• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I suggested that professional pilots be tested in flight simulators using known data about the south tower flight as a starting point and then comparing it to the known flight.

It took off from there.

For some people this 9/11 business is more about proving how smart they are. So this has gone on ad nauseum. But then maybe it is a tactic to bore people into letting the subject fade away. A kind of psyops strategy.

But if lots of people with degrees are so smart then why hasn't this been solved by now and why are so many degreed people saying NOTHING? This lack of resolution is now a bigger issue than the original problem. Skyscrapers are not new technology. The nation that put men on the Moon can't specify the steel and concrete distributions in buildings designed before 1969. 7th and 8th graders should know the obvious questions to ask.

psik

they have put low time pilots in simulators and they had no problems Check the links I posted this is a non issue except for people living in lala land
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I suggested that professional pilots be tested in flight simulators using known data about the south tower flight as a starting point and then comparing it to the known flight.

It took off from there.

For some people this 9/11 business is more about proving how smart they are. So this has gone on ad nauseum. But then maybe it is a tactic to bore people into letting the subject fade away. A kind of psyops strategy.

But if lots of people with degrees are so smart then why hasn't this been solved by now and why are so many degreed people saying NOTHING? This lack of resolution is now a bigger issue than the original problem. Skyscrapers are not new technology. The nation that put men on the Moon can't specify the steel and concrete distributions in buildings designed before 1969. 7th and 8th graders should know the obvious questions to ask.

psik

Thanks for the straight answer--they are so rare in this cyber world, especially with this particular topic.

Oozle

You perceive a "problem" in the truth community. You see it as a problem when citizens do not believe a story that does not pass even the most superficial scrutiny. Objection noted.

I perceive a problem when citizens do not ask questions, or happily and consistently overlook or disregard facts that contradict a government story.

Difference is, I guess, that I fairly well understand the dynamics of cognitive dissonance, including how widespread it is in the species.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Oozle

You perceive a "problem" in the truth community. You see it as a problem when citizens do not believe a story that does not pass even the most superficial scrutiny. Objection noted.

Sorry, faulty logic at play here.

I find a problem when there is a total lack of logic and credability and facts in the belief of some people. And I don't care if it is the Truther community, the Flat Earthers, or the International jewish Conspiracy.

When you have so many loonies jump out of the woodwork with so many conflicting theories as to what really happened, it soon becomes hard to take any of them seriously. Especially when you have ones that have absolutely no credability and try to weave in and amongst their theory 10 other conspiracy theories.

Soon all you have is a psychophrenic mish-mash of conflicting theories, and I simply can't take any of them seriously.

I know you like to try and portray those that do not accept your belief as sheep who simply follow the party line. However, I am very much in logic. And when there are so many logical failure points, the entire theory becomes nonsense.

Look, you all can't even agree on what hit the buildings, let alone how they were brought down. Or who was behind it. Or anything else. Our Nazi types say is twas the Jews. The Liberals like to claim it was the President. The New World Order like to tie together the president and Arabs, then you have everybody else from the Trilateral Commission and ENRON to the Free Masons and Girl Scouts thrown into others.

It is all just bull****. If you all had a single line, I would probably give it some credability. But you all can't even agree on the basics, so how should anybody take any of you serious?

It is just bull****. I have even seen fights amongs you all here and in other forums, all insisting that they are right in which conspiracy did it, and trying to disprove the conspiracy theories of others.

ch-apes-7.jpg
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

they have put low time pilots in simulators and they had no problems Check the links I posted this is a non issue except for people living in lala land

Are you talking about this:

Screw Loose Change: Novice Pilot Hits Pentagon in Flight Simulator

It says "This video does not exist".

And I was talking about the south tower not the Pentagon though the same thing could apply. I don't know how accurate the data is on the Pentagon flight. Could radar track the plane that low?

psik
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Is this video you were all talking about?

The pilot thing starts at 4:47



EDIT: Yeah never-mind, see the post below.

Fallen.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Are you talking about this:

Screw Loose Change: Novice Pilot Hits Pentagon in Flight Simulator

It says "This video does not exist".

And I was talking about the south tower not the Pentagon though the same thing could apply. I don't know how accurate the data is on the Pentagon flight. Could radar track the plane that low?

psik

Sorry try this link
9/11 Documentary: Zembla Investigates 9/11 Part 2 - YouTube

It is Pentagon attack but that is irrelevant it shows a plane can fly at the speeds under complete control near sea level altitudes.
As to Radar and altitude it depends how far the plane is from the Radar antenna and upon geography
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Could radar track the plane that low?

psik

Wow, just wow.

Yes, RADAR can track objects entirely down to ground level. But there are a lot of factors that come into play here. But as a general rule of thumb, as long as a RADAR has a clear line of sight between it and the object, it can track it. It may even be able to track it if there is no clear line of sight, but I am not going to even begin to get into that subject at this time.

And yes, I do know a thing or two about RADAR.

Sorry try this link
As to Radar and altitude it depends how far the plane is from the Radar antenna and upon geography

Of all of the factors, geography is the most important. This is because of ground scatter and ghosting, which can jumble the RADAR return.

In most cases, this return is rejected by the computers that operate it. Essentially they have filters that have been tuned in to these false returns (like say from a mountain or building), and ignore them when presenting a picture to the operator. However, the data is still placed in the digital memory of the RADAR logs and can be retrieved and then viewed at a later time.

Most people really do not understand how RADAR actually works at the user level. These can see things as small as birds, or even vehicles traveling on a nearby highway. It is up to the signal processor to discriminate which is a real target (an airplane traveling at 120 mph), and a false object (as far as the operator is concerned), like a flock of birds traveling at 30 mph at 100 feet, or a truck on a nearby highway traveling at 60 mpg at an apparent altitude of 4 feet.

These discriminators are put in place to prevent the operator from being overwhelmed by spurious data that they do not need to process. For ATC, they only care about actual aircraft. For another system like Air Warning, they track all objects at all speeds. For Missile and Air Defense, they care about aircraft above a set altitude and traveling at a certain speed.

RADAR is pretty good, and can see a lot more then most people think. We can even see our own "Stealth" aircraft on them, but 99% of the time do not get anough of a signal return to accurately track or engage them (think of a hazy shadow that comes in and out, not the bright solid blip that is needed to target a missile on it).

And yes Psi, now you are moving into something I can give you a lot of very specific details about.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Comparing busses and sports cars to fighters and passenger jets in their handling show you have no clue how aeronautics work! a buss will flip over if you turn to fast a fighter can be flipped over if you turn to hard good luck doing a snap roll in a b757!
Tonyt you are so soo far off on this please don't let me have to drop you down to HD respect levels!

The bus will flip over trying to round a corner at 50 mph and so will the airliner with any error whatsoever at 500 mph at sea level.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

BTW Tony a jet fighter has a significantly larger % of wing area devoted to control surfaces than does a commercial jet. This is precisely because they want to have quicker reaction to inputs than is necessary/wanted on commercial jets

I was not talking about control surface area as a percentage of wing surface. What you are saying here isn't even germane.

I was talking about control surfaces and lever arms to center of rotation being small in a fighter. They won't over handle with that arrangement and are more stable at high speed. This is similar to the sports car with a short wheelbase and low Cg as compared to the bus with the long wheelbase and high Cg.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The bus will flip over trying to round a corner at 50 mph and so will the airliner with any error whatsoever at 500 mph at sea level.

No tony the jet will snap roll the airliner will slowly roll, the opposite of the bus/sprts car
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I was not talking about control surface area as a percentage of wing surface. What you are saying here isn't even germane.

I was talking about control surfaces and lever arms to center of rotation being small in a fighter. They won't over handle with that arrangement and are more stable at high speed. This is similar to the sports car with a short wheelbase and low Cg as compared to the bus with the long wheelbase and high Cg.

It is entirely germain to the subject. The greater the % of wing area used as control surface the more sensitive the controls will be. since you think the controls of a jetliner would be too sensitive to control at high speed/low altitude then obviously a fighter jet with a larger % of wing area devoted to control surfaces would be harder to control. Yet somehow they do it routinely showing your premise to be false.
You are forgetting that the longer wingspan of the jetliner will act to slow down the effect of the control surface and reduce the roll rates. or in other words you got it all wrong.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

No tony the jet will snap roll the airliner will slowly roll, the opposite of the bus/sprts car

Now your are just throwing nonsense at the wall. Mechanics are mechanics, whether they occur in the air or on the ground. the airliner is nowhere near as stable in maneuvering at high speed as the fighter just like the bus isn't when compared to the sports car.

Do you understand what I mean by the word "mechanics"?
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It is entirely germain to the subject. The greater the % of wing area used as control surface the more sensitive the controls will be. since you think the controls of a jetliner would be too sensitive to control at high speed/low altitude then obviously a fighter jet with a larger % of wing area devoted to control surfaces would be harder to control. Yet somehow they do it routinely showing your premise to be false.
You are forgetting that the longer wingspan of the jetliner will act to slow down the effect of the control surface and reduce the roll rates. or in other words you got it all wrong.

The mechanics involve force and distance. You are only talking in general about one of those and not in a complete way.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It isn't surprising that you are answering my request to provide the links you claim proved me wrong with this post.

WTF? I provided links you have provided nothing but a lack of comprehension of aerodynamics
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The mechanics involve force and distance. You are only talking in general about one of those and not in a complete way.

Learn about what you are talking about before you continue to make a fool of yourself. I have provided you with links proving you wrong I have tried to explain in plain language why you are wrong and you continue to spew nonsense.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Now your are just throwing nonsense at the wall. Mechanics are mechanics, whether they occur in the air or on the ground. the airliner is nowhere near as stable in maneuvering at high speed as the fighter just like the bus isn't when compared to the sports car.

Do you understand what I mean by the word "mechanics"?

BS an airliner is always more stable than a jet fighter it is designed to be that way. Your analogies show you have no clue what you are talking about you are dangerously close to becoming a HD.
Do you understand that you know nothing about what you are talking? I mean nothing not even close to being on target here Tony
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You are forgetting that the longer wingspan of the jetliner will act to slow down the effect of the control surface and reduce the roll rates. or in other words you got it all wrong.

Much like the keel of a boat. The larger the boat the larger of the keel, because it helps to counteract the roll of the boat. The keel does not prevent a boat from capsizing, but it does slow the roll so that the sailor can counteract the effects. An 11' Snark Sunflower has a smaller keel then a 39' Catalina 385. But the Snark will turn over much faster because of the other differences, such as mass, amount of hull in the water, and sail area.

And that is something that is apparently forgotten in this discussion: mass. Simply because it is in the air, that does not negate the 3 laws, and it is harder to move that much mass quickly. The very air itself will try to fight any radical changes in attitude because in a roll movement, the wings themselves will act like brakes.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Wow, just wow.

Yes, RADAR can track objects entirely down to ground level. But there are a lot of factors that come into play here. But as a general rule of thumb, as long as a RADAR has a clear line of sight between it and the object, it can track it. It may even be able to track it if there is no clear line of sight, but I am not going to even begin to get into that subject at this time.

And yes, I do know a thing or two about RADAR.

I am sorry, I was not talking about some theoretical condition. How far down could the RADAR that was in the vicinity at the time track the plane? I have not seen that data like I did for the south tower impact and there isn't a lot of video to match it up with for the Pentagon impact. If there was then there would not be arguments about whether or not there was an airliner at the Pentagon.

I haven't seen photos of the seats and tail in the debris.

psik
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I am sorry, I was not talking about some theoretical condition. How far down could the RADAR that was in the vicinity at the time track the plane? I have not seen that data like I did for the south tower impact and there isn't a lot of video to match it up with for the Pentagon impact. If there was then there would not be arguments about whether or not there was an airliner at the Pentagon.

I haven't seen photos of the seats and tail in the debris.

psik

The only reason there is any debate on the Pentagon plane is that some truthers have a problem with reality
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Learn about what you are talking about before you continue to make a fool of yourself. I have provided you with links proving you wrong I have tried to explain in plain language why you are wrong and you continue to spew nonsense.

Nothing said and no links provided to back your claim that I am wrong again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

BS an airliner is always more stable than a jet fighter it is designed to be that way. Your analogies show you have no clue what you are talking about you are dangerously close to becoming a HD.
Do you understand that you know nothing about what you are talking? I mean nothing not even close to being on target here Tony

Nothing said and no links provided to back your claim that I am wrong yet again.

How many times are you going to just blab that I am wrong somehow or don't know what I am talking about without backing up your statements?
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Hate to bust your bubble too Tony, you are most likely wrong.

How would you know as you claim not to be able to make up your mind?

I know, its the evil govt. and the govt controlled news media that keeps you and others from getting the truth out.

Are you saying high level criminals within a government could not have pulled off a stunt like 911?

Question for you. If a human could not have controlled the airliner, are you saying it was a drone? Was the drone totally computer controlled? Was some human behind the controls of the drone? The airliner (what ever was controlling it) still hit the buildings.

I am saying the evidence shows the South Tower aircraft to behave like a programmed computer controlled machine reacting to homing beacons, one for long range and the second at much shorter range. The aircraft was heading toward something based somewhere near NYC City Hall from way out and then at two miles out made a very precise turn towards the South Tower, a maneuver which would have been impossible for a human to just guess at and carry out, especially in an airliner at high speed at sea level. The human input would have been in the programming, not the real time control. Call it whatever you like.

Watch these two short videos about it by a German engineer if you haven't yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom