I was raised Catholic in England. I decided at around age 15 that there was not actually any good reason for believing in God, so I stopped.
But I've always been interested in the influence the Bible has on the lives of people. It's really a mish-mash of mixed messages, often quite horrific messages in the Old Testament. But many people claim to use it as the foundation of their philosophical and moral world view. Yet I feel that the most effective argument against Christianity for many people comes from a full reading of the Bible from beginning to end, so you can really get a sense for what's going on in there. The stories on exchristian.com have several examples of this.
What I was wondering, is what the Bible's advice or opinions on Skepticism and Debunking might be. So I had a trawl. I'd noticed in 2 Peter 3:3 that the word "scoffer" or "mocker" (Greek ἐμπαῖκται, empaiktai = mocker or...
However it looks exactly like the wake of other boats on the loch, just dimmer
It's dimmer because of the way different images are stitched together to create a seamless image. The area with Nessie is not simply the low contrast image, but it's also blended with a higher contrast image without the boat, which is why you can see some texture in the surface of...
Interesting cloud, on first glance it looks a bit like smoke and dust from a collapsed building:
If you look closer it's not really as dense as it seems, it's actually quite wispy. The fog seems darker because there are dark buildings in the fog, and dark hills behind it.
It's actually just another example of foggy air from the ocean moving in and rising up over beachside hotels, forming more dense fog as it rises, like this example in Panama City, Florida,
The rising air cools slightly as it rises, and as the conditions are "just right" for fog formation, this make more fog form as the air rises. Technically it's a type of "advection fog" (advection means the movement...
A point sometimes raised in 9/11 discussion is that the the planes, and in particular UA175, were flying above their maximum "safe" speed, with the claim being made that they would immediately experience flutter, and hence be uncontrollable, and quickly break apart. The implication being that the planes that impacted the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field at Shanksville, were not stock planes, but were planes that have been modified in some way, or were entirely different types of plane in disguise - possibly even not the same planes that took off that morning, but some other planes that were craftily swapped in at some point in the flight.
While this seems like an incredible, even ridiculous theory, it's raised often enough that it's worth looking in detail into how flutter occurs, and at what speed, so we can see if this is in any way relevant to the events of 9/11.
What is the Claim?
The specific claim made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth is:
Photos were taken at Bromma Airport in Stockholm recently.
At a brief glance it looks very suspicious. It contains the word "aero", "chem" and showing a trail at the same time. Can this be definite proof?
De-icing is required all year around, even in summer. Despite warm weather conditions on ground level the conditions during flight can easily turn into wet icy conditions high in the air where ambient temperatures reach far below zero in strong winds or while planes passes through areas with high humidity.