Jump to content

Comedy Time

Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Comedy Time

  1. 14 minutes ago, zArk said:

    flight 77 (and flight 11) didnt exist

     

    Stop being ridiculous. They both existed.

     

    14 minutes ago, zArk said:

    flight 77 was recorded as flying for 77 mins from take off to crash

     

    But you said it didn't exist?

     

    14 minutes ago, zArk said:

    it is claimed it crashed into the pentagon , located at 77 degrees longitude

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

     

    Hundreds and hundreds of other numbers that aren't a 77:classic_rolleyes:

     

     

     

  2. Just now, theo102 said:

    So you were wrong when you said that none of the arguments were fallacious.

     

    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?

     

    Just now, theo102 said:

    What, exactly, do you think is "bloody obvious"?

     

    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!?

  3. 38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    Wow. Thanks, I'll try that incredibly scientific experiment. It's bound to reassure me.

     

    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?

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    They weren't there to stargaze - that's the best one.

     

    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.

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    The way: All your other points apply equally to ISS etc don't they? But they see everything.

     

     

    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?

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    On the surface: mmmm OK, but none of the hassleblad photo's show stars either.

     

     

    How can you have failed to see the millions of times this has been explained?

    http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    onebigmonkey (debunking site) - just as useful to anyone as a pro-hoax site.

     

     

    No dude, really it isn't. It shows some of the most unbelievably thorough and detailed research proving the missions were real.

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    universetoday (credible site) - bearing in mind the multiple astronoughts saying they didn't see any stars, this is a bit disingenuous to say the least;

     

     

    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!

     

    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    "It is a common misconception that the Apollo astronauts didn’t see any stars. While stars don’t show up in the pictures from the Apollo missions, that’s because the camera exposures were set to allow for good images of the bright sunlit lunar surface, which included astronauts in bright white space suits and shiny spacecraft. Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module, and also they saw stars while orbiting the far side of the Moon. Al Worden from Apollo 15 has said the sky was “awash with stars” in the view from the far side of the Moon that was not in daylight."

     

    No sources or citations given for the Al Worden quote so I'll have to go digging unless you want to?

     

     

    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

     

     

     

  4. 1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The first significant fallacy is the fallacy of presumption that the hoax could not have been carried out because too many people would have to have been in on it for it to be kept secret.

     

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The second sentence implies that  "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" were in on the hoax when the documentary does not suggest that this is the case.

     

    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?

     

    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The document starts with obvious NASA apologetics. It would good to show why this is the case.

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

     False. The documentary doesn't imply that the hoax was silly. 

    Irrelevant. The hoax was "silly" and this was obviously the opinion of the person writing it.

     

    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.

     

    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!?

     

     

  5. 14 minutes ago, theo102 said:

    False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.

     

     

    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.

  6. 13 minutes ago, theo102 said:

     

    Anyone can debunk an idea by ridiculing it or by arguing with fallacies in order to give the appearance that they are right.

     

     

    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.

  7. 4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

    The Apollo mission was fake. Here's the evidence:

    https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY

     

    This is the best video I've seen about the Apollo mission.

     

    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. 

     

     

  8. 9 hours ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    But since you ask.  

     

    Why didn't the Apollo crews see any stars either on the way to or from or on the moon, when by all accounts the ISS resident's see plenty?

     

     

    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/

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  9. 2 hours ago, wideawake said:

    Finally an answer, you really struggled to answer this simple question.

     

     

    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!

     

    2 hours ago, wideawake said:

    Now I understand where you stand, the aluminum wings can slice through the steel wall of the building without any damage because the building had insufficient resistant force...

    Enough said.  🤔

     

    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

     

     

     

     

     

    • Haha 2
  10. 2 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:

    sorry made a mistake! it was 35 seconds into the video

     

    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.

  11. 4 hours ago, singhz312 said:

    That doesn't explain why it's only a hole in the ground and why google have been deleting images of the Pennsylvania plane impact  

    I want to see pictures not and brutal evidence, not text. Anyone can write text (and make up stories ;)), I want pictures and evidence

     

    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.

     

     

  12. 1 hour ago, wideawake said:

     

    So... wings collapse or steel columns, quite simple, pick 1.

     

    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.

  13. 3 hours ago, mishy said:

    Those people who think that one of these...

     

    floppy.jpg.bc511d1a219d4275c7f6f0c38e4157df.jpg

     

    Can fly into/through this structure

    And show zero collision physics aren't worth listening to.

     

    https://911planeshoax.com/

     

     

     

    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....

  14. 3 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:

     

     

    No it fucking dosint! at 2.54min it goes under the building

     

    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????

     

  15. 2 hours ago, oz93666 said:

    Just ban Comedy Time and tranquility will return.

     

    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.....

     

    447655240_1280x720.jpg

     

    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....

     

    shitfountin.jpg

     

    So Reet Hard, who were YOU before........spill the beans!

     

    Rupert/Carlos/Edna Clouds/Shpock

     

     

    • Haha 1
  16. 3 minutes ago, singhz312 said:

    You sure love that same old engine pic

     

    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.

     

    3 minutes ago, singhz312 said:

    Where's your engine pic in the Pennsylvania "plane impacts"?

     

    9/11 News Coverage: 10:03 AM: UA 93 Crashes in Pennsylvania - YouTube

     

    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/

  17. 40 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

    Why do you not hold Comedy time to any of the standards ste out in your ts &cs?

     

    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. 

  18. 47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    So your answer is a question and you criticize everybody else for doing the same. Hmm

     

     

    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?

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    My conclusion was by logic.

     

    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. 

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    Every time on 9/11 discussions ( towers fell on their own footprints,

     

    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.:classic_rolleyes:

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    arabs as highjackers,

     

    Ok. Nothing to do with no planes again. They had a beef with the USA.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    fake planes,

     

    Nope. Four planes. Fast, loads of kinetic energy.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    Silverstein's insurance racket

     

    Nothing to do with the subject. Not going to bother arguing against it. Maybe he knew, unlikely though.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    the pentagon attack video

     

    What about it? Looks like a plane from the analysis I posted.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    unusual crash debris in Shanksville, etc, etc) for some reason

     

    Nothing unusual about something so vastly energetic striking a packed surface and flying off into smithereens.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    there is no logic anymore

     

    Hmmm, the problem is your understanding of what is logical.

     

    47 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    mathematical, scientific answer. Why? Because NIST said so?

     

    Not really, some maths maybe but in general fairly obvious stuff. Certainly no maths or science from no-planers.

  19. 1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

    lol ... you've lost the plot CT 

     

    No, really I haven't. There seems to be a lot of confusion from people not being able to read properly.

     

    1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

    Look five post above where I answer your post where YOU say ... "Those buildings are in FRONT of the target path"

     

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

    You have just posted a video PROVING  those buildings are Behind the plane 

     

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

    Could not make that up!!! It shows you are not paying attention , just like a made dog you run everywhere attacking everything , you have lost all credibility 

     

    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 rabugento1.gifkindly don't use the word credibility in any future sentence!

     

    1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

    And if you read my post on the previous page , you will see  I was citing this as an example of CGI NOT Holograms ! 

     

    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.....

     

    oztheblind.jpg

     

     

  20. 13 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    So... still no answer.

    I'll tell you what the difference is before you google all day for an answer... none

     

    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.

     

    13 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    and the wings will collapse, period.

     

    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?

     

  21. 1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

    We have a genetically modifying vaccine being fast tracked, where corporations will not be liable for any damages, as has been the case in the US for years & the taxpayer has to front any damages. As anybody whos vaguely clued in knows how much control big pharma has over government. *AHEM* Chris Witty, Patrick Vallance, Fauci ...

    Hardly much of a conspiracy theory..specially now its in your face 24/7 & the majority of the public, are clueless to this obvious & think its totally normal for the media to be pushing an experimental vaccines to be mandatory to the public in a few months lol Bill Gates is on all the news telling us 700,000 people will probably die from side effects.

    Hes not a doctor or scientist, but as Icke points out controls world health policy.

     

    Completely nothing to do with the video, the topic or anything else on this subject. I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. 

     

    1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

    His videos are amusing of course, he picks a gullible sap who doesn't really know shit with a channel, bit like what Snopes or any of the other corporate sponsored fact checkers do...pick an obvious gullible idiotic easily debunkable meme or post on social media & push the idea everyone who doesn't trust their lovable corporatist government & scientism establishment, pushed by their media is batshit crazy.

     

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

    This is why flat earth cult is a an obvious psyop & cancer to the truth.

     

    I don't agree. I think it's a gigantic money making cash cow sucking in people unable to distinguish shite from sugarlumpsrabugento1.gif

     

     

     

  22. 1 hour ago, Reet Hard said:

    Then why are you discussing it with him?

     

    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.

  23. 36 minutes ago, wideawake said:

    So that is your answer? I was expecting more from you...

     

    The forces involved are identical....BUT....you cannot sum the kinetic engine of the building in the same way and use it to determine damage. It is a much more complicated sum.

     

    I wasn't actually expecting you to post an answer to my request for quantifiable mathematical analysis, so there you go.

×
×
  • Create New...