialists.
I take quite a bit of offence to this statement. Journalists don't quote themselves; they quote specialists. And not just one -- a good journalist will talk to several. Plus have some expertise in the background hirself.

Sure, journalists make mistakes. But so do specialists.

The link I provided was Popular Mechanics' debunking of 9/11 myths. I'd recommend reading the whole nine pages -- they do quite a nice job of handling the objections conspiracy theorists like to bring up over and over again.

ETA:

Quote:
It sounds a lot because it's a big number. Calculate how big the tank would be so that you get a reference that the mind has easier to grasp. It's about one tanker truck.
That's still a lot of fuel. It's not like a tanker truck is the size of a mini.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10 July 2008, 02:44 PM
woodness03's Avatar
woodness03 woodness03 is offline
 
Join Date: 14 March 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
I don't read Popular Mechanics, as it's not available here and I'm a bit allergic to any publication with the word "Popular" or "Illustrated" in the title, as they tend to be written by journalists rather than specialists.
This statement just proves how ignorant you really are. Just like in the Pirates thread, I don't know why I continue. I guess I just can't stand seeing ignorance and people supporting conspiracy theories.....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.