there was no moon landing .... discus

[Zampanò]

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...

I don't really care either way. I just thought the bloke looked like Alan Shearer.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

I don't really care either way. I just thought the bloke looked like Alan Shearer.

Yeah I realised that after I posted it, I was wondering who you thought went on that moon mission?

 

[colinz]

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.

Biggles, your just a sad little man making 3,000+ posts on a footie forum of a team that you don't even support, why don't you just fly away and post on the Palace forum, then you'll end up raising the average IQ of both forums.

You've failed miserably in trying to debate, what you have stated above.

1, Because large Boeing aeroplanes, cannot perform the same at low altitude as what they can at high altitude.

2 The fact that I say aeroplanes cannot sheer their way through reinforced steel & concrete buildings, does not mean I have no understanding of Newton, it means I can at least understand this,

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Which you obviously can't. Were not talking rocket science here (no pun intended)

PS this post also applies to your mate Manxie, I really can't be arsed talking to him any more, he suffers from the same cognitive dissonance as yourself.

 

[colinz]

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).

Triggaaar, if you go to about the 4 minute mark of this video, you'll see that the nose cone carries on through the building, penetrating out the other side unscathed.

 

[colinz]

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

If this was the case (New York eye witnesses) why the need to make videos, with bad actors pretending to be eye witnesses.

 

[One Love]

I watched this video and the following one on Youtube. OMG someone actually wasted their time producing this cack. I just wished I hadnt wasted my time watching it.

Colinz you are guilty of spreading lies on the internet.

I say again. If the second plane was not impacted by a plane show me the 10s of thousands witness statements that would be out there from all the NYers who were watching when it happened and therefore know without doubt that it was not a plane that hit. If you and your deluded cronies can't come up with one then what does that say to you?

 

[One Love]

If this was the case (New York eye witnesses) why the need to make videos, with bad actors pretending to be eye witnesses.

Where are your witnesses?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

I've come to the conclusion that this thread is now dead.

Once again we are wasting our time.

colinz has repeatedly produced videos which support our arguments, and claimed we are wrong by virtue of the fact that the evidence is CGI'd, or made using 'bad actors', whilst not producing one single shred of evidence to support HIS case.

He has argued with pilots about how planes fly, and argued with the rest of us over basic schoolboy physics, during which he has demonstrated very clearly over and over that he does not grasp fundamental O level standard science principles. He has even disputed Newton.

Another Epic Fail for colinz then.

I think we can all give up on this thread now, and eagerly await the next thread of tosh he'll doubtless appear on very soon.

 

[One Love]

I agree.

Funnily enough I always had an open mind about most of these popular conspiracy theories. I've not taken any interest in them before but am open to the idea that the powers that be tend to do what they want as power can corrupt.

Colinz has managed to convince me otherwise. If his "proof" of 9/11 and the moon landings is what he is basing his theories on then I now know they are a load of bollocks.

So Colinz, thank you for that.

And Colinz, there are such gaping big holes in your theories that frankly, if you can't see, then you need help.

 

[sten_super]

I've come to the conclusion that this thread is now dead.

I agree.

You both say this, but we never answered the original question in the first post...



How far could a man throw a discus on the moon?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Loads.

As per Newton's little known fourth law of motion.

 

[readingstockport]

<snip of ad hominem>

There we go, the fall back of all nutters when shown up to be the deluded fools they are. Unable to argue their points using real science instead of the made up shite they have read (and failed to understand) on their conspiracy boards you fall back to the ad hominem.

At that point you have admitted defeat. Retire gracefully with what shreds of your dignity are still intact whilst I continue posting on a board where I have been posting for over 10 years now and on which I have several friends with whom I meet up a couple of times a year for beers.

 

[KZNSeagull]

You both say this, but we never answered the original question in the first post...



How far could a man throw a discus on the moon?

I believe the world record on Earth is +- 74 metres. So, knowing that the moon has 1/6th the earths atmosphere, I would guess that under ideal conditions, a throw of +- 400 metres could be achieved. However, the thrower will be severely hindered by space suits etc, so I would imagine an average throw would be +- 2 foot 6.

Can we close this thread now?

 

[thejackal]

I believe the world record on Earth is +- 74 metres. So, knowing that the moon has 1/6th the earths atmosphere, I would guess that under ideal conditions, a throw of +- 400 metres could be achieved. However, the thrower will be severely hindered by space suits etc, so I would imagine an average throw would be +- 2 foot 6.

Can we close this thread now?

I thought the question was about throwing a discus TO the moon, not ON the moon.

Can we start this thread again please?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

We would need colinz to help us work out what the escape velocity is for the earth, in relation to the mass of the discus and the forces applied by the thrower's arm.

 

[readingstockport]

There are no forces. Don't you understand Newton's laws of motion. They discus would not be on the earth so gravity and other forces would not apply.

 

[pastafarian]

You are saying that an event witnessed by the millions of citizens of New York did not happen.

They witnessed what they saw on Television. There isn't one creditable witness that can say they saw a plane hit the WTC.

i was going to stay out of this one because it was getting stupid but you colinz you have overstepped the mark
well i have a credible witness [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] my sister in law worked at the WTC complex and saw the second plane hit the WTC.She knows what she saw,its etched on her brain for the rest of her life,she doesnt like to talk about it,but i have seen her have a run in with a "truther" before and it made her cry.so i have a question for you,


if you were face to face with my sister in law and she said to you explain exactly what i saw crash into the south tower? how would you answer?

 

[colinz]

I watched this video and the following one on Youtube. OMG someone actually wasted their time producing this cack. I just wished I hadnt wasted my time watching it.

Colinz you are guilty of spreading lies on the internet.

I say again. If the second plane was not impacted by a plane show me the 10s of thousands witness statements that would be out there from all the NYers who were watching when it happened and therefore know without doubt that it was not a plane that hit. If you and your deluded cronies can't come up with one then what does that say to you?

What lies have I spread, I've simply posted a couple of videos.
I wanted to explain to someone that according to the official footage shown by Fox, that the nose cone of UA175 is shown (unscathed) exiting WTC2 on the opposite side to which it entered, if that doesn't point to fakery I don't know what does.

Then the footage of the clown eye witness being interviewed on Fox, is laughable within a couple of hours he's already referring to the WTC complex as Ground Zero, he already knows that the towers collapsed due to structural failure because the heat was so intense. The best bit is when he says the plane reamed right through coming out the otherside. Obvious damage control by Fox to cover up their 'Nose out' fiasco.
As for the other eye witness Kathleen, her acting is so bad it's difficult to watch without cringing.
So who's guilty of spreading lies.

If the second plane was not impacted by a plane

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[colinz]

if you were face to face with my sister in law and she said to you explain exactly what i saw crash into the south tower? how would you answer?[/QUOTE]

I don't quite understand what your saying here.

If I met your sister in Law, I would ask her what company she worked for in the WTC.

 

[One Love]

I don't understand what you mean here.

I thought it was pretty obvious but I'll spell it out to you.

If the event did not happen as displayed on the TV footage then where is a witness to that. One wouldn't be hard to find out of the 10s maybe 100s of thousands of people looking at the towers when it happened.