Jump to content

Comedy Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Comedy Time

  1. How could you possibly know what is lies when you have no knowledge at all of basic mathematics or any science. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=iss+videos&FORM=HDRSC3 ......keep scrolling down for about an hour until you find one you have actually watched!!
  2. Is it? That is a fictional map of Utopia. Who told you it was the underworld?
  3. Hmmm, very interesting. How would you know? You and science are not best friends. And you've seen "most of them"? Hell's bells you've not seen 1% of them....and your capacity to assess "lies" seems fatally flawed given that you just bigged up one littered with them.
  4. I watched it all - NASA occupied about 5% of it. Oooh the Nazis and operation Paperclip and all the usual bullshit about Full Earth composites, conveniently ignored about a hundred Apollo pictures....all the ISS (not NASA - four other agencies too!) images and video. Speaking of watching videos to "find out" things, why don't you ever watch the ones posted as rebuttal?
  5. Holy cow! Where do you get this gibberish from? You think saying something makes it real? To visit the demon off springs of fallen angels? Why else you say? Errr, a sense of adventure? Exploring the stark beauty of it? https://www.adventure-life.com/travel/news/neil-armstrong-joins-antarctica-voyage Nope. That is a fictional map of Utopia. Who told you it was the underworld? https://www.arthistorybabes.com/blog/2018/3/7/the-land-of-cockaigne Hmmm, that seals the deal for you does it?
  6. Should we be replying to THIS and will you stop posting it everywhere if nobody responds? It's like Flat Earth for scifi fans. Do you have one single scrap of tangible evidence for any of that? You see, if I was a Nazi....I'd have got the right hump about the cold and would have suggested somewhere warm, deserted Pacific island or something. And the ETs, I bet they all phoned home complaining.
  7. That is called an excessive non-sequitur argument. Yes. Proven with so many things it is laughable that people dispute it. They hid the truth about Challenger, but that is an internal departmental thing. To all intents and purposes the claim is that they lie about the stuff they present....so no. They haven't lied. Just useless conspiracy crap. If it wasn't, why not give them hi-tech plastic guns or hidden explosive vests? The absence of a coherent alternative leaves the conclusion. I don't know for sure whether it is true, but I know the conspiracy claims make no sense. A really daft comment. Science gets many, many things spot on. The tough things to verify are surrounding universe creation, reality and life. There's work to be done. Doubtful. They can't even agree amongst themselves. The disease is real.....anyone who knows NHS staff will get that. The cause being 5G is ludicrous. I certainly don't want to delve into the colossal thread and argue the toss. Now I could say, so the world is flat, loads of NASA conspiracies are true, 911 was no planes, all science is wrong, covid is caused by mobile phone masts, a cast of millions and millions. Would that be about right?
  8. Sigh.....what the hell has NASA got to do with that video!?
  9. It's a poor CCTV video and this is a strawman argument. The quality of video makes no difference. Can't find any other video. There was many years ago. Don't care really. I withdraw the claim.....we can't see them boarding. There.
  10. So after all your faffing around you are a no planer? Now we are into the following territory: Nobody must see the Tomahawk missile. Including air-traffic control. A team must be quickly assembled to invisibly and very quickly sprinkle plane parts all over The Pentagon. Emergency services on route + news teams/helicopters. The actual plane and all passengers must be disposed off. The bodies must be burnt and mashed and a team/person to sprinkle the DNA quickly all over the crash site(s). A team to launch the missile from somewhere. A team to set charges to bust the internal walls and set aircraft fuel charges. Somebody to set the charges to blow the light poles and the generator. Somebody/a team to create the general shape of a plane in the wall with explosives http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
  11. So only your "qualified pilots" count and this is an ad hominem argument. https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/98119-your-opinion-9-11-piloting-2.html
  12. Hand waving noted. The evil perps unable to get some look alikes and HD quality
  13. Wiki is fine for general stuff that can be corroborated. A similar crash and it broke into tiny bits. That should convince an honest truther. I'm not pushing the official anything! I'm dissecting your unofficial claims. They are all huffenpuff. The qualified pilot said it could be done and most of his peers agreed. Your response was to ignore this and talk about coincidence
  14. No. It explains what YOU are about. You don't care about honesty...just deceptive crap. Ironic that you believe deceptive videos whilst labelling NASA deceptive. What the hell has NASA got to do with any of it?
  15. Did this a couple of pages ago...it was ignored of course... Pure deceptive shit. Axial tilt to ecliptic is 66.56341 Earth curve is 7.98 inches but varies all across the surface according to variable radius and of course not the contrived bullshit 666 it's ratio to a yard or any other measurement.....duhhh. Earth orbital speed is 29.78 kmh or 66, 616mph ON AVERAGE. So typical of flat earth dishonesty!
  16. How dare this bloke seek to "educate" people with his stupid "I just go me a camera innit" videos. Perspective is all about the vanishing point....something that is bloody obvious. Things vanish as they reach it!! They don't just bloody disappear. Sunset. Flat earth splattered.
  17. @wideawakeYou suggested I should put some links up. Shanksville similar to...... American Eagle Flight 4184: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184 Engines at the Pentagon: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Full analysis of Pentagon Impact: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html Another Pilot looks at the issues: https://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
  18. Wow, thanks. Which one is posting on the Icke forum? I was once again being flippant, but it's most comforting(for you) that YOU think those organisations think the things I address, need to be addressed.
  19. Hey, you ramp up the old conspiracy-speak. Coincidences occur all over the world every day and some ridiculously unfeasible. The pilot said it wasn't difficult. OK? You failed as I expected to acknowledge that. The pilot said he and his fellow pilots agreed with this...you still going to ignore that? Such as? Planes hitting the buildings? CCTV footage of passengers boarding? Footage of the plane parts? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-14347433 Yeah ok. The latter involves disposing of the planes, the bodies, sprinkling DNA and engine parts, manufacturing videos, magic plane shaped impacts etc.... A ridiculous claim. Particularly since numerous people actually saw the bloody planes. Uhuh. A self reinforcing argument. Here, try reading it... http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
  20. Uhuh. You and your team of flat earthers are absolutely appalling the way you ignore so, so many things. The "turning" moon. Identical in its orientation to the ground in two places at once, 2000 miles apart. You are full of crap! The Moon is upside down in Australia. The face is visible at the same time to Perth and Sydney, they are around 2000 miles apart. Yet the exact same face is visible to each place. We could just as easily use something MUCH wider in an example, such as Sierra Leone to Columbo , 6,256 on roughly the same latitude and identical views of the Moon!! Now do something amazing and acknowledge the glaring problem with that!
  21. Do you understand what honest debate means? I await your response or probable evasion.
  22. https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/ Dude, you are afraid to answer the obvious question. You people are very fond of making claims and statements without considering the obvious implications. 1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots. Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill. The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all. They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building. Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be). Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops. Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it. Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely. As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt. As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight. Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do. And routinely they would get ignored. As will the one I just posted. Flouncey flounce. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
  23. I didn't tell you to look for anything, I asked if you did... you almost certainly went looking for conspiracy stuff only. I couldn't give a shit who I remind you of. Diving planes accumulate speed very quickly. The planes are built to exceed guidance and tested accordingly. What crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing "impossible" speeds. Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please.
  24. The sphere model works fine and your "omission" of a magic alternative object is one of the most ludicrous head up the backside explanations I've ever seen. Being a bullshitter when this has been explained to you numerous times is not cool. Your reference comes from an idiotic yooootub video where he lifts the data for the penumbra and uses it for the shadow. You ignored all posts explaining this to you. Gibberish, no it wouldn't. A brainless observation. Neither is your magic bullshit alternative!! The Moon has no light on it and it is broad daylight. Atmospheric scattering occludes stars during the day. Clearly, anyone with eyes can see the dark part of the Moon is much dimmer than stars when viewed at night. It's a vacuous hole in your understanding. Hahahaha....new "technology"? They've had them for hundreds of years dude!! It doesn't fail, flat earthers don't consider refraction and ignore things disappearing over the curve!
  25. Yes. A smart answer and of course you ignored it. If it wasn't possible for the plane to do these speeds, what crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing so!? Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please. You can find pilots stating any number of things but the aircraft MUST have a tolerance way higher than the figures quoted for passenger service. I posted a pilot account on one of the threads. Even a shallow dive will get the airspeed building quickly - it's called gravity. There's numerous forums where New Yorkers talk about the planes flying over their apartments and places where experts discuss max speeds and bad pilots. Have YOU gone looking for any of that?
  • Create New...