The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[Biker]

NASA knows all about the Van Allen belts which is why all the Apollo missions followed a trajectory along the edge of the belts avoiding the areas of strongest radiation, with each astronaut receiving much less than the 5 rem set by the US Atomic Energy Commission as a guideline. NASA, and the people who work for it, are not thick.

on the one hand an internationally respected scientific organisation with a proven track record of space exploration, and a huge contribution to science, and on the other small minded individuals with too much time and internet access who want to jump on great individuals and call themselves tall. pathetic

Not trying to make myself tall at all mate. I know my limitations.

What I AM saying however is that there are some scientists out there who have done the research and have found fault with the official line. NASA say one thing and yet when presented with the evidence contrary to it get evasive and sweaty. I can't comment about the lesser radioactive areas of the belt but I do know that anything other than a straight line between where they were supposed to be traveling to meet the moon would meet would burn fuel. Something they could NOT afford to do. They were in freefall all the way there once they turned off their engine.

 

[sapper1]

Yes it does - it just moves back - in a metal that is malleability. The volume of the metal remains the same. You create a big dint in the liquid causing ripples where the displaced liquid moves back to replace the space created.

So if it's just malleability why doesn't the dent show on the other side of a block of steel,maybe because it's compressed?If it has compressed then the volume has changed.
Metal does float in petrol.

Fill a bucket with petrol and place a metal tobacco tin in it and see how long it floats for.

There are so many variables involved in this discussion ,we could go on for ever

 

[santaman2000]

hmmm

So gases - easy to compress - less dense than liquids
Liquids - difficult (but not impossible to compress) denser than gases, less dense than solids.
Solids - More compressable than liquids - yet denser than the other states?


That doesn't ring true to me I'm afraid.

It is true though; implausable as it seems.

 

[santaman2000]

Plane crash site:

Hole in the ground

I'm not doubting your word about plane crash sites but the difference I see between those on news footage and the one in Pennsylvania is a bit like

Actually NO, that's a Picture of a crash site (unconfirmed) but I've actually been to crash sites. Have you?

 

[santaman2000]

Solids - More compressable than liquids - yet denser than the other states?

I can dent solid metal with a hammer,no matter how hard I hit a liquid with a hammer it doesn't dent.

Neither case is "compresion"; they're both examples of "displacement."

 

[HillBill]

Threads like this seperate thinkers from followers. The difference is obvious. Thinkers question, followers don't.

 

[Biker]

Actually NO, that's a Picture of a crash site (unconfirmed) but I've actually been to crash sites. Have you?

Nope seen enough on the TV though and that one didn't look anything like the classic crash at all. Now call me a cynic but that struck me as odd. Same with the Pentagon hit, no plane yet plenty of offical reports stating there was and a whole pile of conflicting reports followed that.

The shinola thing was posted tongue in cheek mate, no offence intended.

 

[Biker]

Threads like this seperate thinkers from followers. The difference is obvious. Thinkers question, followers don't.

Ooohh heavy man. Like that a lot!

 

[wingstoo]

Maximum density of water is when it is at 4 degrees Centigrade, above or below this it expands, with higher temps it is a gradual expansion, when below it becomes very rapid at 0 degrees Centigrade, hence the reason pipes burst when the water inside them freezes.

Jet engines have a prop shaft that joins the compressor prop blades together, maybe not a Propeller shaft like on some aircraft but still a prop shaft.

 

[Huon]

Threads like this seperate thinkers from followers. The difference is obvious. Thinkers question, followers don't.

Thinkers question what exactly? The conspiracy theories?

Which side of this argument is the one supported by the thinkers? Or do you mean that a thinker would question both sides and then form their own opinion?

 

[wattsy]

Not trying to make myself tall at all mate. I know my limitations.

What I AM saying however is that there are some scientists out there who have done the research and have found fault with the official line. NASA say one thing and yet when presented with the evidence contrary to it get evasive and sweaty. I can't comment about the lesser radioactive areas of the belt but I do know that anything other than a straight line between where they were supposed to be traveling to meet the moon would meet would burn fuel. Something they could NOT afford to do. They were in freefall all the way there once they turned off their engine.

yes but the straight line skirted the edge of the Van Allen belt. thats it

 

[sapper1]

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?

 

[santaman2000]

Not trying to make myself tall at all mate. I know my limitations.

What I AM saying however is that there are some scientists out there who have done the research and have found fault with the official line. NASA say one thing and yet when presented with the evidence contrary to it get evasive and sweaty. I can't comment about the lesser radioactive areas of the belt but I do know that anything other than a straight line between where they were supposed to be traveling to meet the moon would meet would burn fuel. Something they could NOT afford to do. They were in freefall all the way there once they turned off their engine.

Just where was the moon when they "turned off the engine?" Or more importantly, What would be the intersection of their tracectory and the moon? Remember the moon was/is a moving target. If you time your launch with the moons position in orbit and allow for the speed of bothe the capsule and the moon then it becomes a matter of doing the math. You can launch in any direction convenient (including a direction to minimize exposure) so long as you choose your launch time so that your travel time allows for intersection with the also moving target (the moon)

 

[wattsy]

Threads like this seperate thinkers from followers. The difference is obvious. Thinkers question, followers don't.

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.

 

[Biker]

yes but the straight line skirted the edge of the Van Allen belt. thats it

I realise this is REPRESENTATION but it's the best I could find on google to illustrate my point... hopefully you see the problem NASA would have had to solve. How could a straight line be plotted between Earth and the moon for a ship with minimum manouvering capabilities not enough fuel to make those moves and very likely no radiation detecting equipment even if they could get out of the way of the nastier bits?

Oh and add to that NO shielding, not even deflector shields or photon torpedoes.

As far as I was concerned the moon trod an equatorial(ish) orbit not a pole to pole orbit

 

[santaman2000]

So if it's just malleability why doesn't the dent show on the other side of a block of steel,maybe because it's compressed?...

It does show. On the other side. On the ends. On the top and bottom. If you hit a "block" of metal the "dent" made will cause the rest of the metal to swell a corresponding ammount. However the dent is localized whereas the swelling is equal in all directions throughout the block (a bit different to the dent in a "sheet" of metal where the corresponding protrusion on the back of the sheet is obvious and roughly equal.

 

[santaman2000]

Nope seen enough on the TV though and that one didn't look anything like the classic crash at all. Now call me a cynic but that struck me as odd. Same with the Pentagon hit, no plane yet plenty of offical reports stating there was and a whole pile of conflicting reports followed that.

The shinola thing was posted tongue in cheek mate, no offence intended.

None taken. But the point is, there is no "classic" crash site. And it is quite common for the crater to be much smaller than the aircraft when whole. On the other hand it's also equally common for the crater to be much larger than the aircraft. Don't draw too much of a conclusion either way from the pix.

 

[HillBill]

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.

Thinkers question what exactly? The conspiracy theories?

Which side of this argument is the one supported by the thinkers? Or do you mean that a thinker would question both sides and then form their own opinion?

 

[sapper1]

It does show. On the other side. On the ends. On the top and bottom. If you hit a "block" of metal the "dent" made will cause the rest of the metal to swell a corresponding ammount. However the dent is localized whereas the swelling is equal in all directions throughout the block (a bit different to the dent in a "sheet" of metal where the corresponding protrusion on the back of the sheet is obvious and roughly equal.

I hadn't thought of that,good answer.I thought that when the dent went in the molecules would be compressed and the space between them would get smaller in a localised area.On thinking .the space between the molecules is very close an would only change with an increase /decrease in temperature which would alter the resonance between each molecule and the surrounding ones.

My head hurts now,it's years since I actually did this type of work(as in learning not actually doing).

 

[wattsy]

I realise this is REPRESENTATION but it's the best I could find on google to illustrate my point... hopefully you see the problem NASA would have had to solve. How could a straight line be plotted between Earth and the moon for a ship with minimum manouvering capabilities not enough fuel to make those moves and very likely no radiation detecting equipment even if they could get out of the way of the nastier bits?

Oh and add to that NO shielding, not even deflector shields or photon torpedoes.

this diagram forgets that the earth and the moon are moving. they didn't aim at the moon, they aimed at where it was going to be, then travelled in a straight line, skirting the edge of the Van Allen belts to avoid the worst of the radiation. as i've already said, NASA aren't stupid and the 16th of july probably wasn't a date they picked out of a hat, perhaps they planned ahead for when the moon would be in an advantageous position for those reasons?