.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
3 minutes ago, alexa said:
How much do you get paid per post?
Now ordinarily I would have come back with something cutting and rude, but will make do with something simple.....your pissy personal comment is in keeping with your hopeless level of accuracy about anything.
I don't get paid to post here and if there is such a position please show me where to apply!!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, alexa said:
Yes, b/c you'd rather just laugh at me as per or call me a fool for believing in God's word.
HUH?? I'd rather you were honest and responded to every post in some way. You aren't following "God's word" it was written by man and quite a large proportion of it is made up crap. The rest is 100 generations of Chinese whispers and translation screw ups.
"God" doesn't believe the planet is flat. He gave man brains to work out that it wasn't. He gave man brains to create money making scams to feed off those who are unable to work out the obvious!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Macnamara said:
while you are as slippery as an eel
baffling why you couldn't give a clear answer after you posted a video of a jet fighter crashing headfirst into an imoveable concrete barrier
i didn't say i did think that. I was asking you if you were drawing a comparison between the official account of the impact and the impact of a jet fighter smashing headfirst into a concrete barrier which you posted above
Point 1...nope. I gave you clear answers and you went off comparing Lewis Hamilton and Reg Varney! Posted 7.24 yesterday....I suggest you read stuff before you go off 1/4 cocked.
Point 2...baffling what stopped you reading the posts at the top of this page.
Point 2....good. Because I feel some no planery coming from you and it would have been absurd quoting a plane witness account to justify details of the crash.
Now what? You gonna say something?
-
12 minutes ago, Macnamara said:
so your answer then is 'yes' to the question of whether or not a jet fighter hitting a solid slab of concrete is the same as a commercial passenger plane hitting the earth obliquely in terms of the resultant debris created?
Sharp as mustard.....similar enough to explain Shanksville debris field.
Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record"
-
1 hour ago, wideawake said:
I am no expert in this but according to experienced pilots, planes would fall apart at 500 mph at low altitude and with inexperienced pilots like these Arabs to hit targets thus making it impossible for the planes to have crashed in the WTC. If that is true then they could've been missiles as opposed to planes...
You say Arabs as though they haven't got the same capabilities.
Sustained absolute maximum speed...pushing the engines to their limit will cause permanent damage to the plane. They're built to withstand quite a bit and I very much doubt any pilot has taken any large passenger plane even close to give an accurate opinion. According to "some" pilots should be your statement. Because others have no problem with it.
I'm guessing the terrorists weren't bothered about screwing the plane up. A minute or so at screaming speed. Well possible.
-
2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:
So for the record of this forum you don't think that a jet plane crashing head first into a solid concrete slab is the same as a passenger jet crashing obliquely into the earth?
Baffling. I just told you they are similar in the destruction it causes.
Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record"?
-
40 minutes ago, alexa said:
1. It's not some crazy conspiracy.
2. Yes I can be reasoned with to a certain point.
Yes it is. No you can't.
You just totally ignore things. That post I made about the Moon size and the annular eclipses.....nada.
-
4 minutes ago, alexa said:
I do not deny the moon and the stars, what I object to is what NASA tells us about them, it's nothing but fairy tales, it's just not true..... the liars that they are!
Chronic and baffling circular reasoning. You put millions of people in this crazy conspiracy. You cannot be reasoned with.
-
6 minutes ago, Red pill taken said:
The planes didn't look like they were on a downward trajectory, some pretty impressive flying.. from cesna to boeing, I guess its like driving a car huh
They both visibly have downward trajectories. I guess it's like crashing a plane.
-
9 minutes ago, Red pill taken said:
If you steeped in logic then something cannot arise from nothing and something cannot become nothing, maybe its a morbius loop?
Maybe it's always been. Maybe it expands and compresses in a natural cycle.
All very interesting but sadly all denied in the crazy world of the thread starter.
-
12 minutes ago, Red pill taken said:
Comedy time, Have you watched R Hall talking about the plane speeds at low altitude?
Yes. He is a man who makes money off of the gullible. Diving planes accumulate speed.
-
-
11 hours ago, Macnamara said:
so just for the record...
Uhuh, what record?
11 hours ago, Macnamara said:you believe that a furmula 1 racing car hitting a concrete barrier at full speed is comparable to say a coach side swiping an earthen bank, in terms of the debris that will be created?
No, I believe that a passenger plane coming down at 570 mph on a 40 degree angle upside down into solid ground would disintegrate and send debris everywhere for some considerable distance.
What a pitifully inadequate comparison analogy you use. It's almost as though you think the plane crashing was a side swipe like a bus?!
-
2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:
So flight UA93 was a fighter jet crashing headfirst into a solid slab of concrete?
And there was me thinking it was a commercial flight crashing obliquely into the earth....
Sometimes sarcasm works brilliantly. That wasn't one of those instances. The fighter jet hitting concrete is a perfect comparison for a diving plane hitting a solid ground. The result is pretty similar.
Obliquely or not, it is an immovable object and that increases the chances of debris bouncing in that direction.
-
49 minutes ago, kj35 said:
The point was it is very much more accessible than mars. More serviceable. The semantics of rocket technology were a little above my knowledge. That said....moon rocket technology versus mars rocket technology? Hmmm. I would suggest most people can see the one needs much more complex fuel, food, medicine, human biology consideraration than the other? And yet it is mars we are trying to colonise ..not the moon.
Colonise Mars ....pie in the sky. They need to overcome enormous hurdles. Not least that Mars has no magnetosphere and consequently doesn't stop solar radiation. Plus stopping it for the really long journey time.
The food and stuff would be dead easy in comparison.
-
On 8/31/2020 at 3:39 PM, kj35 said:
The moon takes, what??three days and could be serviced by shuttles like the space shuttle program and could also be serviced by the existing ISS program.
No. To get to the Moon, you need something light enough to be accelerated from here and slowed down when it gets there. The shuttle simply cannot do either.
-
2 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:
Yep. And why shouldn't the aliens be odd?
Hmmm..... Whatever, extremely patient aliens ok.
2 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:Have a read of 'Who Made The Moon' - I posted the link to the pdf earlier in this thread.
Yeah I read it years ago.
2 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:The moon IS a very strange object, the odds against it being the size it is and the distance it is are astronomical!
Happily the universe is very big so the chance of it happening somehow by chance become fairly high!
Sounds about right....The chances of life and all the things that come together make it likely that it doesn't occur very often....being one of the places where it did happen, in a universe of such unimaginable size makes it inevitable.
-
On 10/6/2020 at 8:59 AM, Reet Hard said:
The best way to deal with shills & narcisists trying to gaslight and bait is no response.
Or respond , don't react - give them no supply.
Stick to the argument even when they don't because then that shows them up for what they are.
Of course one of the reasons it's done is to paint everyone who is awake as an abusive lunatic so don't take the bait as tempting as it is.
There were a few great posters who provided a lot of great analysis walked away as a result.
If the shills (and we all know who they are) are allowed to behave as they do and throw there abusive comments around and no on reacts to it - who does it paint in a bad light for all the internet to see?
Who loses credibility for all the internet to see - us or them?
Listen to Uncle Reet Hard Yo!
I think the best way to deal with these mysterious people is by debating them out of the park with logic, critical thinking, cited evidence, carefully thought out detailed posts and most of all totally honest responses. That always works for me. I try not to rise to the bait and let the moderators deal with all the abusive posts I receive. Credibility is not really an issue unless you think the general internet comes here and trawls through buried posts.
-
40 minutes ago, wideawake said:
I don't have the link here but if debris were spread over miles, it can only mean that it was destroyed in the air. There are reports of people seeing a fighter jet in that area at the time.
Yes, I am aware of the details surrounding UA93, but your conclusion is not accurate. If it hits the deck at 550mph then bits are going to fly off considerable distances. Plus there is the impact crater.
It may have just been clipped by the fighter plane to disable it, or Bush ordered it to be brought down. I cannot rule that out but as I say think it less likely.
-
4 minutes ago, wideawake said:
Or it exploded in the air before hitting the ground?
I didn't immediately dismiss that, but it seems less likely.
-
17 hours ago, kj35 said:
I don't think the moon is natural. And a lot of mainstream science supports the theory.
There is no support at all in mainstream science.
There is a lot of mainstream support that establishes at as being there billions of years ago...specimen paper....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140730133129.htm
Tidal evidence from 3 billion years ago...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/956126.stm
Very odd aliens if they drove it here and parked it up billions of years before man arrived.
-
On 10/8/2020 at 3:50 PM, singhz312 said:
That contradicts the tower impacts then? No pieces falling down are seen like in this video? LOOOL..
Sigh......no it contradicts nothing. The wall on the crash test was specifically designed to produce a dead stop impact. Ie. Its resistant force exceeded the incoming kinetic energy. On the Twin Towers, the wall was not sufficient to resist massively more kinetic energy.
And like most people I am encountering.....you completely ignore the point being demonstrated!
For Shankesville, the plane hitting the ground WOULD be the same as the dead-stop plane crash.....therefore the same result - smashing into tiny bits and thrown great distances.
-
1 hour ago, Enforcement said:
Don't be silly please - compartmentalisation.
Don't be incredibly daft....explain fully how any single person in that post are not just a tad suspicious about what they have done .....ya know ....given that 4 planes just splattered all over the general vicinity.
Your base claim requires all of that and more.
Here, example.....you lot can you dispose of that UA plane over There and get me some bits. Burn them and mangle them. Oh and do the same with the passengers.
What crazy "compart-totally-mental" world would fail to notice!
-
3 hours ago, Enforcement said:
Yes, there were two military planes controlled remotely.
The planes hitting the tower created the drama needed to make the idiot sheeple demand the solution which surprise surprise was more surveillance and removal of freedoms and more tax payer funded war.
Why did you just repeat your claim?
Now we need:
- A team to dispose of the planes and the bodies
- A team to burn and mangle the bodies to sprinkle DNA all over the area, or a team to fake the analyses.
- We still need a team to place tiny body parts everywhere.
- A team to drive around dropping bits of plane around the area, including a massive plane engine in full view of spectators!
- A team to do this at the Pentagon with cameras on helicopters and emergency services arriving any time soon.
- A team to control the military aircraft. Paper trails to be destroyed accounting for the aircraft.
- ALL paper trails paying any personnel to be deleted and financial reimbursements hidden.
That makes zero sense.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6719039&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9725182&postcount=11
9/11 EXPOSED IN 10 MINUTES
in 911
Posted
You don't need to be a good pilot to crash a plane.
Correction, you would take the word of SOME pilots who would not know the maximum speed of the aircraft since they would not even go near the VNE speed. Boeing would be better qualified to give this information.
But hey let's run that up the flagpole shall we?
Evil perps meeting:
Evil overlord: So we are in agreement. No planes and video fakery, kill the passengers, burn them blah de blah.
Evil underling 1: Yes your highness. Leave it to me. I'll make those blinking planes look so real.
Evil underling 2: Yes and I'll make them look like they are going 580 mph.
Evil Overlord: Don't be an arse, they can't go that fast at 1000ft.
Evil Underling 2: Ahaaa, but nobody will notice.