Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

McDowell posted:

I also think United 93 might have been shot down and the resistance story is either an embellishment or fiction.

fermun posted:

The military probably did give authorization to take the planes out, but fighter jets weren't allowed to hang around being fueled and armed until after 9/11 which takes a while, so they likely would have had to ram the plane to take it out. There are numerous recorded cell phone calls and the flight recorder going all the way to the crash and none say anything about being shot down. The debris field was only about 1.5 miles, which is consistent with a high-speed crash crash and far too small for a plane that is breaking up prior to crashing. It's not conclusive, but the official story certainly makes more sense given the data.
I am no expert on any of the science, but I have always harbored a strong suspicion that the United 93 was shot down. I am just paranoid enough not to want to say why because I fear getting someone in a high station in trouble for talking about it before it even hit the news and then recanting and verbally redacting their statement. Of course, they could easily have been mistaken as well.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

QuarkJets posted:

i love it when conspiracy theorists find significance in unrelated numbers, i always get the biggest kick out of that numerology poo poo

Me too, it's like the conspiracy theorists got their idea of villainy from Saturday morning cartoons or comic books. The bad guys are pathologically required to leave clues for the good guys to find and cryptically explain their plans in convoluted but solvable riddles. As opposed to reality where they would just not do that and leave your body in the gutter.

Or perhaps, like in Gargoyles, the masonic Illuminati spells need an escape clause built into them, so they hide clues where no one will ever find them like in the most commonly read book in the world and on all the money.

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Illuminti posted:


Here's the actual thread in case anyone would like their mind opened

Seriously, thanks for the post, but I'm scared if what would happen if my mind opened any more did this guy got in, like, at all.

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
While it's true that religion is certainly not the cause of humans being dicks to each other, there are some specific and heinous forms of dickishness that are greatly magnified in both intensity and frequency by religious ideas and cultures.

Adding to that that criticizing religion is a cultural taboo, to degrees ranging from being considered rude to deserving of immediate tortuous execution, almost everywhere, it is a very powerful focus and unassailable justification of much of human brutality. This also includes secular cults of personality focused around dictators even if they make no supernatural claims.

Removing the effective restrictions on criticism of religion-as-source of dickishness would let said dickishness be meaningfully addressed and reduced by cultures who would otherwise not condone or suffer such behavior.

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Helen Highwater posted:

I'm 44 years old and have a well paying career. I've lived in 8 different countries in everything from massive metropolises to tiny mediaeval market towns in the middle of the forest. In all of that time, I've never learnt to drive or thought to own a car because I've never needed one (and in some places, owning a car is more of a liability than a benefit anyhow - looking at you central Paris). My ex-wife is from Colorado Springs and we would go out there once a year or so to visit her parents. When I told them I couldn't drive, they looked at me like I'd just grown a second head.

Seems like the same arguments against learning to swim, but they both seem like valuable life skills that anyone could one day be in a position to seriously regret never picking up.

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

boner confessor posted:

there are plenty of places in the world where there are sane urban planning policies and built environment traditions which don't require you to have to use an expensive machine to navigate. billions of people manage it every day

Yeah no poo poo, and those people can go their whole life without swimming too, but as I said it is a potentially useful life skill that might be good to know just in case you're ever in the situation where it would be useful or lifesaving.

That's all. I understand why many people don't know how and in fact it is the same reason most Americans only speak one language - there is no immediate need to speak another.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Illuminti posted:

I can walk so I never needed to learn how to ride a bike. Frankly, I'm probably saving lives given how many pedestrians are killed by cyclist a year.

And in an emergency I can just learn how to ride a bike, they're pretty idiot proof

With modern conveniences, I can get everything delivered to my house and do everything I need without leaving my chair, so I never learned to walk.

I'm sure If I have to walk in an emergency I can quickly figure it out. Toddlers figure it out and I'm smarter than a toddler.

  • Locked thread