he he he ! I luuuuuuuuuve it!
700 degrees is the temperature steel needs to be raised to for it to lose structural integrity under load. Quoted by professor of materials at MIT. The specific heat capacity for steel c = 450 J/kg°C. Yes it could do it.Spumantiii wrote:
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing. Why has that not become common knowledge? Is it too far fetched? It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking aboutBertster7 wrote:
Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
The 'official story' 9/11 conspiracy theory is endorsed mainly by the right...
I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.
There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
ps thermite is used to melt steel
the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers. Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.
700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail. I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel. Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel. Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
Building with steel frames have collapsed before due to fires. It is very rare and has not happened in the US before, but it has happened.
Not after only ten minutes of fire.Bertster7 wrote:
Building with steel frames have collapsed before due to fires. It is very rare and has not happened in the US before, but it has happened.
that's a saturated heat of 700 degrees throughout the thickness of the metal, and would take many hours to achieve any structural faliure. Although at that temperature (saturated over many hours) steel is capable of reshaping and warping, according to FEMA the building could have withstood twice as much heating as that before any structural faliure.Bertster7 wrote:
700 degrees is the temperature steel needs to be raised to for it to lose structural integrity under load. Quoted by professor of materials at MIT. The specific heat capacity for steel c = 450 J/kg°C. Yes it could do it.Spumantiii wrote:
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing. Why has that not become common knowledge? Is it too far fetched? It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking aboutBertster7 wrote:
Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.
I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.
There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
ps thermite is used to melt steel
the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers. Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.
700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail. I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel. Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel. Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
Building with steel frames have collapsed before due to fires. It is very rare and has not happened in the US before, but it has happened.
A thermite charge will melt through a girder of said thickness in minutes, going beyond warping and buckling, but eating straight through the metal producing molten metal and vapor.
700 degrees IS enough to weaken a steel structure but according to FEMA twice as much metal would be required to be red hot, and at saturated heat of 700 degrees ( which you don't get from a fuel fire, unsaturated heat) which can't be achieved in a matter of minutes, especially if the fires were allegedly already under control. Imagine putting a big girger in an oven (a saturated heat) see how long it would take for one of those giant girders to achieve even red heat, assuming that every piece of fireproofing was gone.
Not enough fireproofing would have been gone for there to be twice as much red hot metal. Besides, there wasn't red hot metal, it was white-yellow hot and molten, beyond red hot and subject to deformation. Imagine the difference between melting an ice building in the sun or using a blowtorch on small local, structural points, the difference in melt rate is similar
There is no evidence of thermite being used. You claim sulfur is left after a thermite reaction. No results from any experiments I have ever seen have left sulphur.Spumantiii wrote:
that's a saturated heat of 700 degrees throughout the thickness of the metal, and would take many hours to achieve any structural faliure. Although at that temperature (saturated over many hours) steel is capable of reshaping and warping, according to FEMA the building could have withstood twice as much heating as that before any structural faliure.Bertster7 wrote:
700 degrees is the temperature steel needs to be raised to for it to lose structural integrity under load. Quoted by professor of materials at MIT. The specific heat capacity for steel c = 450 J/kg°C. Yes it could do it.Spumantiii wrote:
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing. Why has that not become common knowledge? Is it too far fetched? It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking about
ps thermite is used to melt steel
the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers. Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.
700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail. I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel. Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel. Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
Building with steel frames have collapsed before due to fires. It is very rare and has not happened in the US before, but it has happened.
A thermite charge will melt through a girder of said thickness in minutes, going beyond warping and buckling, but eating straight through the metal producing molten metal and vapor.
700 degrees IS enough to weaken a steel structure but according to FEMA twice as much metal would be required to be red hot, and at saturated heat of 700 degrees ( which you don't get from a fuel fire, unsaturated heat) which can't be achieved in a matter of minutes, especially if the fires were allegedly already under control. Imagine putting a big girger in an oven (a saturated heat) see how long it would take for one of those giant girders to achieve even red heat, assuming that every piece of fireproofing was gone.
Not enough fireproofing would have been gone for there to be twice as much red hot metal. Besides, there wasn't red hot metal, it was white-yellow hot and molten, beyond red hot and subject to deformation. Imagine the difference between melting an ice building in the sun or using a blowtorch on small local, structural points, the difference in melt rate is similar
Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe (Where's the sulphur?)
That's the equation for a thermite reaction. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium. Sulphur doesn't come into it. Thermate contains 2% sulphur, but surely all the 'experts' would know this and make the distinction - unless of course they don't know what they are talking about.
You should also take into account that the 3rd most used substance in the WTC tower was a sulphur based drywall.
Try reading this report. Which shows exactly where the sulphur could have come from. You will note that thermate charges only have the potential to release a small quantity of sulphur, much less than would be expected anyway.
What's your source for the statement "there wasn't red hot metal, it was white-yellow hot and molten, beyond red hot and subject to deformation."? Any officialish reports (I mean actual reports not just conspiracy sites saying so and so said this, so and so said that)? Or is it all just from conspiracy sites?
Steel at 3000 degrees melts to a liquid in around 15 minutes (that's how they mould steel - in furnaces). At 825 degrees it is perfectly reasonable to assume that steel will, not melt, but lose a great deal of structural integrity. I don't know what you think the melting point of steel is, but you seem to think it is far higher than it actually is. The melting point of iron is 1510 degrees, steel has a lower melting point, how much lower is determined by the ratio of carbon to iron in the mix. Typically steel melts at 1370 degrees, but some types of mid-carbon steel - probably used in a structure of that scale, melt at temperatures as low as 1100 degrees. That's not a lot above the temperature of the burning jet fuel (825 degrees) and you don't have to take a material to melting point for it to become highly malleable.
Estimates based on the energy content of the fuel and the available fuel within the WTC place the temperatures of the fires at least at 600 degrees with 1000 degree hot spots. More than enough to reduce the structural integrity of the steel. Having a fuel source with this much energy is uncommon in skyscraper fires, which is why it is uncommon for steel framed skyscrapers to collapse due to fire.
OHNOEZ!
FFS.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
Well said.Windrider_Melb wrote:
FFS.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
3 tonnes? False. More like a third of a tonne. Doesn't prove it was manned either.Bertster7 wrote:
Well said.Windrider_Melb wrote:
FFS.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
Thousands of scientists? False. The figure is much lower. There are still about 40-50 studying them in the world. Did you know it's illegal for private citizens to own moon rock in America?
Not one scientist has suggested that the rocks could be of either artificial or terrestrial origin? False. It's believed that terrestrial material may have ended up on the moon in the same way material from Mars ended up on earth. (edit: a get out of jail free clause?)
Reflectors on the moon? Why would that need a manned mission?
Hubble Space Telescope can see discarded remains of a descent stages of a lander? Doesn't prove it was manned mission.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-09-04 07:27:52)
this is too funny
Here watch this and be amazed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … amp;q=Penn
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … amp;q=Penn
hey, how can you have a forum of whacko terrorist lap dog conspiracy nuts and not have a thread for this! knew you'd like itHorseman 77 wrote:
this is too funny
3 tonnes is nonsense. 22kgs were brought back by Apollo 11, 382 kg by the entire Apollo programme.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
3 tonnes? False. More like a third of a tonne. Doesn't prove it was manned either.Bertster7 wrote:
Well said.Windrider_Melb wrote:
FFS.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
Thousands of scientists? False. The figure is much lower. There are still about 40-50 studying them in the world. Did you know it's illegal for private citizens to own moon rock in America?
Not one scientist has suggested that the rocks could be of either artificial or terrestrial origin? False. It's believed that terrestrial material may have ended up on the moon in the same way material from Mars ended up on earth. (edit: a get out of jail free clause?)
But if the entire programme is a hoax 382kgs is a lot of rock of extra-terrestrial origin to get hold of, which has been studied by thousands of scientists. You can buy moon rock off the Russians if you want.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
There are some quite convincing arguments, counter-claims, historic precedents and analysis's which seem to point towards the entire Apollo program being a staged hoax.
Some moon rock was collected by the USSR Luna project of 40 something missions only 15 were successful. A couple even lander lunar rovers on the moon.
Because it would be easier to do with a manned mission than with an unmanned mission. A lot easier and more reliable. Especialy in the 60's. Reliablity rates on unmanned missions are much lower than on manned missions, although the technology for the journey there is cheaper.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Reflectors on the moon? Why would that need a manned mission?
It shows they managed to land the lander there then. The landers are capable of supporting life. Why wouldn't they send a manned mission? Are you suggesting that NASA values the lives of it's astronauts that much?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Hubble Space Telescope can see discarded remains of a descent stages of a lander? Doesn't prove it was manned mission.
It's easy to call something into doubt, which is where all conspiracy theories come from - they're a bit like religion in that respect, very difficult to either prove or disprove with a high degree of certainty, doesn't make them any less silly.
Also, actually planting an American flag on the moons surface (which can be seen with hubble) would be nigh on impossible with 60's technology. There would also be signs of significant disturbance around the spot the flag was planted in, as there is with the landing sites, there are no such signs.
Fair point on weight. Given. The number you give even clicks in my mind. Whoops.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
3 tonnes? False. More like a third of a tonne. Doesn't prove it was manned either.Bertster7 wrote:
Well said.Windrider_Melb wrote:
FFS.
Over the course of the Apollo Programme they brought back over 3 TONS of rocks from the moon.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been studied by thousands of scientists in the 35+ years since. Not one of those scientists has suggested that the rocks could be either of artificial or terrestrial origin.
Other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:
- Reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts that astronomers all over the world reflect lasers off in order to accurately measure things like the distance to the moon, the speed of light, the gravitational strength of the earth or moon....
- The Hubble Space Telescope can SEE the discarded remains of the descent stages of the Apollo LEMs...
Pwnt.
Thousands of scientists? False. The figure is much lower. There are still about 40-50 studying them in the world. Did you know it's illegal for private citizens to own moon rock in America?
Not one scientist has suggested that the rocks could be of either artificial or terrestrial origin? False. It's believed that terrestrial material may have ended up on the moon in the same way material from Mars ended up on earth. (edit: a get out of jail free clause?)
Reflectors on the moon? Why would that need a manned mission?
Hubble Space Telescope can see discarded remains of a descent stages of a lander? Doesn't prove it was manned mission.
In the last 35 years I was sure it was a few thousand scientists over the whole of the world - NASA was always very generous with sending samples for study; generous and conserative.
Yeah I did know that about moon rocks - except now they have their "Explorer Prizes" or whatever, where they give a moonrock to a museum of an Apollo astronauts choosing. Meh.
About terrestrial origin - sure, but none have suggested that about the samples returned from the moon. They are unlike anything that can be found here on earth; that was the point. Not one of the chemists, physicists or geologists who have studied those samples (or their teams of technicians, assistants and postgrad students) have ever suggested any of the samples were anything OTHER than rocks from the moon.
Case for primary physical evidence still stands.
Why aren't people accusing Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay of faking their Everest Ascent? They brought back ONLY photographs, no live video, no rocks or samples...
It annoys the crap out of me that people still go on about these bullshit conspiracy theories - when there are much more obvious conspiracies still unresolved. If NASA were good enough to hoax the landings, they would have been smart enough to burn any photos that proved otherwise. Most of the "evidence" that people come up with from photos and the like are usually based on an earthbound experience of atmospheric and gravitational physics. These are usually the people who claim martians exist and carved a huge human face out of a mountain.
Faking the moon landings would have required hundreds of people to be "in-the-know" and to have kept their mouths shut. Radio telescopes all over the planet listened to the broadcasts of the craft on it's way to, and on the moon. Either those astronomers were "in on it" or the signals were beamed to a craft on it's way to the moon where they were rebroadcast back but with the correct doppler shift calcuated on the fly (because the relative velocity of the craft should have been constantly changing). Despite all the conspiracy theories not one of the "stage hands" has ever come forward, no-one has come forward to say they were performing those calculations or that they spent 30+ years wondering why they were sending that signal TO the spacecraft in transit... gah. Hate hate hate this damn subject.
is just a ball of CheeseGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the moon doesnt exist, fools.
Good God, they couldn't keep the fact that Clinton was getting it on in the oval office a secret, how could they keep everyone quiet about fakeing moon landings? Some people are just to stupid.
Righty then..... And the hollow mirror that was PLACED on the moon, somethig that you can actually send a laser beam to and have it bounce BACK to earth.. That's a NATURALLY occuring phenomenon on the moon ? One that has just sprouted up over the last couple of decades ? I would hope not.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
To me it's just another one of those "we'll never know for sure", because although the technology and motives were there to fake it, there is no real proof aside from circumstancial inconsistancies, strange as they may be. Strange enough to fill three and a half hours as they may be...
Quite honestly, I dont mind a good conspiracy theory... But some of them are just too far out (pardon the pun). I mean really, this is almost as bad as that Swedish guy who INSISTS that some soccer world cup was NOT held in Sweden... Despite the objections of the 100.000 people who actually went to the games to see them !
I've seen the "evidence" of the moon theories... And they suck big time.... "incorrect dimensions on certain background objects"... Like the camera lenses that were used were perfect ? Or that the CHEMICAL film used to tape these things handles 0-G and 0 atmosphere just fine ? Or that the guy making the claim actually bothered to research if there might be a difference between 0 atmosphere and earth atomsphere when it comes to reflections and shit like that ?
Or the "rock has the letter 'c' on it, so it must be a prop".... Sure. Because if I was making props for this, I'd be damned sure to mark them all.. And I'd only use the 26 letters of the alphabet, coz I'm not going to need more props than that to fool the entire world... Righty.....
"the flag is waving but there's no wind on the moon". No you dumb bitch, the flag ISN'T waving, the poor guy filming can't hold his hands steady !
"Who filmed Armstrong if he was the first guy on the moon ?" Well, DOH... Ever heard of a "dress rehearsal" ? Do you REALLY think the US government would send all of this crap LIVE in case they FAILED ? This was the most important step for America in the cold war. To show the Soviets that they COULD keep up in the space race. No chance in hell they'd let that out live. Armstrong might be the first man on the moon, but the film you see may also not be the first time he gets out of that module.
Quite frankly.... I see a major problem arising from all of these theories.. And that is that some peple start believing them. IMO those of us who have experienced the events of our time... Whatever those events may e, have a RESPONSIBILITY to tell our children, friends, aneighbours and anybody else about those events. To keep them alive, so that noone can come later and claim that it was all a hoax. I mean ffs, there's noone alive from the roman empire today... And yet, I will be hard pressed to find someone who can make a serious argument to the fact that the roman empire never existed. So imagine what all of those conspiracy theorists are DOING to our history.... They're trying to alter it, to make generations grow up beliving lies. Condmening them to live ignorant lives not knowing the TRUTH, because there's noone out there to take up the fight AGAISNT the conspirators, to say "This is a piece of history ! This is what happened"
If you think that the moon landings were fake, then you are a FUCKING IDIOT!
I had watched the Bart Sibel documentary about a week ago and frankly I was disgusted at his worthless journalism. Bart Sibel has to be the most worthless waste of space, fat fuck, dumbass journalist EVER in the history of journalism. Some of the mistakes he made:
1. Setting up appointments with the astronauts under false pretenses to lure them into an interview they didn't agree too.
2. Using flimsy [at best] evidence, and then not allowing anyone the chance to refute that evidence. It is given at the beginning and accepted as FACT through the entire film. It is a theory, not a fact.
3. Badgering the astronauts with religious items in order to get them to "confess". He carried a bible around and crammed into their faces and ordered them to swear on it. Fucking dumb ass.
4. Slimy Journalism. His camera man spends half the interview with one astronaut, zooming in and out of the astronauts sweaty armpits. This is to suggest he is lying and is nervous. Never mind the fact you are outside, mid-day, in the summer, in FUCKING FLORIDA.
5. Piss poor appearance. Any journalist you see on TV...EVER, no matter where they are, maintain a professional appearance. Bart, on the other hand, runs around in saggy wranglers with a white t-shirt and a sports coat with white hi-top tennis shoes. He looks like a gigantic douche bag and sounds like one to.
The defining moment of my week is hands down, without a doubt, having the pleasure to watch Buzz Aldrin knock the shit out of that little cunt.
I had watched the Bart Sibel documentary about a week ago and frankly I was disgusted at his worthless journalism. Bart Sibel has to be the most worthless waste of space, fat fuck, dumbass journalist EVER in the history of journalism. Some of the mistakes he made:
1. Setting up appointments with the astronauts under false pretenses to lure them into an interview they didn't agree too.
2. Using flimsy [at best] evidence, and then not allowing anyone the chance to refute that evidence. It is given at the beginning and accepted as FACT through the entire film. It is a theory, not a fact.
3. Badgering the astronauts with religious items in order to get them to "confess". He carried a bible around and crammed into their faces and ordered them to swear on it. Fucking dumb ass.
4. Slimy Journalism. His camera man spends half the interview with one astronaut, zooming in and out of the astronauts sweaty armpits. This is to suggest he is lying and is nervous. Never mind the fact you are outside, mid-day, in the summer, in FUCKING FLORIDA.
5. Piss poor appearance. Any journalist you see on TV...EVER, no matter where they are, maintain a professional appearance. Bart, on the other hand, runs around in saggy wranglers with a white t-shirt and a sports coat with white hi-top tennis shoes. He looks like a gigantic douche bag and sounds like one to.
The defining moment of my week is hands down, without a doubt, having the pleasure to watch Buzz Aldrin knock the shit out of that little cunt.
Exactly, unquestioning belief in the gospel according to NASA is silly. Saying you are 100% certain there was no moon landing is silly.Bertster7 wrote:
It's easy to call something into doubt, which is where all conspiracy theories come from - they're a bit like religion in that respect, very difficult to either prove or disprove with a high degree of certainty, doesn't make them any less silly.
This thread is silly. That was the whole point of it, another long and pointless discussion about things which can't be proved either way, and can't be changed even if they could be
Anyway as far as the gospel of NASA goes, I'm more agnostic than atheist in that respect. All you people who believe are the equivalent of fundamental Christians or Muslims.
The best evidence the landing on the moon was not a fake is that in the middle of the 'cold war', the CCCP confirmed the victory of the USA in the space race to the moon.
Yeah but like the Penn and teller video says, in any conspiracy theory, questioning our govt. is one thing, making shit up is quite another.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Exactly, unquestioning belief in the gospel according to NASA is silly. Saying you are 100% certain there was no moon landing is silly.Bertster7 wrote:
It's easy to call something into doubt, which is where all conspiracy theories come from - they're a bit like religion in that respect, very difficult to either prove or disprove with a high degree of certainty, doesn't make them any less silly.
This thread is silly. That was the whole point of it, another long and pointless discussion about things which can't be proved either way, and can't be changed even if they could be
Anyway as far as the gospel of NASA goes, I'm more agnostic than atheist in that respect. All you people who believe are the equivalent of fundamental Christians or Muslims.
It also mentions how the US government is completely useless, and how when it comes to coverups they fail. But they mainly fail not through lack of trying but because eventually the truth comes out, no matter how many reporters they buy. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htmlowing wrote:
Yeah but like the Penn and teller video says, in any conspiracy theory, questioning our govt. is one thing, making shit up is quite another.
I can certainly believe that.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It also mentions how the US government is completely useless, and how when it comes to coverups they fail. But they mainly fail not through lack of trying but because eventually the truth comes out, no matter how many reporters they buy. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htmlowing wrote:
Yeah but like the Penn and teller video says, in any conspiracy theory, questioning our govt. is one thing, making shit up is quite another.
If a coverup is exposed 60 years later, no one cares anymore and the government accomplished its goal. After all, we can't prosecute the current leader, and the populace has all moved on.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It also mentions how the US government is completely useless, and how when it comes to coverups they fail. But they mainly fail not through lack of trying but because eventually the truth comes out, no matter how many reporters they buy. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htmlowing wrote:
Yeah but like the Penn and teller video says, in any conspiracy theory, questioning our govt. is one thing, making shit up is quite another.
Give it another 50 years and we'll probably find out 9/11 was a farce.
i will buy that as well.......They said that when they were debunking the Apollo landings weren't they? Basically with so many people involved it would be impossible to keep a lid on it. Apollo, Kennedy, after 40 years I will assume the conspiracy theorists are the ones that failedUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It also mentions how the US government is completely useless, and how when it comes to coverups they fail. But they mainly fail not through lack of trying but because eventually the truth comes out, no matter how many reporters they buy. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htmlowing wrote:
Yeah but like the Penn and teller video says, in any conspiracy theory, questioning our govt. is one thing, making shit up is quite another.