The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[santaman2000]

I just realised the last discussion about how hard water is comes from the titanic thread .
Titanic(steel)+ iceberg(water) = ship on seabed .
I wonder if the iceberg was a littlr bit harder than the steel?

I really don't know the hardness of ice compared to steel but it doesn't have to be harder. Just look at the damage a small bird (soft) does to meatal (hard by comprison) when it hits an aircraft in flight. The old saying among fighter pilots is, "E = 1/2 MV squared; or in plain laguage, at mach 2 a coulpe of pounds of flesh and feathers can ruin your whole day!"

 

[HillBill]

I've not really aired much at all mate. Neither am i a conspiracy theorist. I just have a nose for bullsh.t. You also jump to too many assumptions mate. I find your attitude both childish, and boring. Perhaps you should heed your own signature. You seem to have all the answers, yet no questions.

If you had paid any attention to what i had previously said, you would note that i said i wasn't offering any opinion as to what or wasn't faked,as i do not know. Yet here you are talking as though i had. Wake up lad.

and this is why most people think conspiracy theorists are tedious bores, because every time someone dares to have a differing view they break out the 'you're a sheeple' line. you have a differing view, therefore you must be a barely human milk-fed gimp incapable of thinking for yourself, I on the other hand use discredited research, speculation and conjecture to draw my own conclusions based on the idea that everything thats ever happened has been covered up in an elaborate piece of theatre by 'they', in an attempt to keep the masses oppressed so 'they' can stroke cats in evil genius chairs and smirk to 'themselves'. aliens perpetrated the world trade center attacks, osama bin laden was the second gunman on the grassy knoll with 10 of his mates lined up to have a crack if he missed and despite all evidence to the contrary the moon landings were faked, involving getting the 400000 people diectly involved in the program to keep quiet about not actually doing any of it, untold millions to switch off their amateur radio sets 'in case they heard nothing (wink wink), and the collusion of all the governments of the world, including the ones that didn't like the american's, and had in fact been opposing them diametrically for the 30 years previous to the Apollo program.

yeah that must be how it happened, it wouldn't be simpler after all that to just go to the moon at all.

 

[wingstoo]

To see a plane atomised you need to look at youtube...I saw this video many years ago and could hardly believe what I was seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

But for a plane to be vapourised pretty much completely I cant see than myself, I have seen a few crash sites where a Vampire jet had crashed to earth and there were plenty of bits to look at, also an old Wellington bomber that had piled into a mountain side and there was a lot of wreckage that escaped the crash, even bits of wood and fabric escaped the fire ball.

The picture might show a part of a crash site, mayb just where an engine bounced, but not an entire aircraft.

 

[Biker]

I've shot at clay pigeons so I know what you're talking about when you state aiming for where the moon will be and not at it directly. However I do know that the mooon stays within a space between two planes like the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn. So on that basis we can say the moon won't be above the North pole for instance. Now that artists rendition of the Van Allen field shows a "safe" area north and south. so given that info and where the moon would be on it's orbital plane the module would have had to travel up, over then down and then the same route back home again. And not through a field of deadly DNA altering radiation.

Would you honestly go up in a spaceship built by the cheapest contractor hoping they took this little fact into consideration?

They picked July because it was summer No one wants to stand out in the rain and snow to watch a Saturn 5 take off, they'd lose too much on popcorn sales. Sheesh thought everyone knew that!

 

[Huon]

Anything which doesn't make sense. Or is blatant bulls..t.. Yes a thinker will question both sides and make their own opinion. Followers believe what they are told, and dont questions it nor look into anything themselves..

An example being the lack of plane wreckage at 2 crash sites in the same day. On both of which, damage caused by said planes was too small and localised to even be caused by the size of aircraft said to be in the crashes.

Heres the pentagon in the afternoon of 9/11, not one scrap of anything other than building debris. No large passenger aircraft hit that. There WOULD be evidence of wings or tail, yet there is nothing. A follower will believe a plane hit that. A thinker will see that there is no evidence whatsoever of an aircraft hitting it. There is just damage to a building.
View attachment 9843

I tend to agree but the problem for me is that in order to form a sensible opinion I'd have to:

have some understanding of aircraft crashes
have visited the site immediately after the crash
have devoted a considerable amount of time trying to determine what had happened there

I can't say that I can satisfy any of those criteria. All that leaves me with is the opinions of others and a judgement call. None of the conspiracy arguments being put forward in this thread are compelling enough to make me take them seriously enough to really take them that seriously.

On the subject of heifer dust, one of the things that sets my bullsnot (smirk) alarm off whenever this type of discussion comes up is how quickly it grows into some sort of world-wide conspiracy. Threads that start with the Titanic and up including moon-landings, 9/11 hoaxes, collusion between warring countries and hidden global governments. What would already be a very complex conspiracy gets linked to a dozen others that are equally complex and the thing grows beyond all belief.

Personally I don't think that any of the organisations who'd need to be involved in the types of cover up being suggested here are actually competent and efficient enough to hide even one of these things let alone so many.

 

[HillBill]

Yeah i see your point mate.

That pic i put up does show the damage done to the pentagon the same day as the crash, so thats immediately enough in a case like this as that gives them no time to move any wreckage, especially with the pentagon still burning.

I also know that that for something to be proved, there has to be evidence. Thats the problem with the 9/11 stuff. There is NO evidence that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in that field, none whatsoever. So they expect us to believe that one did, with no evidence to support it. The other side, the truth seekers are just saying "show me the evidence" Which i don't find unreasonable.

When you put in a scale image of the aircraft in question, it puts a bit more perspective on it.

I tend to agree but the problem for me is that in order to form a sensible opinion I'd have to:

have some understanding of aircraft crashes
have visited the site immediately after the crash
have devoted a considerable amount of time trying to determine what had happened there

I can't say that I can satisfy any of those criteria. All that leaves me with is the opinions of others and a judgement call. None of the conspiracy arguments being put forward in this thread are compelling enough to make me take them seriously enough to really take them that seriously.

On the subject of heifer dust, one of the things that sets my bullsnot (smirk) alarm off whenever this type of discussion comes up is how quickly it grows into some sort of world-wide conspiracy. Threads that start with the Titanic and up including moon-landings, 9/11 hoaxes, collusion between warring countries and hidden global governments. What would already be a very complex conspiracy gets linked to a dozen others that are equally complex and the thing grows beyond all belief.

Personally I don't think that any of the organisations who'd need to be involved in the types of cover up being suggested here are actually competent and efficient enough to hide even one of these things let alone so many.

 

[Huon]

Yeah i see your point mate.

That pic i put up does show the damage done to the pentagon the same day as the crash, so thats immediately enough in a case like this as that gives them no time to move any wreckage, especially with the pentagon still burning.

I also know that that for something to be proved, there has to be evidence. Thats the problem with the 9/11 stuff. There is NO evidence that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in that field, none whatsoever. So they expect us to believe that one did, with no evidence to support it. The other side, the truth seekers are just saying "show me the evidence" Which i don't find unreasonable.

Indeed but if you take a look around there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the photo you put up. One of the points made were that it is a small part of the crash site - debris was actually spread over a far greater area. Another one given is that high-speed crashes into hard targets tend not to leave much large debris.

I'm not a crash investigator so I can't sensibly argue the case either way. Are you?

My father was a senior air force officer and had far more experience of aircraft crashes than I have. He certainly didn't say that 9/11 couldn't possibly be a hoax but he did find the 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments based on the sort of photos I'm seeing here amusing.

Perhaps the plane hit the Titanic rather than the Pentagon?

 

[santaman2000]

I think we all know what really happened. Martians shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll then boarded the Titanic which Elvis crashed into the moon. And the UN is covering it all up so no-one will discover they have Hitler's clone.

 

[Biker]

Perhaps the plane hit the Titanic rather than the Pentagon?

Oh that's just rediculous! .... hang on though, you could be onto something there.

 

[santaman2000]

Yeah i see your point mate.

That pic i put up does show the damage done to the pentagon the same day as the crash, so thats immediately enough in a case like this as that gives them no time to move any wreckage, especially with the pentagon still burning.

I also know that that for something to be proved, there has to be evidence. Thats the problem with the 9/11 stuff. There is NO evidence that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in that field, none whatsoever...

The black box and small bits of wreckage previously mentioned?

 

[HillBill]

I can understand that there wouldn't be "much" debris, after something hit the pentagon. But none at all? Not even a scrap? Thats practically impossible. Funny how the only debris they found from any of the crashes, was the ID of the suspects or victims. Yet no trace of any aircraft?

If the debris from the other crash was spread out, why is there no evidence of it? no photos, no video footage, nothing. Just someone saying so.

No i'm not a crash investigator, i do not claim to be. But a crash investigator is there to explain WHY a plane went down, this is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is "Did a plane crash at all?"

I've spent time in the military, Legion paras. I've seen both a helicopter crash, and plane shot down. We had to attend to the aircraft being shot down, though it took us the best part of 3 days to reach the crash site, due to having to fight our way to it. ( ivory coast 2002). Plenty of wreckage on that one.

Indeed but if you take a look around there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the photo you put up. One of the points made were that it is a small part of the crash site - debris was actually spread over a far greater area. Another one given is that high-speed crashes into hard targets tend not to leave much large debris.

I'm not a crash investigator so I can't sensibly argue the case either way. Are you?

My father was a senior air force officer and had far more experience of aircraft crashes than I have. He certainly didn't say that 9/11 couldn't possibly be a hoax but he did find the 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments based on the sort of photos I'm seeing here amusing.

Perhaps the plane hit the Titanic rather than the Pentagon?

 

[HillBill]

Is there any evidence of that though? No, what we have is someone declaring that it was found. Nothing more.

The black box and small bits of wreckage previously mentioned?

 

[mountainm]

I think we all know what really happened. Martians shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll then boarded the Titanic which Elvis crashed into the moon. And the UN is covering it all up so no-one will discover they have Hitler's clone.

You've invoked Godwin...

 

[Andy BB]

To see a plane atomised you need to look at youtube...I saw this video many years ago and could hardly believe what I was seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

But for a plane to be vapourised pretty much completely I cant see than myself, I have seen a few crash sites where a Vampire jet had crashed to earth and there were plenty of bits to look at, also an old Wellington bomber that had piled into a mountain side and there was a lot of wreckage that escaped the crash, even bits of wood and fabric escaped the fire ball.

The picture might show a part of a crash site, mayb just where an engine bounced, but not an entire aircraft.

That link was clearly put there by the Bilderbergers to cover up the fake moon landing and 911 attacks.


It must be true because no-one can prove it didn't happen - a bit like the Pastafarians and the flying Spaghetti Monster, which is why no-one has claimed the $250,000 prize for proving that the FSM isn't the Supreme Being................

 

[Biker]

Is there any evidence of that though? No, what we have is someone declaring that it was found. Nothing more.

Yes we have to take the word of the slippery CIA that all was in order at the scene of the crash.

Yet it's odd how an F4 Phantom can disintegrate against a concrete wall like that video shown previously but an fully laden Airliner make all that damage and the heaviest parts, two 6-ton titanium steel alloy engines and not punch any holes in the outside walls while the tubular fuselage and soft bodied passengers and crew could penetrate so deeply into the building... and then disappear somehow inside in the flames.

Really odd that.

It's these little inconsistancies that cast doubt over the rest of the big picture for me. Why would they do that? Who benefits from an act like this?

Is any of this news to you?

 

[santaman2000]

You've invoked Godwin...

LOL. Actually I believe the truth is much more sinister. The cover-up is to prevent us from realizing none of this is real; we're all in the matrix.

 

[wattsy]

Anything which doesn't make sense. Or is blatant bulls..t.. Yes a thinker will question both sides and make their own opinion. Followers believe what they are told, and dont questions it nor look into anything themselves..

An example being the lack of plane wreckage at 2 crash sites in the same day. On both of which, damage caused by said planes was too small and localised to even be caused by the size of aircraft said to be in the crashes.

Heres the pentagon in the afternoon of 9/11, not one scrap of anything other than building debris. No large passenger aircraft hit that. There WOULD be evidence of wings or tail, yet there is nothing. A follower will believe a plane hit that. A thinker will see that there is no evidence whatsoever of an aircraft hitting it. There is just damage to a building. I mean, just look at the size of the area of damage compared to the windows and other bits, for scale. Now imaging a big passenger aircraft in comparison, not only that but the outer wall of the building is still there, its sagging a bit but its there. Funny, cos if a plane hit it, it wouldnt be. The plane cant be inside the building unless it has passed through a solid wall, leaving the wall there.
View attachment 9843

there's no evidence a plane didn't hit it either, although from the damage I'd say its a damn site more likely that a plane did hit it than it didn't. a reply has already been posted showing that a plane can be 'vaporised' for want of a better word, during an impact. you're not an air crash investigator, so you aren't in a position to say that is or isn't an aeroplane impact.

Yeah i see your point mate.

That pic i put up does show the damage done to the pentagon the same day as the crash, so thats immediately enough in a case like this as that gives them no time to move any wreckage, especially with the pentagon still burning.

I also know that that for something to be proved, there has to be evidence. Thats the problem with the 9/11 stuff. There is NO evidence that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in that field, none whatsoever. So they expect us to believe that one did, with no evidence to support it. The other side, the truth seekers are just saying "show me the evidence" Which i don't find unreasonable.

When you put in a scale image of the aircraft in question, it puts a bit more perspective on it.

View attachment 9844

see above. there wouldn't necessarily be any wreckage

I've not really aired much at all mate. Neither am i a conspiracy theorist. I just have a nose for bullsh.t. You also jump to too many assumptions mate. I find your attitude both childish, and boring. Perhaps you should heed your own signature. You seem to have all the answers, yet no questions.

If you had paid any attention to what i had previously said, you would note that i said i wasn't offering any opinion as to what or wasn't faked,as i do not know. Yet here you are talking as though i had. Wake up lad.

i find your attitude smug and boorish, and you're assertion that you aren't a conspiracy theorist is belied by your weighing in on almost any discussion related to one, or politics, or end of the world prophecies, or any global event, with an assertion that it didn't happen the way it was said, or people are interpreting it wrong etc. there's a point where thinking you have a nose for b.llsh.t becomes paranoia. my post previously was a direct response to your implied 'everyone who agrees with the official line is a moron' post, and yes, that is a condensed version.

 

[Biker]

LOL. Actually I believe the truth is much more sinister. The cover-up is to prevent us from realizing none of this is real; we're all in the matrix.

Wouldn't that be really freaky? Which is why a lot of people choose the bliss and ignorance pill over harsh reality.

Wake up man, at least show some curiousity!

 

[HillBill]

Then theres the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC building 7, 20 minutes before it fell
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...2932.6458.0.8271.12.12.0.2.2.0.65.494.10.10.0

Yes we have to take the word of the slippery CIA that all was in order at the scene of the crash.

Yet it's odd how an F4 Phantom can disintegrate against a concrete wall like that videoa shown previously but an fully laden Airliner make all that damage and the heaviest parts, which are the engines, not punch any holes in the outside walls while the tubular fuselage and soft bodied passengers and crew could penetrate so deeply into the building... and then disappear somehow inside in the flames.

Really odd that.

It's these little inconsistancies that cast doubt over the rest of the big picture for me. Why would they do that? Who benefits from an act like this?

 

[Urban X]

I've never yet visited a crash site where the soil was "a burnt out crater."

I've never been to a crash site and I bow to the fact that you have, and certainly don't envy you, must be horrific, but this is about as confirmed a crash site as you're gonna get and look at the devastation and burning.

Lockerbie! :yikes:


Si