you don't have to travel faster that light to look back in time

when you look at the moon you are seeing it as it was a few seconds ago i.e. in the past, the Sun a few minutes ago

distant stars 100 of thousands of years ago - in the past

 

The thought I had as a kid was , if you could travel faster than the speed of light and went far enough away , basically caught up with the light reflected off of earth hundreds of years ago , you could look back at earth and see the past , you'd need incredable eyesight of coarse ,

I've not really thought about it since then , the question would be , how far would you have to travel to see say 100 years ago and does light fade away . And did I do to much drugs in my earlier years

 

It's warmer n the summer for two reasons. The sun is in the sky for longer, giving it longer to warm, and also the suns says are hitting the Earth at a more direct angle, so not as much of their energy is lost coming through the atmosphere.

A simple example of this is why the temperature drops as the sun gets lower in the sky, or conversely, why it gets hotter in the morning as it rises.

The reason it is warmer as you go south is the the sun is always going to more towards overhead, and the days vary in length less.

The difference in distance to the sun really doesn't have much effect, if any. You have to go a lot further or closer before you would notice much.

 

It's surprising how much difference the angle makes just going from say Edinburgh to London

 

How far would you have to travel to see [the light from] 100 years ago?
100 light years, of course.

It is not possible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light, because it would require an infinite amount of energy. (E=mc2)

 

Isn't the very existence of flat-Earthism itself a historical fallacy? Unless you go back to times centuries or millennia before Galileo, no major culture believed the Earth was actually flat, they just wrongly thought it was the Sun that revolved around it, rather than the other way around.

 

yes that is true

the ancient Egyptians, 1000 of years BC calculated the circumference of the earth to a remarkably accurate degree

this sort of knowledge was lost for a time in the Dark ages before resurfacing again in the Enlightenment

although we seem to be in danger of entering another Dark Age

 

People who talk about being "Open minded" as a retort to those who doubt outlandish claims rarely seem to actually understand the concept.
Open minded should mean willing to appreciate all possibilities use critical thinking to come to a rational conclusion.
The very first thing consipracy theorists and religious fundamentalists do is abandon these principals

see here for a very good explanation of "open mindedness"

 

Or to put it in a way easier to imagine ,around 600 trillion miles .

Interesting claim of infinite energy being needed ,I wonder what the science behind it is ,

 

[QUOTE=mattstant;11818156]People who talk about being "Open minded" as a retort to those who doubt outlandish claims rarely seem to actually understand the concept.
Open minded should mean willing to appreciate all possibilities use critical thinking to come to a rational conclusion.
The very first thing consipracy theorists and religious fundamentalists do is abandon these principals



There are a few problems with things you've said here , people who doubt outlandish claims , doubting an outlandish claim means they are still open to some possability the claim could be true , they would have to deny the outlandish claim because of facts , the problem comes from two people not agreeing if said fact is true or false , the fact that the claim is outlandish shouldn't be a factor to open minded people , only the facts

In the case of wtc 7 discussion the possibility to appreciate is that nist falsified its report ,

I think that is imposable to come to a conclusion on because mist won't allow there computer simulation to be investigated

Some people may claim I have moved the goal posts but I have actually came to a rational conclusion which I am still open to the fact my mind can be changed on

 

yes, that series by Qualia soup is brilliant - and worth watching

as for "something rotten went on that day"

yes - some Al Qaeda inspired Saudi terrorists flew planes in to buildings

 

[QUOTE=gary77;11818178]But the issue is, nothing suggests NIST falsified its reports or simulations. The vast majority of engineers, police, eye witnesses, firefighters, agree on what happened and on what the causes of the collapses were.

The CT claims are are not in line with with mechanics, physics, self contradicting and contradict eyewitness accounts.

The only unanswered question (and I don't personally believe this, just making a point) is who was behind the attacks? The rest is known. I believe it was Saudi backed terrorists/Al Qaeda etc, but of course it could have been made to look like that, for whatever reason. But the how is settled, beyond doubt.

 

Okay

I've asked this before and I agree it doesn't prove anything but can anyone find pictures or videos of the damage to the building and fires.

If you can't find any can you give your rational conclusion as to why that is

I've honestly forgotten but what are the sane peoples opinion of Barry Jennings and his unfortunate passing

 

[QUOTE=gary77;11818178]
No you've just proven my point entirely by jumping to irrational conclusions based on supposition.
Facts are facts the the very "fact " you allude to them as something you can agree or disagree on makes me doubt your critical faculties

"they would have to deny the outlandish claim because of facts"
that implies that the claim is valid until it can be proven wrong with your disputable facts.

If you make a claim that defies rational thinking you are the one who has to backup that claim with factual evidence

i do not say outlandish claims can't submit proof they also cannot however ignore vast quantities of evidence verified and peer reviewed



"In the case of wtc 7 discussion the possibility to appreciate is that nist falsified its report , "

Really is this true can you point to some hard evidence?

"I think that is impossable to come to a conclusion on because mist won't allow there computer simulation to be investigated "

Why would that be impossible and is it true they wont allow there computer simulation to be investigated ?


Yes there is a possibility nist falsified there report in the same why its possible the whole thing was sponsored by Mossad

all you appear to be doing here is attempting to devalue evidence you don't want to believe and drawing spurious conclusions from isolated anomalies

 

never heard of im

 

these always end in the same way


jumping from one claim to another - it is like playing wackamole with silly ideas

you rebut, with evidence, one claim after another - they simply move to the next

the CTers only have to have one tiny thing that you can't adequately explain


and BINGO, under the rules of arguing with conspiracy theorists they have won

case proved

that is why as I have said you have to deal with one claim at a time

but in fact regarding 911 ALL the claims have been pretty much answered

in a day of EXTRA ordinary events - some "weird" things happened

it would actually be "weird" if they did not

in fact if everything happened to a pre-planned script, as the CTers attest then nothing "weird" would have happened at all

 

Have to admit I'm sat waiting to load,and pmsl.Thread kind of reminded me of the movie,Pirates of the Caribbean at worlds end. 😉

 

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

 

Most SNet threads wander from the point after about two pages, but so far this one has achieved 13 pages and featured at least three totally unrelated themes. Impressive!

 

Damage to WTC7

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC...16_cropped.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wtc7damage.jpg

The building had an unusual feature in that it spanned over a substation meaning the building was in effect a bridge on its lower floors.
add this to the damage from falling parts of wtc2 and effectively no water to fight the fire meant the inevitable collapse.

Barry Jennings as far as can be googled died of natural causes in hospital

 

But you see you just can't have a 'World's End' if it's a globe.

Oh wait a minute, here's a great idea.
Let's vote for a flat Earth and everything will be fine

 

The first picture is good , better than I'd managed to find , the second picture as far as I can see doesn't show any fire or damage like has been described ,

Personally I would have thought there would be hundreds of pictures showing the inferno and damage , I can't come to a rational explanation why not

 

I did a quick Google search on Barry Jennings and apparently his family have disappeared aswel , also no witness to his death and no exact cause of death or death certificate ,

Of coarse this proves nothing only that alternative claims have been made , I've no way of making a conclusion as to what the facts are

 

I should mention no fires are visable in either of those pictures , all I can say is the reporters did a very bad job of reporting wtc7

 

You said there was no damage earlier and doubted the report that said there was, now you've seen it you've moved to fire, see that smoke, that's not a vaper having a chuff you know.

 

this is simply arguing from personal incredulity

I can't believe that Michael Flatley of Riverdance fame, can tap his feet over 28 times a second

but apparently he can

although he is "lord of the dance" so anything is possible

 

the Barry Jennings Myth is tacked here

https://septembermyths.wordpress.com...ennings-story/

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downlo...n_oct_2008.pdf - report of his passing the HYCHA staff magazine

 

Please show me the post where I said there was no damage .

Yes I doubt the report that says there was because of the lack of photos of it , like I said why aren't there hundreds showing the damage and fires

Yes there is smoke

The point I'm making is the lack of photos and videos of the buildings damage and fires , that's it

I've said time and again none of this proves anything , in other words I don't know what the truth is ,

 

Oh for .......
we cant see it in most shots because its shrouded in smoke.

Bad job of reporting ?? most sane individuals were more than half a mile away and no doubt helicopters were told to say well away as well for their own safety


One slightly insane individual got quite close and if you check out those orangey glowy bits shown coming out the windows could be fire maybe??

 

I've seen it so I believe it