|
Post by tedward on Sept 16, 2008 0:40:13 GMT -4
Pick me. For several years I lived under the flight path of aircraft using a runway at an international airport. As I said I worked at the airport, it took me all of 15 minutes to get to work. When planes were taking off over my house and one was in the yard it was difficult to hear another person's conversation however it was just as loud as a passing city bus on the street in front of the house. Now the bus was 75 feet away and the plane 1000 feet away so yes the plane generated more sound, BUT in my yard the two were just as loud! Now in the winter, at 35 below, they were significantly louder. Tell me CBB, any guesses why that would be. Let's see your "common sense" shine! Of course we did not try to have BBQ parties outside in January. I was young and foolish at the time but not that foolish! Let's see, what other experience can I relate that is relevent. well I was on the wing of an idling DC3 while my friend refueled it. We later learned that they are supposed to shut the engines down but that if they can get away with it then at 40 below they will leave them running. THAT was louder than the various jet passenger aircraft flying over my house, much, much louder. In that case I could tell my friend was speaking because I saw his mouth moving. He says he was yelling at the top of his voice. I heard nothing that could even be remotely distinquished as human speech. In my back yard, with passenger jets overhead, if one raised one's voice you could be heard. Interesting (no, really), but no medical attention for every takeoff? I realise that the type 3 regs (excuse the term if incorrect) must measured in a particular way and probably include times and patterns etc. Full throttle for part of the ascent after takeoff. Weight of the plane. And so on. Be interesting to see, for no particular reason now other than to satisfy curiosity. I was first drawn to this thinking about Heathrow. Drive around it and past it many times and I know people live and work either end of the runways, 2000ft ish? Houses a bit further. Look on google earth. I have stayed at a hotel a few times that backs on the runway that is less than 1000ft, I realise that I will get a different dose if it was at the end. Also spent many summers in the 70's at airshows. I do not think health and safety was an issue then as it is now and some of the toys of the RAF and US buzzing the runway was awesome. Of course we would get as close as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 17, 2008 13:42:37 GMT -4
I was not clear. By "1000 feet away" I was refering to their being approx 1000 feet above the house, not on the ground.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Oct 2, 2008 5:50:46 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 2, 2008 6:03:09 GMT -4
Believe it or not I saw a few conspiracy theorists posting that that particular accident was staged to make the "official story" of the WTC collapses more plausible.
Which begs the question why, if that was a good tactic, the conspirators haven't yet set fire to an office building and let it fall down.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Oct 2, 2008 7:07:47 GMT -4
Believe it or not I saw a few conspiracy theorists posting that that particular accident was staged to make the "official story" of the WTC collapses more plausible. Which begs the question why, if that was a good tactic, the conspirators haven't yet set fire to an office building and let it fall down. Doh! ::)Oh the humanity. . . Yeah, I thought they would, that dosn't suprise me at all. Sadly, not one bit.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 3, 2008 12:33:20 GMT -4
To complete the example of 'truther' psyche it should be noted that not only are events post 9/11 that is any way support the findings of the various official investigations painted as having been 'arranged' by the big bad ol' NWO, but there are many examples of 'truthers' claiming that events that occured pre-9/11 that do the same were also set ups. One example, the Sandi Labs test in which they ram an F-4 into a concrete block and there are no recognizable pieces of aircraft left.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 5, 2008 1:53:27 GMT -4
Never seems to occur to them it would be simpler to make a conspiracy more people would believe in in the first place.
But again, never underestimate the ability of the conspiracy believer to rationalize. One I've heard more than once is that the conspiracy was SUPPOSED to have gaping holes in it. It's because the conspirators want to show off how well-controlled the public is, and how well the mind control drugs are working on the sheeple.
Seems to me this was thought before and much more smartly, in the original "fnord" -- which was a tool by the conspiracy to FIND the few rare people who were immune to the usual mind control rays. And immediately hunt them down and kill them. But this never seems to happen to Truthers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 6, 2008 11:05:57 GMT -4
Never seems to occur to them it would be simpler to make a conspiracy more people would believe in in the first place. But again, never underestimate the ability of the conspiracy believer to rationalize. One I've heard more than once is that the conspiracy was SUPPOSED to have gaping holes in it. It's because the conspirators want to show off how well-controlled the public is, and how well the mind control drugs are working on the sheeple. Seems to me this was thought before and much more smartly, in the original "fnord" -- which was a tool by the conspiracy to FIND the few rare people who were immune to the usual mind control rays. And immediately hunt them down and kill them. But this never seems to happen to Truthers. Right. If the mind control drugs are so effective then how can a bunch of lazy college drop-outs escape their influence?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 6, 2008 12:20:48 GMT -4
;D
Hard work and education are symptoms of the drugs working...
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 6, 2008 22:54:47 GMT -4
Despite the numerous claims by many a truther that their lives are in danger as are those who follow the TM path, not a one seems to go missing and so far the only death I can think of is Barry Jennings who's harrasment BY the TM probably hastened his early demise.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 6, 2008 23:20:22 GMT -4
So he wasn't part of the 9/11 Truth Movement then? I tried to do a Google search for him and the first few pages of results all seemed to be TM sites saying he was murdered.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 7, 2008 0:40:49 GMT -4
While I'm certainly not saying it's not true, there is not a lot of evidence if he has died or not. There certainly is no evidence of murder, the Truthers simply decided that since it was rumored he had died that he has and so he had to have been murdered. The facts are not really known, but his being overweight and 53 put him in a pretty high risk group for a heart attack, plenty of people have died of natural causes at a younger age.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 7, 2008 13:09:59 GMT -4
Heck, my own father died of natural causes at 44.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 7, 2008 13:32:22 GMT -4
Certainly a person can die from natural causes at any age and conspiracy theorists will often say someone was murdered when there is actually no evidence of foul play. I was just curious about whether Barry Jennings was actually part of the Truth Movement or whether they just repeated his statements about explosions in WTC 7 to support the controlled demolition theories.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 7, 2008 13:55:58 GMT -4
He wasn't part of the Truth Movement. He did an interview with Avery and Bemas, probably not realising who they were, and then when he found out hiw massacred it had been told them that they weren't to air it. The truthers of course see this as him being got at and threatened. He was interviewed by the BBC later and was quite scathing about the way the Truth Movement had handled him.
|
|