New Theories Urgently Needed

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude, do the world a favor: Have a drink, get laid.

ETA: Use a condom!

Edited May 28, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Dude, do the world a favor: Have a drink, get laid.

[silvanski 1]

The flag should not be waving if there is no air on the moon right? So again i think the moon landings seen on t.v. were faked.

The flag moves because of vibrations of the mast. That it keeps on "waving" for a while is because there is no air on the moon which here on earth causes draught. Draught not only puts objects in motion but also makes them stop moving Refer to the basics of aerodynamica.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Silvanski

[yabasta 0]

I say he seriously needs to get laid.

I say you obviously don`t like that your thread backfired. You probably should have waited for the release of the actual video before you started making such a big deal about it. "new theories urgently needed" *tongue icon* It should have been titled "no new evidence so continue with the official conspiracy theory that a pilot who could not fly very well flew a plane expertly into a tiny hole in the Pentagon and was so quick the camera didn`t spot him. Oh yeah and the plane shrank and most of it vanished. Not as catchy i agree.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I say he seriously needs to get laid.

I say you obviously don`t like that your thread backfired.

Backfired? You consider your infantile blurry ####### a backfire? Not in my world, man. Not in my world.

[yabasta 0]

The flag should not be waving if there is no air on the moon right? So again i think the moon landings seen on t.v. were faked.

The flag moves because of vibrations of the mast. That it keeps on "waving" for a while is because there is no air on the moon which here on earth causes draught. Draught not only puts objects in motion but also makes them stop moving Refer to the basics of aerodynamica.

That sounds rather insane to me but i am interested. How do you explain no blast crater and multiple light sources in the moon shots?

I say he seriously needs to get laid.

I say you obviously don`t like that your thread backfired.

Backfired? You consider your infantile blurry ####### a backfire? Not in my world, man. Not in my world.

Well in my world yes your big laugh at the "nutjobs" thread did backfire. Sure you got to use your really unfunny insults but you could do that anywhere online. I don`t see hwat you gained and yet i think you really were trying to do something with this thread. It was set up in that way and the end result is Bill O reilly saying he sees no plane. you can have the benefot of an "unconclusive" but what about the other holes?

P.S. i am not calling you names or attacking your character people so be aware that as long as you attack mine you are losing the intelelctual debate even if you get a laugh out of each other.

[silvanski 1]

The flag should not be waving if there is no air on the moon right? So again i think the moon landings seen on t.v. were faked.

The flag moves because of vibrations of the mast. That it keeps on "waving" for a while is because there is no air on the moon which here on earth causes draught. Draught not only puts objects in motion but also makes them stop moving Refer to the basics of aerodynamica.

That sounds rather insane to me but i am interested. How do you explain no blast crater and multiple light sources in the moon shots?

If the landings were faked, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to "fool" the unwitting public. In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon.

OK the sun is the primary light source... however, it lights up not only the lunar surface, but the lander, the astronauts' spacesuit, and anything else on the lunar surface so that light scattered off of those objects will fill the dark shadows with light. Try going into a small darkened room and shine a flashlight on the wall. The side of you opposite the flashlight which only sees the lighted wall will be lit by the scattered light off the wall from the flashlight spot. The earth's reflection of sunlight also adds some fill light to the shadows.

There ya go... But I am convinced there was someone on the grassy knoll!

Edited May 28, 2006 by Silvanski

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I say he seriously needs to get laid.

I say you obviously don`t like that your thread backfired.

Backfired? You consider your infantile blurry ####### a backfire? Not in my world, man. Not in my world.

Well in my world yes your big laugh at the "nutjobs" thread did backfire. Sure you got to use your really unfunny insults but you could do that anywhere online. I don`t see hwat you gained and yet i think you really were trying to do something with this thread. It was set up in that way and the end result is Bill O reilly saying he sees no plane. you can have the benefot of an "unconclusive" but what about the other holes?

P.S. i am not calling you names or attacking your character people so be aware that as long as you attack mine you are losing the intelelctual debate even if you get a laugh out of each other.

Dude, you make a reasonable case how hundreds - really rather thousands - of people were brought into this conspiracy, how one of the most inept governments this country has ever seen pulls off one of the most intelligent plots I could remember and how none of that ever leaked into the public anywhere and I'll try and listen. Until then, it's lunacy. Nothing more and nothing less.

No man ever landed on the moon? Tell me: Did any of the space shuttles really ever blow up or was that some kind of a conspiracy, too? On second thought: Do space shuttles really exist? I would swear I saw them at Cape Canaveral but maybe I am somehow a part of that conspiracy w/o even knowing. **, I am some freaken tool of this government designed to make people believe that there is such a thing as the space shuttle. And all that just because I wanted to see the Kennedy Space Center. They even fcuking charged me to use me as part of this plot. I want my money back!

Edited May 28, 2006 by ET-US2004

[silvanski 1]

To end my contribution abt whether the moonlanding was faked or not...

If it was faked, the Soviets wouldn't have gone to all the trouble trying to get there as well, and would most certainly have launched a huge campaign to tell the world the USA's moonlanding was a hoax,!

Right aye?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To end my contribution abt whether the moonlanding was faked or not...

If it was faked, the Soviets wouldn't have gone to all the trouble trying to get there as well, and would most certainly have launched a huge campaign to tell the world the USA's moonlanding was a hoax,!

Right aye?

Careful, now. You bring common sense into this. That's poison to the conspiracy theory...

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

To end my contribution abt whether the moonlanding was faked or not...

If it was faked, the Soviets wouldn't have gone to all the trouble trying to get there as well, and would most certainly have launched a huge campaign to tell the world the USA's moonlanding was a hoax,!

Right aye?

Careful, now. You bring common sense into this. That's poison to the conspiracy theory...

so does that mean the "intelelctual debate" has ended?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To end my contribution abt whether the moonlanding was faked or not...

If it was faked, the Soviets wouldn't have gone to all the trouble trying to get there as well, and would most certainly have launched a huge campaign to tell the world the USA's moonlanding was a hoax,!

Right aye?

Careful, now. You bring common sense into this. That's poison to the conspiracy theory...

so does that mean the "intelelctual debate" has ended?

Yes, common sense destroys anything intelelctual...

[dalegg 143]

I also notice you didn`t have a response for my debunking of your debunk. It is funny how you are so selective. Like you are holding on firmly to this belief that the earth is flat and that Lee Harvey Oswald was some sort of superhuman marksman and that somehow Boeing 757 get bigger and smalelr depending on which point you are trying to prove.

Oh, my bad, your rebuts didn't come for a couple days after I posted my cheap debunking (I admit it was weak, those were just my faves. Before I get onto it, let me state unequivicolly for the record that I do not believe the earth is flat.

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

A GOLD ring is stated in Loose Change not just a ring. I don`t actually see any pictures but i doubt Bin Laden is a strict muslim if he worked for the CIA.

Here's a picture I think you will agree is Osama. I decline comment on his employment status with the CIA, though.

#2) That none of the phone calls from flight 93 could not have been made from the airplane because an independant researcher did tests proving that cell phones couldn't be made at 40,000 feet. The text in the film clearly states that the calls they are highlighting are made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

Very good apart from the fact that the 9/11 commission report states quite clearly that the passengers and crew made calls from the airphone and cellphones. These calls are in part a basis for the report.

Well, I was stating my favorite quotes from the debunking article, and that tid-bit was one of it. Each of the calls cited in the movie were said to have been made from Airphones. But this article backs up the idea that in fact calls could be made from cell phones while in the air at that time.

Cell phones in the air

They will show you there what buildings set off in a controlled demolition look like. Be honest- does this look the same as the Twin Towers?

Yes.

Really, this should be the point right here that I should quit, but it's Saturday night, and what else have I got going?

Another point of "proof" that CTs like to bring up about the towers is that the second tower fell first, even though it was "barely hit in the corner" second. I love that term barely, hit by the way. So barely that the whole of the plane remained in the tower, but that's not the point. If in fact someone intentionally bombed each of the towers to complete this very elaborate hoax "pulled of with military precision" as the narrator states, do you think they would have forgotten such a detail as which tower they should probably detonate first to make things look more consistent? These are some pretty stupid geniouses. Isn't it more likely that the reason is because there was more weight on top of the impact site of the second tower?

Weight brought down the tower? Interesting theory. Seriously though i think the point about it "barely" hitting is simply that it didn`t hit the main support in the centre. In other words it could not have been the impact that brought down the whole tower. I believe this is not the official explanation anyway but that is the point of that point. It was apparently the fuel. Again once you decide it was the fuel of the plane then you look at why the whole building came down from so little fire. There was fire but the fire was not as bad as it is made out to be.

As for the bringing down of the towers in the wrong order that could conceivably be that the people who set off the detonators were not sure when or even sure what they were doing? It is called following orders. In military operations you know what you are told or you need to know. If this was a military operation then this is possibly why the towers didn`t come down in the expected way.

So little fire? What do you suppose compelled those people to jump from the building? They must have saw someone running up stairs placing bombs on the floor around them.

As to the second part, I think we can agree that is speculation so there is no need for me to respond.

Finally the part about Newton's law and the proof of the "free-fall". You only need to look at footage from "Loose Change" itself to see that the tower was not in free fall, because debree flying off the upper floors that is actually in free fall overtakes the falling floors. At 52 minutes into the film you can see it, but pictures not included in the documenary show it much more clearly. Now how can something in a free fall be overtaken by another object in free fall?

Your response says:

"Loose Change says NEARLY freefall."

Yeah, you got me, but it didn't go down in NEARLY freefall either. Check out the images I attached Just look at how much faster the falling debris outside the building travels than the floors are falling. Debris hits the ground hundreds of feet before the bulk of the building does.

" Ignoring the actual documentary makes it easy to debunk the documentary doesn`t it?"

Biting my lip on this statement, really.

I apologize for the clumsy ending of my post, but my reply kept wigging out after so many quotes.

[silvanski 1]

Careful, now. You bring common sense into this. That's poison to the conspiracy theory...

Read my last line in that post

I am convinced there was someone on the grassy knoll! B)

[yabasta 0]

Well you have not totally convinced me about the moon landings but you have provided food for thought and at least you made an argument rather than just saying i was crazy or needed sex.(i am thousands of miles from my wife during the visa process so that is a cheap shot )

The vibrations and reflection argument is a bit hollow for me though when it comes to the moon. Sounds rather like the claim that the extra gun shots in Dallas were echoes. hmm yeah echo`s. Talking of JFK there are 3 theories excluding the magic bullet theory that i am aware of. The grassy knoll is the most convincing perhaps. The second most convincing is the storm drain and the third harder to believe one is the driver. I don`t claim to have all the answers unlike the people here who just like to call me a "conspiracy theorist" (even though the official story is a conspiracy theory itself). I mostly have questions.

People jumped from the WTC so the fire was hot enough to bring down the towers? Interesting logic. I didn`t say there was no fire where. I said the fire was not as big as it would have needed to be in my view.

As for the gold ring it would indicate to me that Osama is not a muslim. I don`t really know the rules and until i saw Loose Change i was not aware of this law. I guess that proves that the whole of Loose Change was wrong? ........no it proves that Osama was not what he claims to be. The most important thing in that segment of Loose Change is the fact that he is a different person. So is Osama too lazy to make his own videos? Surely if he went to the trouble of making the video he should at least mail it. How can you expect it to be found. Who wants to watch through Osama`s home movies looking for evidence? Added to this the whole list of hijackers (who are nto all dead) came out super fast which would consider either a cover up or prior knowledge or an underway investigation.

Dude, you make a reasonable case how hundreds - really rather thousands - of people were brought into this conspiracy, how one of the most inept governments this country has ever seen pulls off one of the most intelligent plots I could remember and how none of that ever leaked into the public anywhere and I'll try and listen. Until then, it's lunacy. Nothing more and nothing less.

Where do you get the figure from? A lot of people are like you and they simply wont dare to think that their government would do this. You can tell people to do a part of this and they would not need to know the whole. It would not require too many people really. How does any such operation happen? They are military actions. None of it leaked is a joke right? The leaks are all over the place, they are mixe din with disinformation which is standard operating procedure. Look at the history of the CIA and the likes of them it is not a pretty history.

You have the freedom of information act in America and so much of the sins of th epast are now released(censored in many cases but there to see. Operation Northwoods. Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour. CIA experimenting with mind control, the list goes on and on.

No man ever landed on the moon?

I never said that. I said that in my opinion(which is my opinion and therefore i am entitled to have it until i am convinced otherwise) the moon landings were faked. The Television moon landings. I did not claim rockets didn`t exist so please try and refrain from your smear campaign.

If it was faked, the Soviets wouldn't have gone to all the trouble trying to get there as well, and would most certainly have launched a huge campaign to tell the world the USA's moonlanding was a hoax,!

Interesting idea but maybe there are 2 possibly answers to this, three if you include your theory that it proves they went to the moon. One theory is that perhaps the Soviets were convinced by it too. Secondly maybe they just agreed to it. Look at Gorby and Reagan shaking hands. It is a masonic handshake. They are essentially on the same side. Of course maybe the moon landings did happen they just faked the landings on tv for fear of a public disaster. What if Neil had died or something? That would be bad publicity for the moon landings and that would effec tthe budget. As it stood the moon landings gave NASA and their Nazi scientists a blank cheque book.

Oh, my bad, your rebuts didn't come for a couple days after I posted my cheap debunking

Sorry i was tryign to get the whole article but no joy. I also had a life to live and whenever i return to this thread i have to defend my views on word meanings, the military, the moon landings, the Diana murder and the 9/11 terror attacks. I am doing pretty well considering i have like 5 people tag teaming me.

Sorry my quotes are not named but i have been tryign to respond to all points.