Now now Manxie temper temper, I'd like to withdraw my comment that I thought you were intelligent.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
Now now Manxie temper temper, I'd like to withdraw my comment that I thought you were intelligent.
Not according to any footage I've seen.
You have posted 3 videos to support your case.
The first one he quotes "Truth's protective layer". Somehow you seem to think this is some sort of clue to the moon landings being fake. I repeat SOMEHOW. He is talking about future advances in science removing the truth about reality which is what science does.
The second clip shows a very nervous astronaut having a hard time public speaking. What does this prove? Have you seen "The King's Speech"?
The third clip Collins confirms that from the lunar surface and when on the daylight side of the moon you can't see any stars presumably because of the glare. Obvious!
The commentator then misquotes him as saying he didn't see any stars the whole trip, "Didn't he look out of the window?" That's categorically not what he was talking about.
FFS
You are saying that an event witnessed by the millions of citizens of New York did not happen.
HELLO HELLO HELLO shit there's nobody in there
People love a conspiracy theory, applying logic just spoils the fun.
Manx Shearwater
New member
No one's losing their temper. The day I lose my temper over an educationally and intellectually challenged conspiracy nutter who thinks Newton is wrong, and argues with a pilot about how planes fly, is a sad day indeed.
Your problem is that you half-read things and then twist whichever words suit you in order to reinforce any crackpot theories you are currently espousing. You then ignore the facts in the other half of what you have read, and ignore any follow up questions asking you to reconsider these points. You'd make a good politician, but a bloody terrible scientist.
Still, feel free to carry on proclaiming to the few forumites left on this thread how sadly inept you are at grasping basic schoolboy science in support of ridiculous claims.
And, as for the quote from my own thread proving your post attacking my intelligence was completely wrong, well dodged.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
This is Conspiracy Theorist 101 - misuse of (scant) facts and ignorance of conflicting evidence. Normally (although to be fair I don't think colinz has done this yet) followed by an accusation that anyone that disagrees is 'closed-minded' without a hint of irony.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
And millions, possibly billions, live on TV as well (re the second plane). Don't forget that bit.
They witnessed what they saw on Television. There isn't one creditable witness that can say they saw a plane hit the WTC.
It's getting late for me, but a lot of this was discussed here.
9/11 : Ten Years?! - Page 11
Yawn, & your the intellectual who thinks Boeings can land inside office blocks, provided they can target the bit of space between the floor and the cealing. It's you who seems to think that Newton is wrong not me.
pastafarian
Well-known member
its incredibly clear one love was referring to what some new yorkers actually witnessed with their own eyes,you probably knew that but as a good conspiracy nutter you ignore the obvious as it fits uncomfortably with the truth
Manx Shearwater
New member
That's not what I actually said though, is it? Again, you're just reinforcing the point that you only half read threads and selectively choose the bits you want to, and ignore the rest.
I said the forces acting on a plane hitting such a building would be different on different parts of the plane, depending on whether that part of the plane hit an office space or a concrete floor. Nowhere did I say a Boeing 'can land inside an office block'. You have clearly demonstrated over and over that you have no clue whatsoever about what Newton's laws mean, and even disputed his first law for about four or five pages until you eventually 'got it'. Well, we think you 'got it' as you stopped arguing about it, but no one knows for sure whether you actually did or not. Quote me the bit where I state or hint at the fact that Newton is wrong.
Again, you just lie to suit your own argument.
Oh, and it's 'ceiling'.
So one tower of the WTC had been hit. There must have been thousands of NYers who were looking up at the Towers at the time the second tower was (supposedly) hit. So there must be thousands of witnesses to the fact that one of the most important events in the history of the modern world didn't happen. Stop trying to discredit witnesses of the real event and show me the witnesses that state it didn't. They would have been SO easy to find. They would be everywhere on NY. They must be on Youtube somewhere.
The building is not one solid lump of steel, and the nose (all smashed up) went into the building (even assuming that some of it hit a floor). While the building was slowing the nose down, a rather large plane was still pushing it forward. If the speed of the plane was 500 mph when it hit the building, you can be sure that the speed of the tail when it entered the building would have been less than 500 (slightly). Have you got any footage of other high speed plane crashes that you trust? When planes hit the ground it still looks similar, the plane doesn't appear to slow down.
Have you accurate measurements of the speed when the plane first hits, and when the tail goes in? No.
Yes it can, very easily. A bloody Spitfire could (from memory, max recorded speed in a dive was about 1110km/h).
Wrong.
That's true, although I don't think the 9/11 terrorists were concerned about fuel economy.
That's to cruise at 400mph without burning too much fuel. The aircraft in question were not cruising, they were crashing (if you want to be pedantic, they dived and would probably have been at full thrust prior to impact, and not really crashing until they hit the towers).
Are you telling us the planes survived the crash? Cool, where are they?
No it isn't. Let's think logically an honestly for a minute:
Could there be any argument for the US to do something that would get their people to back them in wars against the middle east?
Yes, definitely.
Would they kill a few thousand citizens to achieve that goal?
I like to think not, but hey, you could argue that some sicko would.
How many sickos would there need to be for such a large conspiracy cover up (as you suggest)?
Lots. A lot of planning, and bomb experts working in the towers etc. A lot of mad sickos, with no whistle blowers prior to the event.
Given the chance, would terrorist have attacked the towers?
Yes of course.
And finally...
If the US had wanted to create these 'attacks' what would have been the easiest way to do it:
a) Rig the towers with explosives on several floors without anyone working in the building finding out, and creating a massive cover up scam?
b) Just fly 2 f***ing planes into the towers?
Well obviously b. If the US did orchestrate the attacks, they did it by flying 2 planes into the towers. It would have been a piece of piss. Find a couple of wannabe terrorists, tell them your terrorists, teach them to fly and stick them in the cockpit.
So you're telling us that the planes that were flown into the towers were exceeding the recommended safe speed for passenger planes at low level? Shit, does that mean that some of the passengers may have spilt some of their coffee? You've actually spent the time contacting Air NZ - why don't you try contacting either bowing or a pilot (without telling them it's about 9/11) and ask at what speed a 757 would break up in a dive? Or if a test pilot was doing a speed test, how fast they could get one to go at sea level after a dive? Far more relevant than what an airline would have to do to cart passengers and their coffee about.
To be honest I don't know if the footage was real or not. I don't really care.
What I do know as a guaranteed fact is that the US did land on the moon.
Again, let's be honest here:
Was landing on the moon a big deal politically (the Space race)?
Yes, it was.
Could American politicians have lied about it if they could have got away with it?
Yes, definitely.
Would Russia rather they had won the race to the moon?
Yes.
Would Russia have bothered looking through their telescopes to watch the US head for the moon?
Obviously.
And would Russia have raised questions at the time if they weren't sure the US had actually landed on the moon?
Obviously.
Did they raise any questions?
No.
Clutching at straws. Maybe they were tired, maybe they didn't want to speak to the media, maybe they wanted to go home and see their family. Who knows, who cares. In fact, if it had been faked, you'd think the land of Hollywood could have found 3 actors to look happy about their trip. If anything, their lack of enthusiasm in that interview is more proof that it was real.
They immediately said they didn't see any stars. If stars would be visible from the moon, and it was all a lie, they'd have just said 'yes, we saw the stars'. Where's the logic in your daft argument?
Last edited:
readingstockport
New member
No.
You have been 'got' on your lack of understanding of Newtonian mechanics, specifically the 3 laws of motion.
You have been 'got' on your lack of understanding of structural mechanics and building design and integrity.
You have been 'got' on your lack of understanding of the principles of flight and jet engines.
Essentially there isn't a single point you have made which you have not been 'got' on. But we won't change your mind. It needs a degree of intelligence and openness to be able to change, you self-evidently have neither.
Enjoy the game tonight though and don't hit any palace fans. edit to say, just noticed you are in Auckland so you won't be at the game either.
Oh well, everyone else enjoy themselves tonight.
Last edited:
The Buttery Biscuit Base
New member
If NASA had faked the entire space programme, you'd of thought they would get three blokes who had the slightest inkling of charisma, who would engage us and convince us that it had taken place, they would describe eloquently what it was like, what they did & how they felt throughout etc...
Instead, it happened, and NASA went for the three best pilots in the entire USAF from a pool of hundreds of thousands, who happened not to be charismatic, engaging or good at public speaking. Three men who were very shy and who were thrown into a world of extreme celebrity. They look nervous not because they are lying, but because millions of people are watching them!
Throw this out it proves nothing...
Last edited:
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I know someone who was looking for some space to park some of their stray cats and the moon would be ideal