pastafarian
Well-known member
does anyone know if i will i get a ban for calling him a f***ing idiot........would tossing ignorant twat fucktard make a difference?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
I would say it's a fair observation & deffo does not warrant a ban
pastafarian
Well-known member
screw this,im supposed to be going to leeds
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
pastafarian
Well-known member
the thing is your fellow conspiracy theorists have different ideas,what makes you think you are telling the truth? falmer thinks blacked out planes hit the WTC,you think there were no planes at all involved and rosa thinks it was missiles disguised as planes so out of the 3 of you two are full of shit and only one is worth debating with.........which one is it @collinz are you the truth the way and the light on this issue.........are falmer and rosa full of crap?........someone must be.
You are obsessed with polarising this deabate, just because Falmer & Rosa disagree with an idiot like you, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
All it means is they have a better understanding than you do of 9/11, and other events involving false flag terrorism.
Rosa thinks a missile hit the towers, she's not alone there, in that September Clues video I posted the guy who made it, suggested that the CGI plane may have been used to mask the trajectory of a missile.
Falmer thinks that the object we see on the footage is what hit the towers, he just thinks it wasn't a Boeing 767.
I personally don't think anything impacted the towers, because of the damage it would have caused the pre set demolition charges.
Witnessed by thousands (sorry millions) on television, a fake CGI plane entering a building.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
So your theory is that Fred Dibnah did it.
Who's Fred Dibnah ?
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
A famous steeple-jack. He was well known for using traditional methods of demolition - setting fires rather than using explosives.
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
I'm no expert by a long way, but to have pre set explosives in the towers is laughable. You can't just throw explosives in and hope for the best. Strategic columns would have to be stripped of concrete to expose the girders and then the girders would have to be cut to weaken them. Explosives and hundreds if not thousands of metres of detonating cord would have to be placed. All this would be done while tens of thousands of workers carried on oblivious.
I'm all for people having an opinion but the total lack of respect to the dead and the people that witnessed the collapsing of the towers is disgusting to be honest.
Question for colinz -
If, as you say, no planes hit the towers on 9/11, where did the planes go? By that I mean we know that the hijacked planes existed. They had a flight crew, a cabin crew and a full complement of passengers when they were hijacked and flown into the towers.
If they didn't fly into the towers, what happened to them? Where did all the aforementioned people go? Where did the aircraft themselves go?
If, as you say, no planes hit the towers on 9/11, where did the planes go? By that I mean we know that the hijacked planes existed. They had a flight crew, a cabin crew and a full complement of passengers when they were hijacked and flown into the towers.
If they didn't fly into the towers, what happened to them? Where did all the aforementioned people go? Where did the aircraft themselves go?
Capricorn
New member
I haven't checked back on this thread since the first few pages... Are we still discussing the benefits of holding the Olympic Event of Discus on the Moon?
readingstockport
New member
I asked you before, and surprise surprise you didn't answer. What are your qualifications in physics that allow you to make this categorical statement? I have explained I have studied physics for 12 years to a undergraduate degree level and I am telling you your understanding of the physics of the situation is simply wrong.
What are your qualifications Rolmer?
Oh, and colinz I notice that in a quote of one of your dirbbles that pastafarian included and I unfortunately read you said that "because it is scientifically impossible for them to fly inside buildings".
What are your scientific qualifications that enable you to say this with such certainty? Bearing in mind you don't even understand Newtonian mechanics I have a slight suspiscion that you actually don't have any formal science qualifications at all.
Last edited:
m20gull
Well-known member
It has got a bit distracted - I reckon you would need quite a big stadium.
More maths - if there is no upward component to the motion of the discus, and ignoring atmospheric drag, it would fly about three times as far as on the Earth.
Adding a vertical component will increase that (up to six times), adding the loss of resistance will make it even more. I reckon you would need about 400m.
Last edited:
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,436
- Thread starter
- #638
I can clear up the 9/11 thing
but I'm not going to
but I'm not going to
Manx Shearwater
New member
So you DO presume something about what people saw? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
There you go again. Glad to hear you don't put a lot of value on hearsay, yet everything you believe on this subject has been based on fruitloop YouTube videos off the internet and a woefully inadequate grasp of schoolboy science. Make your mind up.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
For those of you looking for a straight answer I had hoops. I didn't bother with a sweet desert instead opting for a platter of cheese and biscuits while watching QI. Some debate has arisen however as to the validity of my claims to have eaten said cheese and biscuits. While it is hard to dispute such claims as there were indeed no eyewitnesses except for my next door neighbour who popped round at approx 10:05 to return one of the "romance videos" I had lent him while his wife was away. Upon detailed questioning he was willing to concede that what I was eating could possibly have been cheese and biscuits but upon relaying his eye witness account to a friend of his, a friend who was not there and has not even gained the most basic qualifications that would allow him to make such a bold statement. The friend suggested that what he saw was possibly not the official version and that in fact what I was eating was a soya substitute, packaged and presented as cheese. However, the cracker element he was a little shadier on. He believes, despite actually seeing smartphone footage of the crackers actually enetring my mouth that there probably never was any crackers but what we saw was actually a cleverly manipulated shadow of my pinky finger. The viewer has been fooled. Upon being asked why I would fake such an event he proclaimed that I was obviously fooling my girlfriend into believing I now had a valid reason to enter Sainsbury's under the false pretence that I needed more crackers. He is now investigating the possibility that this cover up goes all the way to the highest echelons of Sainsbury's stock replenishment dept and that it is a cleverly orchestrated ruse to sell more crackers. It is very likely Jacobs are involved although several highly qualified experts have stated that they saw the crumbs from the crackers and that these crumbs could not have been created by anything else apart from a Sainsbury's High Bake Water Biscuit. My neighbours friend claims these crumbs could have been created by agents planting the crumbs overnight. The debate rages on.