Jump to content

Comedy Time

Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Comedy Time

  1. Stop being ridiculous. They both existed. But you said it didn't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77 Hundreds and hundreds of other numbers that aren't a 77
  2. I wish there was a reaction to a reaction function. Something like a big klaxon and a big guff of air.

  3. Christ, this is tedious. I said ... "None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious. " Then you use his introduction to his arguments to supplement this piffling irrelevant side issue. His introduction is NOT an argument, he is talking about what he thinks the idea for the video is. His OPINION! FFS. To clarify......his ARGUMENTS made to the transcribed questions....ya know, relative to the actual video? So many things it would frighten you! But in the case you quote, that the hoax would need a ridiculous number of people to be in the know. I gave you a link that you ignored. You are ignoring large replies here. That always happens with hoax believers. Any chance you could... a) respond to posts properly b) supply 2 or 3 key points in your video "evidence" for me to address directly c) actually read and respond to where somebody has spent hours already writing responses to most of it already!?
  4. Dude, you don't seem the type of person to be reassured of anything that contradicts you. Quite clearly a lit room will limit what you see outside. Quite clearly if the bloody Sun is shining in as well the whole time, then it's going to be a little tricky to see anything. D'ya think? Accurate though. They were on a mission to the Moon not doing something that was way more visual in a pitch black desert on Earth. Yes, during daylight, the ISS occupants will find it very difficult to go stargazing. But when it goes into the night side, well switch off the cabin lights and you can see them. EXACTLY like Apollo when they went behind the Moon! https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/11day4-approach.html 071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. 071:59:52 McCandless: I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it? How can you have failed to see the millions of times this has been explained? http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html No dude, really it isn't. It shows some of the most unbelievably thorough and detailed research proving the missions were real. The "multiple astronauts" saying they didn't see stars? You are like a comedy repeater of crap. They didn't see stars when the conditions were not favourable or they weren't looking. They did see them when conditions WERE favourable and they WERE looking for them! I'm tempted to say off you go, because you might actually be able to pick some other stuff up. https://www.cosmicperspective.com/the-life-of-al-worden/ http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/staquotes.html “I curved around the moon to where no sunlight or Earthshine could reach me. The moon was a deep, solid circle of blackness, and I could only tell where it began by where the stars cut off. In the dark and quiet, I felt like a bird of the night, silently gliding and falling around the moon, never touching. I turned the cabin lights off. There was no end to the stars. I could see tens, perhaps hundreds of times more stars than the clearest, darkest night on Earth. With no atmosphere to blur their light, I could see them all to the limits of my eyesight. There were so many, I could no longer find constellations. My vision was filled with a blaze of starlight. Unlike some other astronauts who had time only for hurried glances, I had many hours, spread over many days, to look at this awe-inspiring view and think about what it meant. There was more to the universe than I had ever imagined.” -Al Worden, Falling to Earth
  5. So what?! This in no way discounts the direct rebuttals to the supposed evidence. Besides, just because the video maker makes no case for this....it is not presumptive to point out the bloody obvious. Your first and second points are the same thing. http://www.clavius.org/scale.html Would you like me to cut and paste that link, or are you going to read it all? What a bullshit comment....and what "document" are you talking about? If somebody has examined BOTH sides of this unbalanced argument, then they rightfully conclude that the hoax is a load of crap, why should that be a problem? I have seen it all and I've seen the debunks to it all and made hundreds and hundreds of debunks myself just from simple science and observations. There is not one single hoax claim that stands up to scrutiny. I could present you with two simple short videos that prove they must be on the Moon, I just cannot imagine you would suddenly accept this. You just ignored my whole post about the redesign and James Webb - now address it please. Irrelevant. The hoax was "silly" and this was obviously the opinion of the person writing it. The schedule was altered to bring forward major objectives and augment minor ones into the same mission. Webb addressed in previous post. The issue about whether they "care" about the project is flippant and suggests if they knew, that would be the case and if they didn't, they would have then completed the job. All very irrelevant. What you are actually doing is attempting to debunk irrelevant aspects of a response to your video. How about you supply what was requested....2 or 3 items that you think are convincing!?
  6. The Cabin did not need to be "re-designed"! It needed modifications highlighted by the fire. Quite clearly they used the thing in space from the footage available....so it worked fine. As for James Webb, where do you get this crap from? From wiki and it uses credible sources.... After the Apollo 1 accident in 1967, Webb told the media, "We've always known that something like this was going to happen sooner or later... Who would have thought that the first tragedy would be on the ground?" Webb went to Johnson and asked for NASA to be allowed to handle the accident investigation and to direct its recovery, according to a procedure that was established following the in-flight accident on Gemini 8. He promised to be truthful in assessing blame, even to himself and NASA management, as appropriate. The agency set out to discover the details of the tragedy, to correct problems, and to continue progress toward the Apollo 11 lunar landing. Webb reported the investigation board's findings to various congressional committees, and he took a personal blaming at nearly every meeting. Whether by happenstance or by design, Webb managed to deflect some of the backlash over the accident away from both NASA as an agency and from the Johnson administration. As a result, NASA's image and popular support were largely undamaged.[13] Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and since Johnson chose not to run for reelection, Webb decided to step down as administrator to allow the next president, Republican Richard Nixon, to choose his own administrator.[14] Webb was informed by CIA sources in 1968 that the Soviet Union was developing its own heavy N1 rocket for a manned lunar mission, and he directed NASA to prepare Apollo 8 for a possible lunar orbital mission that year. At the time, Webb's assertions about the Soviet Union's abilities were doubted by some people, and the N-1 was dubbed "Webb's Giant".[15] However, later revelations about the Soviet Moonshot, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have given support to Webb's conclusion. Webb left NASA in October 1968, just before the first manned flight in the Apollo program.
  7. None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious. Is this going to be your plan then? No matter what is presented you will defend and dismiss? Identify some major things and I will address them - the film is shite and is a rehash of literally hundreds of multiply debunked clips. He's doing it for the money btw. Perhaps you could step into a zone of neutrality and look at the rebuttals properly. Now....2 or 3 things from that video. Preferably not idle speculation from ignorance.
  8. Chuck enough crap at the wall and some of it sticks huh? There is nothing in any section of that video that is new or not debunked to death. Highlight any 2 or 3 things and I'll directly address them. The missions brought back 842lbs of lunar samples that are not meteorites or Earth rocks.
  9. Several things are in play. Firstly, next time you remember, turn off your bedroom lights and looking through the window, see how many stars you can see. Not many if at all. On the way there and back: 1. The windows are double layered that restricts faint light. 2. The Sun is shining through at least one side of the slowly rotating CS/M. 3. Obliquely so is reflected Earth shine. 4. The cabin has lights. 5. They weren't star gazing. 6. They used the optics to navigate with star positions. On the surface: 1. They have triple layered visors. 2. The outer one was down most of the time to stop glare. 3. It was Lunar daylight, the Sun was out and shining in your face 50% of the time. 4. The surface, having retro-reflective properties is lit up by the Sun. 5. They weren't there to stargaze. Some supplementary reading: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html https://www.universetoday.com/136802/can-astronauts-see-stars-space-station/
  10. Dude, you got an answer straight away. You seem to struggle to understand the long detailed posts I make. Besides, I already bloody answered this before!! What makes me laugh is you being unable to put 2 and 2 together. I state unequivocally that the resistant forces are not enough for the kinetic energy. I also state that reversing it in your building moving scenario, the forces are identical. There is all you need to know! Are you "struggling" with physics here? The wings are aluminium alloys and filled with fuel. There are also numerous tougher components for the flaps and, hydraulics. It's almost the perfect shape to slice though a column at 500 mph http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1982/ICAS-82-2.2.1.pdf
  11. Please clarify what you are saying here. I am saying the BUILDING is in front of the plane and you appear to be saying the plane was behind the building. BOTH were in front of the WTC building, hence my screenshot and why @oz93666 has done his customary disappearing act.
  12. I actually don't care what you want. A plane crashed in the middle of nowhere. If it wasn't real it would be an absolute piece of cake tp plant wreckage with nobody around then set off the big crash explosion. There wasn't significant wreckage because the plane came straight down and blew into tiny bits.
  13. I always thought Edna Clouds was the best moniker. Some bugger even nicked my TG name and used it here.
  14. Dude....I wonder what is confusing you here. The phrase "forces are identical" or the "same result". Would you like me to shout? As it happened. Big chunk of mass going very fast. Building had insufficient resistant force. Columns broke. I await something more than the usual no planer noise. I wrote big post you didn't. You ignored it all.
  15. The plane in picture 1 was landing. Show anything....I mean anything approaching "collision physics"....because you and the no planes crew have zero understanding of it and are noise specialists extraordinaire. Mathematical analysis if you please....
  16. Such vociferous and contrite rebuttal. The video actually finishes at 2.55min 1 second later and ooooh a little on the wrong side.. so 2 things occurred to me. Did you actually watch it with a semblance of neutrality and would you like some help with working out the difference between nearfield and distance? Sheesh dude...I really thought the screenshot with the actual building IN FRONT of the big tower would have sealed the deal? How the crap can you fail to see this????
  17. I am doing nothing whatsoever to disrupt the tranquility of this forum or to warrant such a thing...... Whether you like it or not I stimulate debate. I do not blatantly insult people. I do not make 100% ad hominem arguments. I do not publicly whinge like a stuck pig about other members. I don't promote moronic conspiracy theories like nazis in flying saucers, flat earth, no planes........click here. I don't avoid posts that make me look a wally. I'm not afraid to be wrong or admit so. I try not to make any off topic posts but sometimes it is unavoidable. If your theories stand up to scrutiny it should be easy to defend them. If you are afraid to defend them or receive alternative explanations that offend you, annoy you or make yours look like a pile of shite, then tough! This is a debate forum and the truth shall set you free, whether you like it or not. Since this is the humour sub forum. I wish to make a public statement to all the poor little dears who don't like my presence..... And to all the very uninformed people who think I do this for money, this objet d'art sums up the accuracy of your claim.... So Reet Hard, who were YOU before........spill the beans! Rupert/Carlos/Edna Clouds/Shpock
  18. That engine pic shows people milling around it. Now MY logic tells me that nobody was able to roll up in a van and invisibly dump the rather heavy plane engine. Bearing in mind that you categorically denied any plane parts, it leaves you with some explaining. Smashed to tiny pieces probably. Maximum speed impact into an impenetrable surface.....things are going to be sent in numerous directions and in small pieces, incluing the poor passengers and airline staff. https://www.tnonline.com/20170501/coroner-details-flight-93-crash/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/ FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur. https://www.tnonline.com/20170501/coroner-details-flight-93-crash/
  19. I'm far more well behaved than that rotter Rupert whatshisname. PM me some examples where you think I have breached the Terms and Conditions.....or let one of the mods know. I'm fairly certain that if I as much as let out a small metaphorical fart it would get reported by about a dozen people. In the meantime, explain why you think it more feasible to crash the actual plane and hope nobody notices the "military plane", meaning you now have to dispose of the bodies, the plane, sprinkle parts, dna - body burning and mangling etc. etc. Seriously, if I was Dr. Evil and given a remit for this. It would be enable remote control for all 4, small canister of remote released nerve gas on the pilots. Stick some high concentrate explosives in the baggage and sync the detonation to the impacts. Could be done with a couple of dozen people.
  20. Dude, you need to lighten up and stick to debating. Those are the two most reasonable mods I've ever come across. You, not so much.
  21. No. My answer was that the forces are identical. I didn't realise that would confuse you. The same forces produce the same result. I am not aware of ever criticising anyone for asking a question unless it had already been answered. Can you highlight what you are talking about? Well, your "logic" is incorrect. Perhaps you should try to understand the nature of kinetic force and look up the resistant forces involved in the building construction. Nothing to do with no planes. Gravity tends to do that fall downwards, but a simple aerial shot of the devastation shows that claim is wrong. Things flew out all over the place, a very large chunk struck WTC7 and gored out substantial parts of the South face. That was lucky huh? NOW they had a reason for fires and stuff. Ok. Nothing to do with no planes again. They had a beef with the USA. Nope. Four planes. Fast, loads of kinetic energy. Nothing to do with the subject. Not going to bother arguing against it. Maybe he knew, unlikely though. What about it? Looks like a plane from the analysis I posted. Nothing unusual about something so vastly energetic striking a packed surface and flying off into smithereens. Hmmm, the problem is your understanding of what is logical. Not really, some maths maybe but in general fairly obvious stuff. Certainly no maths or science from no-planers.
  22. No, really I haven't. There seems to be a lot of confusion from people not being able to read properly. Yes. That's exactly what I said. The buildings are in the foreground of the shot, the WTC1/2 distant and the plane approaches between the two. R U BLIND? The video shows the buildings clear as day in front of the shot, with the plane passing behind shown as it banks slightly. If you are seriously still claiming that building is beyond the WTC1 you need to get your eyes tested. I knew there was no way to ever get you to concede one of your constant balls-ups. Wow, so much noise from you and denial of the absolutely in your face obvious. So you insult me calling me a "made dog" accuse me of "attacking everything" when I am debating people in good faith and then you have the absolute audacity to assess my credibility based on your absolute wilful blindness? You are the one who believes in Nazi flying saucers on the Moon/ time travel and so, so much more kindly don't use the word credibility in any future sentence! I read where you goaded me in with a video titled "100-proof-holographic-plane-91101" - so you don't even believe the video presented. OWNED.....
  23. Wtf? I gave you an answer! The forces are identical....you just bloody quoted it. And don't talk to me about "googling an answer", you just plagiarised that claim and lifted it from a no planer site. And your stunning conclusion for this was reached because? You were doing so well, you got the identical bit, then you seemed to mess up slightly. Show your mathematics for any of it. Because it is a problem of mechanical force and engineering. I await an answer to a whole host of things from any single no-planer...must I list them again?
  24. Completely nothing to do with the video, the topic or anything else on this subject. I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. They are all "gullible saps" aren't they? That's the whole problem in the first place. You can do that level of debunk to anything relating to flat earth, no space or a whole host of issues. I don't agree. I think it's a gigantic money making cash cow sucking in people unable to distinguish shite from sugarlumps
  25. This is a comprehension failure again. Read what I said and get a clue!! I don't care WHO ELSE agrees with HER! I'm not "discussing it" with HER anyway, I am posting responses to her nonsense. I gave up on the idea of being able to reason with her weeks ago, now just for fence sitters, casual observers and stalkers.
×
×
  • Create New...