I think many of you here are scared of the prospect of this being fake. It will open up doubts for you on many levels. If they can lie about something this big then......You see it everywhere, WTC7 and 911 as an example.
I think many of you here are scared of the prospect of this being fake. It will open up doubts for you on many levels. If they can lie about something this big then......You see it everywhere, WTC7 and 911 as an example.
Rayo. wrote:
I think many of you here are scared of the prospect of this being fake. It will open up doubts for you on many levels. If they can lie about something this big then......You see it everywhere, WTC7 and 911 as an example.
I have a cousin who loves arguing with conspiracy theory nuts. He knows he will never convince them of anything but just enjoys the seemingly bottomless depths of their stupidity. I think it’s mean. But I think pretending to believe in conspiracy theories to troll people is worse as a real side effect is that you fuel the poor fools who actually believe in them. I get that trolls are scum and don’t care, but there should be limits. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more than stupid, they are mentally ill. Abusing mental ill people is just a line even as-shole trolls shouldn’t cross. Stop being a scum bag.
Cruel treatment wrote:
Rayo. wrote:
I think many of you here are scared of the prospect of this being fake. It will open up doubts for you on many levels. If they can lie about something this big then......You see it everywhere, WTC7 and 911 as an example.
I have a cousin who loves arguing with conspiracy theory nuts. He knows he will never convince them of anything but just enjoys the seemingly bottomless depths of their stupidity. I think it’s mean. But I think pretending to believe in conspiracy theories to troll people is worse as a real side effect is that you fuel the poor fools who actually believe in them. I get that trolls are scum and don’t care, but there should be limits. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more than stupid, they are mentally ill. Abusing mental ill people is just a line even as-shole trolls shouldn’t cross. Stop being a scum bag.
Yes real scum. You just be a good fellow and believe what are told, don't question anything and move along please.
To tar all conspiracies with the same brush is simply negligent. Not long ago if I was on here banging on about how there are Catholic paedophiles in powerful places or that the CIA could listen in on you through your Smart TV, I would have been shouted down.
Rayo. wrote:
Cruel treatment wrote:
I have a cousin who loves arguing with conspiracy theory nuts. He knows he will never convince them of anything but just enjoys the seemingly bottomless depths of their stupidity. I think it’s mean. But I think pretending to believe in conspiracy theories to troll people is worse as a real side effect is that you fuel the poor fools who actually believe in them. I get that trolls are scum and don’t care, but there should be limits. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more than stupid, they are mentally ill. Abusing mental ill people is just a line even as-shole trolls shouldn’t cross. Stop being a scum bag.
Yes real scum. You just be a good fellow and believe what are told, don't question anything and move along please.
To tar all conspiracies with the same brush is simply negligent. Not long ago if I was on here banging on about how there are Catholic paedophiles in powerful places or that the CIA could listen in on you through your Smart TV, I would have been shouted down.
Different lie, same idea.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrJiKbK0tVMRayo. wrote:
Cruel treatment wrote:
I have a cousin who loves arguing with conspiracy theory nuts. He knows he will never convince them of anything but just enjoys the seemingly bottomless depths of their stupidity. I think it’s mean. But I think pretending to believe in conspiracy theories to troll people is worse as a real side effect is that you fuel the poor fools who actually believe in them. I get that trolls are scum and don’t care, but there should be limits. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more than stupid, they are mentally ill. Abusing mental ill people is just a line even as-shole trolls shouldn’t cross. Stop being a scum bag.
Yes real scum. You just be a good fellow and believe what are told, don't question anything and move along please.
To tar all conspiracies with the same brush is simply negligent. Not long ago if I was on here banging on about how there are Catholic paedophiles in powerful places or that the CIA could listen in on you through your Smart TV, I would have been shouted down.
Too funny. You were totally called out and you replied with this nothing. Hahahahaha. Awesome. You were burned so bad. You aren’t just scum, you’re really stupid scum.
That’s a burn wrote:
Rayo. wrote:
Yes real scum. You just be a good fellow and believe what are told, don't question anything and move along please.
To tar all conspiracies with the same brush is simply negligent. Not long ago if I was on here banging on about how there are Catholic paedophiles in powerful places or that the CIA could listen in on you through your Smart TV, I would have been shouted down.
Too funny. You were totally called out and you replied with this nothing. Hahahahaha. Awesome. You were burned so bad. You aren’t just scum, you’re really stupid scum.
Disagree, he has a fair point here. I don't see the posters on the climate change thread getting this treatment.
You are adding nothing, now there is the zing.
You're most welcome (and thanx for the compliment).
Thanx for (re-?) posting that. I've studied everything moon-related on that site; but couldn't recall the name at that moment.
Appreciate the compliment, thanx.
I wonder if any of the 10 major problems with the Apollo Mission that I posted will get any response?
Here's an 11th and related 12th:
11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.
I wonder, when no human has "gone back" to the Moon in 50 years, in 60 years, in 70 years ... how long before people finally get it that we haven't gone BACK because we never went in the first place?
WTC #7: Ah Building 7 at the World Trade Center complex. The building that was a football field away from the N. Tower (the closer of the Twin Towers); the building that barely suffered any damage from the "collapse" of the Twins; the building that stood for another 6 or 7 hours until 5:20 pm in the afternoon and fell EXACTLY like a Controlled Demolition ALWAYS looks.
COLLAPSE ANNOUNCEMENTS B E F O R E IT ACTUALLY CAME DOWN. There were a string of announcements (on 3 different networks and some radio) that the building had collapsed while it still stood. This is PROOF of advanced knowledge of the pre-planned destruction of that building.
THE SYMMETRICAL PROBLEM: You can't get SYMMETRICAL collapses (like with the Twins and ESPECIALLY like with WTC #7) FROM ASYMMETRICAL damage!
THE FREE FALL ACCELERATION PROBLEM: In the case of Building 7, even NIST, the US Gov agency encharged with explaining the collapses; (which had claimed for years that a free fall collapse must mean an artificially-assisted collapse) was eventually forced to admit that WTC#7 experienced free fall acceleration for: 104 feet; i.e. 8 entire floors. You can't get free fall acceleration in a "natural" collapse because some of the available energy has to go into the destruction of the structure itself; so the remaining energy is not enough to reach free fall acceleration.
THE INSUFFICIENT FIRE (IN HEAT AND DURATION) PROBLEM: NIST claims that this building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY (as seen in a dozen or more videos) despite ASYMMETRICAL damage, despite ONE SINGLE COLUMN buckling first ... all due to fires. But the fires were ALL short-lived (carbon-based fires burn out in about 15 minutes or so and most move on to find additional fuel - 15 minutes is not nearly long enough to weaken any of the massive steel in those buildings. There are ZERO witnesses to large fires - they were small fires. And hydrocarbons don't burn hot enough to melt steel - steel is an excellent conductor of heat (and building construction steel is specifically chosen for it fire-resistive qualities).
THE COLUMN #79 PROBLEMS: Even in the case of the supposed collapse-initiating column, #79, not even near the center of the building, NIST claims that thermal expansion caused a girder "walk off", to slide off its seat, leaving #79 unsupported; and somehow, despite it only being ONE column of over 50, its bending caused a building-wide symmetrical collapse. Yet they fudged all their information. They failed to report that there were a number of measures built right into that tower that were designed to prevent any such "walk off". There were welded on plates there to restrict how far those girders could move. There were hundreds of ____ there specifically to make the cement floors act as one with their steel supports - something that NIST specifically claiims were not there and so they could claim that the heat could expand the steel far more than the connected concrete floors would have allowed. It goes on and on.
IF OFFICE FIRES COULD BRING DOWN STEEL-FRAMED HIGH RISES; THEY'D CERTAINLY BRING DOWN YOUR STOVE! About those "towering infernos", "super-hot fires". The plane fuel is Jet Fuel 1, a type of kerosene, a type of hydrocarbon. In the best conditions, controlled ones in a furnace; and burning ALL DAY LONG, such fires never reach the heat necessary to significantly weaken (much less melt) such steel. Otherwise, everybody's home oven would self-destruct a few hours into cooking a Thanxgiving turkey!
THAT STEEL WAS TESTED FOR RESISTANCE TO EXACTLY THOSE TYPES OF FIRES; AND IT PASSED UNEQUIVOCABLY: That steel was tested by professional materials and building companies. In the most well-known test, Cardington (iirc) they maximized the possibilities for the hottest and longest burning fires possible. Yet, after 2.5 hours, though there was minor bending, no floor came close to collapsing. We have seen this in ALL non-9/11 high-rise, steel-framed buildings. NONE has ever collapsed due to fire. Some of the fires have burned over multiple floors for as much or more than 12 hours; yet not a single floor completely collapses.
NO STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE EXCEPT SUPPOSEDLY ON 9/11: In the several decades of steel-framed high rises, not counting on 9/11, NO such structure has ever collapsed due to fire. NONE OF THEM.
You might note that ONLY on 9/11 did fires supposed destroy steel-framed high-rises; and not once, not twice but three times. 9/11 WAS TRULY THE DAY OF MIRACLES!
NO SIGNIFICANT BUILDING CODES MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE "NEWLY DISCOVERED" "PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE" MODEL, FOUND BY NIST. And yet, given that 10s of thousands of people work in steel-framed high rises; and the property values are in the billions - no significant code revision resulted from 9/11 - so the building constructed since then have been built without taking into account that simple fires can SUPPOSEDLY bring them down. (Think about that the next time you enter one of them!)
Rayo. wrote:
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Why should they be dirt cheap now?
Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .
Aerospace systems are way more expensive and take way more time to develop now. In the sixties they used to develop new supersonic jet fighters in just a couple years. Now it takes well over a decade and billions and billions of dollars to develop a new system. Case in point, the F 35 which began development in the early 90s. And for space vehicles, we still don't have a replacement for the shuttle.
We could have kept going to the moon, but NASA set different goals after Apollo. It wasn't necessary to keep going to the moon, so they focused on other things, shuttle, probes, Hubble, ISS, etc. Resources were put into those things. If we wanted to go back to the moon, they would have to develop whole new systems and there no desire to spend money on that because we already efing did it.
Pablo Novi wrote:
9/11 garbage
Wait, we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, now? lol
Why do you kooks always buy into all the conspiracy theories? It's never just one. If a conspiracy nut believes one, they believe them all.
Well, at least you didn't start a new thread. We can contain you idiots on one thread, and you guys can have your echo chamber about all the conspiracies together.
Pablo Novi wrote:
Appreciate the compliment, thanx.
I wonder if any of the 10 major problems with the Apollo Mission that I posted will get any response?
Here's an 11th and related 12th:
11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.
I wonder, when no human has "gone back" to the Moon in 50 years, in 60 years, in 70 years ... how long before people finally get it that we haven't gone BACK because we never went in the first place?
I watched the first landing live on TV in 1969, I also watched many of the day's sci-fi movies, CGI wasn't very good (and definitely not believable) back then.
There was a lot of dust kicked up during the landing, it clouded the windows of the lander enough that the lunar surface disappeared from view. Also remember that the moon's gravity is 1/6th of earth and the lander is not very heavy (22,783
lbs full of fuel). It was pretty much out of it's fuel allotment for landing so it was even lighter. For the sake of argument lets use 22783 lbs x 1/6 = 3797.2 lbs, throw in a couple astronauts and some gear and you have ~3942.2 lbs to counteract with thrust. That's not powerful relatively speaking, now how big of a crater do you think that will that result in?
There are laser range finding mirrors on the surface of the moon, I worked with a guy (bit older than me) that helped build them. How do you think they got there?
Kevin52 wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:
Appreciate the compliment, thanx.
I wonder if any of the 10 major problems with the Apollo Mission that I posted will get any response?
Here's an 11th and related 12th:
11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.
I wonder, when no human has "gone back" to the Moon in 50 years, in 60 years, in 70 years ... how long before people finally get it that we haven't gone BACK because we never went in the first place?
I watched the first landing live on TV in 1969, I also watched many of the day's sci-fi movies, CGI wasn't very good (and definitely not believable) back then.
There was a lot of dust kicked up during the landing, it clouded the windows of the lander enough that the lunar surface disappeared from view. Also remember that the moon's gravity is 1/6th of earth and the lander is not very heavy (22,783
lbs full of fuel). It was pretty much out of it's fuel allotment for landing so it was even lighter. For the sake of argument lets use 22783 lbs x 1/6 = 3797.2 lbs, throw in a couple astronauts and some gear and you have ~3942.2 lbs to counteract with thrust. That's not powerful relatively speaking, now how big of a crater do you think that will that result in?
There are laser range finding mirrors on the surface of the moon, I worked with a guy (bit older than me) that helped build them. How do you think they got there?
Very funny, I think that had a slightly higher budget than your regular 1960's Sci Fi film.
Pablo Novi wrote:
Appreciate the compliment, thanx.
I wonder if any of the 10 major problems with the Apollo Mission that I posted will get any response?
Here's an 11th and related 12th:
11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.
I wonder, when no human has "gone back" to the Moon in 50 years, in 60 years, in 70 years ... how long before people finally get it that we haven't gone BACK because we never went in the first place?
That's simply amazing...I think you're on to something. It's hard to believe how easily it is to dupe people with the "official" government accounts of the moon landings. We've been raised as a society to never question the "official" science of many things around us and trust what the government says. NASA is the "official" science that no one should question, as far as the powers of the government are concerned.
Astronauts are heros, rockets are technological marvels, movies are made of the heros who pioneered the space program, etc. According to the government, those things should never be scrutinized.
After reading your impressive list of the evidence supporting the impracticality of the moon landings, I can see how mind controlled we are by the government in our daily lives. This also shows that we are not technologically advanced as we think we are. We are still very primitive & violent with a lot of destructive toys at our hands. ?
Legit question wrote:
You're the moran.
Sorry LQ but you and Pablo Novi are the real morans (sic). You spend all your time ranting on about the fake moon landings and what have you got to show for it? Nothing.
I however, have real proof that they were faked. Did I write to the newspapers, go on TV, start a web page? No. I just went to the US government and showed them my evidence. I also outlined the poison pill I had for releasing the information should some "accident" occur to me. The result: They are paying me $125,000 a year to keep quiet. As I went to them in 1982 they have now payed me over $4.25M.
Net Result:
Legit Question & Pablo Novi - $0
Me - >$4.25M and counting
When you have something of value learn how to cash in on it.
rolling my eyes wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:
9/11 garbage
Wait, we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, now? lol
Why do you kooks always buy into all the conspiracy theories? It's never just one. If a conspiracy nut believes one, they believe them all.
Well, at least you didn't start a new thread. We can contain you idiots on one thread, and you guys can have your echo chamber about all the conspiracies together.
You must be new here. There was a long thread about 9/11. Read it here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6743273Defense contractor wrote:
Rayo. wrote:
Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .
Aerospace systems are way more expensive and take way more time to develop now. In the sixties they used to develop new supersonic jet fighters in just a couple years. Now it takes well over a decade and billions and billions of dollars to develop a new system. Case in point, the F 35 which began development in the early 90s. And for space vehicles, we still don't have a replacement for the shuttle.
We could have kept going to the moon, but NASA set different goals after Apollo. It wasn't necessary to keep going to the moon, so they focused on other things, shuttle, probes, Hubble, ISS, etc. Resources were put into those things. If we wanted to go back to the moon, they would have to develop whole new systems and there no desire to spend money on that because we already efing did it.
You sure? Do you not think that the natural progression to the moon landings would be a permanent base on the moon?
Speaking of the Hubble, any chance it could turn itself around and take some on CGI pictures of the Earth. Would really appreciate it.
Wake up fella.
Rayo. wrote:
Defense contractor wrote:
Aerospace systems are way more expensive and take way more time to develop now. In the sixties they used to develop new supersonic jet fighters in just a couple years. Now it takes well over a decade and billions and billions of dollars to develop a new system. Case in point, the F 35 which began development in the early 90s. And for space vehicles, we still don't have a replacement for the shuttle.
We could have kept going to the moon, but NASA set different goals after Apollo. It wasn't necessary to keep going to the moon, so they focused on other things, shuttle, probes, Hubble, ISS, etc. Resources were put into those things. If we wanted to go back to the moon, they would have to develop whole new systems and there no desire to spend money on that because we already efing did it.
You sure? Do you not think that the natural progression to the moon landings would be a permanent base on the moon?
Speaking of the Hubble, any chance it could turn itself around and take some on CGI pictures of the Earth. Would really appreciate it.
Wake up fella.
We already have plenty of pictures of the Earth taken from space. Don't need Hubble to do it. Duh!