| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 01:13
 
|
 |
| Caledwvech wrote on Tue, 02 December 2003 12:10 |
You would be able to have a nice long run up.
|
Yes, indeed a VERY LONG RUN UP, that's only possible if there's nothing else in your view, like in an airport, and "MILITARY PRECISION", those guys that drive commercial plane probably been driving for YEARS, some of them were in the air force
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 01:47
|
|
Yeah, I'll admit that the damage to the pentagon was really wierd, but none of us were there to verify the photos taken
And I have only ever seen photos taken from one source. (ie, highly propagandered (sp?))
Anyway, yes, it would be a piece of piss for a qualified pilot to hit something as large as the twin towers, and yes they did collapse in the correct manner.
Buildings are made to collapse ontop of themselves so that in the event of a catastrophe, the dont damage other buildings.
Imagine the damage/deaths they would have caused if they fell sideways.
And it would be a helluva lot harder to taint the water supply that you think.
The amount of safety measures that would be in place before it reaches the user would be phenomanal (sp?)
There attack on America was not purely to kill American's, as wasn't the case with Bali bombings and Australia. It was simply a warning to the heads of state to back-the-fuck-off
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 01:56
|
|
gt20v
Didnt you hear the bell ?? recess is over and you need to get back to class, stop annoying the lovely Library ladies with your overexagerated Bullshit.
But seriously, you sound like so many of my junior science students ( the bright ones mostly) who get searching around the net and are intriged by every conspiracy theory website they find. It usually occurs early in the year they come to people like me (science teachers) to get a response. They arm tehmselves with ill informed propaganda they find on the net written by NOONE important, And are nearly as annoying as the kids who ask about whether as a scientist if I am an evolutionist or creationist, and to explain evolution without contradicting the fundamental beleifs they are taught in other classes (School is taught in Catholic tradition).
It is a shit stir, and so is all this crap you go on with here.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:00
|
|
Ah. So special ed, are you an evolutionist, or a creationist???? 
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:12
|
|
| Quote: |
Ah. So special ed, are you an evolutionist, or a creationist????
|
whoops.  I feel another 5 page thread coming on 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:15
|
|
|
especially wit posts like that (and this)
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:18
|
|
what was wrong with my post
and yours? after all it means +1 for your post count...
oh dear...
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:21
|
|
Lets not go there. I dont know if my mailbox could handle it.
I was just making a comparison between the aforementioned tripe and the annoying / stupid circular conversation that is the evolution vs creation argument.
We'll most likely have to wait till 3.15 to hear from gt20v on this, the computer labs must be full this lunch time, and school wont finish till then.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:30
|
|
and to think I thought you were actually constructing a semi informed argument there.
Everyone has already shot holes in your "the building imploded so they must have been blown up the by the fbi/cia/nsa" theory. Hitting something the size of the WTC I would imagine is actually pretty easy. I've been over 200km/hr in my car, and have been able to maneuver in and out of traffic - plus you can see the WTC coming from a long way away, being so tall and all.
And just because we are not psyched up conspiracy theorists, doesn't mean we (or I) believe what the press tells us. Take the war in iraq for example - as soon as I heard that female soldier had been rescued, I thought "propoganda stunt", and sure enough it was.
I'm able to filter out most of the bullshit I see on tv, seek alternate sources of information, and make an informed judgement on what I believe to have happened.
But somehow after all that, I dont end up with conspiracy theories left right and centre - I end up with the theory that a lot of people are bad, and governments are manipulative. Simple as that.
Also a valid point on the science student thing (not necessarily in gt20v's case)
And since basically everything has been effectively refuted, I'm not gonna say anything more on the subject - arguing with people who are fundamentally wrong irritates me
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:37
|
|
| draven wrote on Tue, 02 December 2003 10:30 |
arguing with people who are fundamentally wrong irritates me
|
Amen to that brother
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 02:54
|
|
| Special Ed wrote on Tue, 02 December 2003 13:21 |
Lets not go there. I dont know if my mailbox could handle it.
I was just making a comparison between the aforementioned tripe and the annoying / stupid circular conversation that is the evolution vs creation argument.
We'll most likely have to wait till 3.15 to hear from gt20v on this, the computer labs must be full this lunch time, and school wont finish till then.
|
Sorry. I was just kidding. That's why I put the ":p" after the question.
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 03:00
|
|
though we all know that the world was created.
ha
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 03:07
|
|
|
preach the word brother
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 03:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 03:10
|
|
|
LOL. But of course.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 10:39
|
|
there's no point of discussing it any further if all people are only single minded, have you even tried reading some of the articles posted up? I guess not...
call me ignorant, but I didn't read the webpage that someone posted about the building either, after I saw the page was updated "May 2002" 9 months after the incident?? To give you an idea how facts get altered: There was a well respected explosive expert that came to the press the first day after 911 to tell the world that there's no way the building could have collapsed that way, and the next day the same guy came out and told the world, "no, now I believe there is nothing fishy about 911", yeah right, he went home and done his research, looked up the internet and found he made a mistake, or some CIA agent paid a little visit and had dinner with him so he changed his mind. (I'll look up this article if I have time)
read this about the collapse of the buildings, it's got nothing to back it up, but read and THINK about it.
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/C ollapse/uniform_demolition.htm
| Quote: |
I've been over 200km/hr in my car, and have been able to maneuver in and out of traffic - plus you can see the WTC coming from a long way away, being so tall and all.
|
Well done, but have you tried to drive 400km/h? Can you control where to steer? Can you control when to stop? Ok, once you master that, try doing it at 900km/h, but no traction on the ground, you are now floating in the sky, I want you to make a sharp turn and run into that building, you only get one chance, can the physics allow you to do that?
Have you been on a plane and notice there's never any other airplane in your sight? Because it's THAT hard to control the plane, and they keep a huge distance from each other
| Quote: |
Buildings are made to collapse ontop of themselves so that in the event of a catastrophe, the dont damage other buildings
|
I don't think that's correct either, if a building are made to collapse ontop of themselve when blown, they would not need to implant all those explosives into the structure at exact locations when they demolish a building, they'll just plant a bomb anywhere inside the building, that shows how easy you are to be brainwashed by media.
they could've had a 0.1 mega tonne bomb in the building I still don't think it would've collapse
what about the black box from the plane that crashed in the desert that FBI found the next day, can anybody tell me what's happened to it? Why didn't we hear anything from the trustworthy media?? (The only information in there is probably the plane was operating as usual but the signal suddenly got cut out (because the plane was blown in pieces above the sky))
but anyway, I'm wasting too much time here, the evidence is obvious, many action of the US is suspicious, but I guess the world would always have 2% rich people and 98% that don't know what the hell is going on, this is my last post here, the people that understand should have understood by now. 
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 12:03
|
|
well as this is your last post, I won't bother refuting all these things...
dude I have NO problem with you having all these theories. That is fine! Come along to the toymods dinner and we'll bash it out over some Mongolian Lamb
I love a good conspiracy theory discussion anyway... even if it is a little slippery.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 12:39
|
|
hey Rob,
i don't have anything against you, at least you tried to analyse the problems..
anyway I just had a look at your post, the gun you mentioned about WW2 was designed to hit a target, but the Boeing is designed to land and take off automatically, and it have fail safe mechanism that will prevent sharp turns as the one performed breifing before hitting the tower, these Boeing aren't designed to smash a set target while travelling at 1000km/h, so they must have been overrided and controlled off-board, anyway I'm outta here, if you're really interested in this topic, there's a lot of information and evidence and news articles on the internet
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 02 December 2003 15:12
|
|
| Quote: |
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
|
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Mon, 08 December 2003 23:46
|
|
|
I was just watching this show on the moon the other day on the Nat Geo channel, and there is some proof that man (or at least something) did land on the moon. NASA is bouncing laser beams off a special thing that they put there to measure the distance the moon is from the earth. They have found out that it is getting 1 and a half inches further away from us a year. Rather interesting fact actually.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Tue, 09 December 2003 23:18
|
|
For all the "anti conspiracy theorists" out there, I have a question for you, regarding the events of 9/11. (Please, reasoned answers only).
With respect to the plane (a large commercial jet IIRC) which crashed into the Pentagon; What happened to to it?
I'll have to dig up the web-site which shows the early photos of the site (ie. just after the "crash"), which quite clearly show a relatively small hole in the wall (definitely not big enough for a fuselage), and NO wreckage on the ground.
Conspiracy theory indeed... 
This image would tend to suggest that something other than a large jet hit the Pentagon. (Of course, I'm happy for the photography experts to debunk this "conspiracy theory")
EDIT: Special Ed, after reading some of your dismissive posts, perhaps you'd take the time to enlighten us with your learned views on the linked image? (Hell, I'm probably WAY off base here, and am just spouting conspiracy theorist nonsense; no doubt you'll be along shortly to explain what, to my untrained, uneducated eyes, appears to be several inconsistencies in the image...)
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2003 23:38]
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 00:28
|
|
I have not made any reference to peoples beleifs about the events of 9/11. It is not something i had even been required to explain. There being very few instances of planes crashing into buildings, and even fewer crashing into the base of multi-story buildings.
My point - HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS MEANT TO LOOK LIKE ?
Sorry, but show us pics of a couple of other CONFIRMED similar accidents and then we can all SPECULATE about whether the above photo is consistent or not.
Without those we are all unqualified to make any comment.
The "Man on the Moon" and Creation Vs Evolution arguments are ones which are regular events in my occupation, hence my strong opinion. I never "shut down" a students inquisitive nature by telling them what to think, instead encourage them to do some research and present facts to support a case in an organised manor. It is good for them to learn about the extent of bias and propaganda, I encourage them to investigate/think about the motives of the sources they read. It is my job to equip them with tools and skills to research and evaluate sources to construct a plausible conclusion.
It is when they present facts that they have clearly not researched or are merely regurgitating someone elses opinion that i am not interested in the discussion.
I have seen such unsupported and unqualified statements in the above arguments - hence my dismissal of the source.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 01:03
|
|
Without being an aeronautical or structural engineer, one can probably make an (un) educated guess as to what the impact of a 400-tonne aircraft on a building "might" look like. One could then compare this "mental picture" with the image presented above (ie. lack of any apparent aircraft-related debris - in and of itself somewhat strange - and the lack of any marks on the lawn area preceding the crash site. (FWIW, later photos show this area leading well away from the building having been covered in several tonnes of dirt/gravel...). That, and the fact that there appears to be relatively little structural damage to the building itself...
Like others, I'm not necessarily postulating on what did (or, more accurately, did not) happen; however, I do get a bit annoyed when people simply dismiss opinions which differ from their own. "That's just conspiracy theorist bullsh*t..." seems to be the attitude prevalent among peole who would otherwise profess to be competent "researchers". (Which strikes me as odd).
With reference to the image presented above, I have read the opinions of "learned" people (ie. engineers) who are of the opinion that something other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. Indeed, early reports to emergency services were said to state that a small aircraft/F16 had hit the building.
Food for thought, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 01:13
|
|
|
so where did that plane go then?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 02:14
|
|
I must admit, the "finding of the black box" at the 9/11 site sounds like bs. I never actually heard that report, but I doubt it would have survived the sustained burning of av gas for an hour or so.
re the pentagon - same question as rob, and also - what's the pentagon's structure like?
the twin towers have a hard outer shell of steel & concrete, but once you get through that there's very little to impede a plane in travelling through the tower - hence the very simple and pretty hole in the side of the tower.
The pentagon, not being stupidly tall, is built vert differently - I would imagine it would have very sturdy inner walls, probably concrete & steel. Also, the pentagon is a military building, so one would imagine it would have been designed to resist impacts.
of course, all of that is pure speculation considering I know almost nothing about the structural make up of the pentagon.
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 02:17
|
|
Hmmmm... lets use speculation to support our other speculations.
Do two speculations make a FACT ?
(Written before Darvens last post.)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 02:18
|
|
|
Couldnt have said it better myself. Now I am open minded for these sorts of things. I find it hard to believe, but if someone was to tell me a convincing argument, I would seriously think about it. However, i havent heard a plausible alternative yet. All I have heard is "this must not have happened because of these reason, and so therefore we are going to discount it, even if we dont have another explanation".
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 02:29
|
|
that same page brings us such gems as
"The New World Government by the Communist UN, controlled by the CFR/TC"
and of course, the "25 reasons why psychiatry must be abolished", including
8. Because psychiatrists manufacture hundreds of "mental disorders" classified in its bible called "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (a modern witch-hunting manual); such "mental disorders" and "symptoms" are in fact negative, class-and-culturally-biased moral judgments for dissident ways of coping with personal problems and alternative ways of perceiving, interpreting or being in the world.
20. Because psychiatrists routinely violate people's civil rights, human rights and constitutional rights such as imprisoning innocent people without court trial or public hearing ("involuntary commitment"), and subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishments or tortures such as forced drugging, electroconvulsive brainwashing, psychosurgery, solitary confinement, "chemical restraints", and 4-point or 5-point restraints.
now, I donyt have the time to go into it, but anyone who has a basic grounding in psychiatry or psychology will realise how fundamentally flawed those arguments are - and I love the "witch-hunting" bit.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 02:36
|
|
sorry, forgot this one
"10. Because psychiatrists compound this fraud by falsely claiming, without scientific proof, that these "mental disorders" are caused by a "biochemical imbalance" in the brain, genetic factors or "genetic predispositions", despite the fact that there are no genetic factors in "mental illness"."
no genetic factors in mental illness?
good to see that guy did his homework - like the hundreds of tests conducted on identical and non-identical twine, reared together and apart, which conclusively proves that for many mental illnesses, genetics plays a significant role.
getting off topic I know - but when a website sprays forth such an inordinate amount of verbal diarrhea, it's probably not the best source to back up your arguments
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 03:14
|
|
| draven wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 13:36 |
sorry, forgot this one
"10. Because psychiatrists compound this fraud by falsely claiming, without scientific proof, that these "mental disorders" are caused by a "biochemical imbalance" in the brain, genetic factors or "genetic predispositions", despite the fact that there are no genetic factors in "mental illness"."
no genetic factors in mental illness?
good to see that guy did his homework - like the hundreds of tests conducted on identical and non-identical twine, reared together and apart, which conclusively proves that for many mental illnesses, genetics plays a significant role.
getting off topic I know - but when a website sprays forth such an inordinate amount of verbal diarrhea, it's probably not the best source to back up your arguments
|
Don't know if that's directed at me; if so, I'll add this:
The image I linked to was among the first which came up in a google search. (There are others around).
I re-iterate again, that I'm not stating categorically that this or that happened (to do so without the facts would be ludicrous). However, looking at the photograph, I can't help but ask questions. I guess at the end of the day, I'm simply advocating that others do the same, rather than just dismissing anything which doesn't fit neatly with the "accepted" version of events.
(and, no, I don't subscribe to that site! )
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 03:17
|
|
wasn't directed at anyone - but if I were going to make an argument, I'd try not to use anything on that site - it doesn't add any credit to an argument.
if they can blatantly lie and falsify to support their own arguments on one topic, using photoshop to play with an image is a short step away (or even just picking an image that best shows their side of the argument, without accompanying documentation)
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 03:20
|
|
| Special Ed wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 13:17 |
Hmmmm... lets use speculation to support our other speculations.
Do two speculations make a FACT ?
(Written before Darvens last post.)
|
????
Do you actually have anything to add on what is presented in the photo? You've said that you are no expert, and thus wouldn't know what it should look like. Now, perhaps you could actually take a hard look at the photo and tell us what you think. (ie. Do you think that it shows the aftermath of a large commercial jet colliding with a building or do you think something else may have happened. (Again, not stating "facts"; merely encouraging people to look and "ask questions").
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 04:10
|
|
i've got something to add...
twin towers:
there's a very detailed engineering report on the web somewhere about how/why the twin towers fell - in a nutshell, the physical impact of the planes was minimal compared to the following fire - from the vaporised fuel in the ruptured wing/belly tanks and flamable building materials. Poor insulation on supporting beams was burnt off and after the top floors fell ... well, we know the rest. Why no black box or major parts of planes? they disintegrated during impact or consumed in the fire - which was able to burn/melt mild steel. Grinding action of falling building took care of anything still left.
Summary: poor insulation, fire stairs outside building core, highly interdependant design led to failure of structure after being hit by jet airplanes)
Pentagon:
plane fragmented on impact with building not ground (which the 4th aircraft did) hence no large ground debris field as like Lockerbie (and similar). Secure building (and the pentagon is a massive building, much larger than anything in Aus) would have been highly compartmentalised and re-enforced - so building materials (e.g. sound and RFI deadening in walls, floors, ceilings) and lots of smaller air-spaces would have absorbed plane fragments, significant energy of impact and subsequent air-fuel fire (each tower acted like a single large explosion container, pentagon would have split the blast up before it became massive - like the impact fire from the towers). Also, impact fragments would have been inside building space hence limited external debris field.
Summary: strong/massive building construction absorbed energy from imapct and subsequent fire, compartmentalised internals of building dissapated impact energy and fire, preventing massive conflagation of fire. Black box either destroyed on impact or in fire.
Ergo ... picture shows: fire resulting from impact of fuel-laden aircraft into concrete/steel structure resulting in partial structural damage and severe burning and damage to facade, non-structural materials from fuel carried by aircraft and building contents.
And in case you ask, why are black boxes found in most air crashes? tangental ground impact usually spread the debris field and no severe fire occurs but often there are no large pieces. Sea impact is similar with no likelihood of damaging fire and less fragmentation. High-altitude explosion/catastrophe will only result in damage from explosion and eventual ground impact - no fire to worry about and impact speed/energy will be combination of gravity and remaining forward velocity from flight (most of which is lost during fall due to drag).
Internet:
99% bullshit, the rest is conspiracy thoery e.g.:
-Jews did it to provoke america trashing middle-east
-Americans did it to provide excuse for trashing middle-east
-The "world bank" did it to coverup some massive banking conspiracy theory
and this topic adds to that list, humans never landed on the moon.
... anyway, who fucking cares ... the world's gone to shit, we've all become nations of paranoic sociopaths and i'll never fly anywhere near the middle-east or america (which makes my life-long dream of going to the canada wilderness problematic).
charles.
[corrected section on why black boxes are found]
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2003 04:15]
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 04:37
|
|
| biased99 wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 12:03 |
make an (un) educated guess as to what the impact of a 400-tonne aircraft on a building "might" look like. One could then compare this "mental picture" with the image
|
Can you please explain the value of a "Mental Picture" based on an (un)educated guess of what it MIGHT look like ?
Such speculation is the realm of the ...
| biased99 wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 12:03 |
(un) educated
|
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 05:30
|
|
| Special Ed wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 15:37 |
| biased99 wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 12:03 |
make an (un) educated guess as to what the impact of a 400-tonne aircraft on a building "might" look like. One could then compare this "mental picture" with the image
|
Can you please explain the value of a "Mental Picture" based on an (un)educated guess of what it MIGHT look like ?
|
Hmmmm....About as much as the value of any opinion; and given an appropriate weighting... (I did only ask for your opinion, based on what was presented in the photo. Given that we'll never be in possession of all the facts, however, I guess we'll never benefit from your "opinion".
| Quote: |
Such speculation is the realm of the ...
| biased99 wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 12:03 |
(un) educated
|
|
I see, so the "educated" people don't speculate, or hold opinions?
Thank-you. I consider myself better informed on the thought processes of "the other half".
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2003 05:51]
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 05:57
|
|
Please dont put words in my mouth.
I am not implying anything about anyone here by questioning the value of speculation.
I wasnt going to enter this stupid 9/11 conspiracy thing, it already gets far too much attention as it is.
However, after looking around a little, I found it very difficult to find alternate pictures of the crash scene that werent hosted by some web site owned by another conspiracy theorist or some socialist / other political interest.
I DONT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMENT BEYOND WHAT THE MEDIA TOLD US.
And noone here has presented enough credible evidence to engage people into questioning what we (think) we already know.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 06:52
|
|
credible reports?
Twin Towers:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
and the comprehensive and very thorough FEMA report:
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Pentagon:
geez ... so many conspiracy sites... (and Special Ed is spot on about this) they all link/refer to each other as if each site is an accurate, factual source of analysis. Is a shame FEMA havn't released an analysis of the building damage.
i do recall some show on the ABC about plane crash investigators, in particular a 737 or similar smallish jet that dived nose-first into the ground outside a small country town, it left a crater about 50 yards wide and limited debris field over a few hundred yards. i suppose that at the right speed/angle a plane will simply collapse on itself and let physics do its thing. You can simulate this by weighting one end of a long fluro tube, the dropping it vertically from a good height, if it hits straight, it looks like it goes thru the floor and only leaves a small pile of broken glass and powder.
i would encourage the doubters not to fall for an argument that suggests '... in the absence of available fact, there is obviously something being hidden'.
perhaps '... there is not enough information to make an analysis' better reflects the facts at our disposal.
charles.
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 07:11
|
|
| thechuckster wrote on Wed, 10 December 2003 17:52 |
perhaps '... there is not enough information to make an analysis' better reflects the facts at our disposal.
|
My thoughts exactly. All we had so far was hearsay and opinion.
Thanks for these. very hard to find decent sources. With accurate sources we can have constructive debate.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney/Wollongong
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 10:25
|
|
yeah i watched a whole TV show about it showing the reasons why it was true, and why it was a hoax...from the evidence i saw i reckon we didnt land...but anyone who lived around that time will disagree because it was such a huge moment in there life...i dunno, if it was a hoax, they didnt think it all out very well...
MEL
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 11:26
|
|
|
Lets not forget the planes, while large, are only aluminium. The impact would probably be like treading on a can, an avgas fire certainly enough to melt it beyond recognition in the photo.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Wed, 10 December 2003 12:08
|
|
mel - just remember the people who put on those programs have already decided it was a conspiracy, so any perspective you get on it is slanted.
much like 99% of the media of what's going on in iraq... as soon as they mentioned the "commando raid" to rescue that female private (who was not even a combat soldier, and had not been abused), I immediately thought "publicity stunt", as did a large chunk of the population.
it is, however, important to distinguish between weeding the crap out of public news reports, and leaping to conclusions about government conspiracies in which they hired suicide bombers to crash planes into their own country so they could start a war blah blah blah blah.....
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 01:34
|
|
Get Microsoft Flight sim, which is credible as an accurate flight sim, get a pre 2001 new your pack (check file sharing, kazaa etc). Get in a 737, fly to new york, fly into the towers. I hit them first go, at full throttle, with no flying experience...
As for the way the towers collapsed - prove 'by evidence' how they should have collapsed, build an exact replica (including stuff like the dodgy isulation) and fly a plane into them. Until that is done (multiple times) in a controlled environment is anyone truly qualified to comment on how they should have collapsed?? You are dealing with something that has never been seen (correct me if i am wrong, but no plane as large or heavily fuelled as these has hit a skyscraper of the same design) and completely unqualified people are making comments on how they should have collapsed.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 01:51
|
|
|
how they collapsed makes logical sense, when you consider the design of the building. that's good enough for me until someone proves to me otherwise
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 02:36
|
|
Draven - I 100% agree all the evidence we have on how buildings collapse under these situations say they collapse as the twin towers did.
Also on the implosion theory, implosions require a large number of charges to go off in perfect timing. If some of those charges are taken out of play, you don't get an implosion, you get an explosion (canberra hospital). I think a plane hitting the building would have taken several charges out of play, would it not? Unless the plane hit the perfect spot, so that it didn't damage any charges, yet we seem to think that hitting the building is going to be hard, yet alone a specific spot on the building....
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 02:39
|
|
|
the implosion theory based on fixed explosives was beyond stupid - thanks to the well-videotaped collapse, you can see no additional charges going off. and since the design of the two towers was such that the structural support came from the exterior walls, the charges would have had to be placed very close to the outside of the building, and the explosions would have been noticed.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 02:51
|
|
|
Not to mention how on earth you would sneak tons and tons of explosives into a public building without anyone knowing...
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 07:56
|
|
Awww stop it guys!!! I was enjoying the uninformed crap been written. Now you've gone and scared them off with logic and reality!! 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 09:53
|
|
|
If flight simulators are at all in any way accurate, it's not that hard to fly a plane into a building, it's much harder to land a plane safely. So if these people had had any training at all, they would have had enough training to know how to safely land the plane, hence they should easily be able to hit a building. A building is about the same width as a runway, and you don't have to worry about speed, or to some extent, altitude.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 16:16
|
|
| Shraka wrote on Thu, 11 December 2003 17:53 |
If flight simulators are at all in any way accurate, it's not that hard to fly a plane into a building, it's much harder to land a plane safely.
|
Well, all i can say in mt drunken state, is that tiem behind a CERTIFIED simulator with a CERTIFIED instruction counts towards the hours that u need to become a pilot
The only thing that u dont feel is the g's
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Thu, 11 December 2003 16:22
|
|
|
Go drunkeness!!!
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Fri, 12 December 2003 22:40
|
|
One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic.
Everyone needs answers, especially those who may have lost someone. It is all well and fine posting about how the two towers fell, and how the planes crashed and the speeds, and i know it is all just to find an answer, and that is what millions of people are trying to do, find the answer to what happened. But be respectful and remember that people reading these forums may have known someone there, and speaking so bluntly about such a sensative subject can effect many people...and bring images back to their mind that they dont want to remember.
Sure thing, talk about what you think may have happened, and how different aspects can change your view of who did it...but keep in mind that there were real people in those buildings that died...so be respectful.
My two cents
MEL
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Sat, 13 December 2003 01:36
|
|
can't believe this is still going! I just thought I came back to post a link, there's a show coming Tuesday on SBS, from a German report..
| draven wrote on Thu, 11 December 2003 13:39 |
the implosion theory based on fixed explosives was beyond stupid - thanks to the well-videotaped collapse, you can see no additional charges going off. and since the design of the two towers was such that the structural support came from the exterior walls, the charges would have had to be placed very close to the outside of the building, and the explosions would have been noticed.
|
But talk about stupidity, if anyone really believe the structural support came from the exterior walls just because the media saids so... just because the expert saids so, they are really DUMB, sorry to be so blunt..
(I never believe experts, they're bunch of idiots that keeps bullshitting his/her way through the radio show)
but if the structural support is really just from the side of the building, then AS SOON AS THE PLANE HIT THAT CORNER OF TOWER 2, the building would have straight away tilted to that side and everything above that corner would've collapsed onto it, sorry to tell you, but all the "experts" that you hear from the media aren't expert, the twin tower had huge centre columns and huge beams that supported EVERY FLOOR, and supported the centre columns to the outside walls, otherwise the force of the winds would have pressured the walls together and the building won't be standing at all...
people just don't understand they are not supposed to trust "expert reports" that came out months after the event happened.. they just don't get it!
thanks biased99 for finding the picture, obviously if any plane had hit the building, there would be a wide spanning wing shape with most likely, at least black marking with the impression of the bird shape, even if the plane was made of aluminium, there would be markings, even if a F14 had hit it, it would've left the same mark, but people concluded that US is actually smart enough not to waste a plane or a fighter jet, instead it was just a missile that was fired into the Pentagon
people keep getting the impression from the media that the avgas is going to be producing a lot of heat to melt everything, the explosion at collusion would have wasted most of the avgas, to be able to melt the metals from the twin tower, it would've needed more than 1500c consistantly for a really really long time, something that a super lean mixture of avgas won't produce (as if there's any avgas left after the collusion, the thinning of oxygen (atmosphere) at the height of the building, and the confined volume of air inside the building would've have produced the temperture to melt anything)
anyway, whether the september event was done by the real Bin Ladan or the US, the SBS show may be quite interesting
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: the lunar conspiracy theory
|
Sat, 13 December 2003 02:22
|
|
btw, if you look at the pictures of the pentagone how the top floors collapsed onto the bottom, and there's empty space at the top..
if the WTC didn't have huge beams through the centre, and huge beam through EVERY SINGLE FLOOR, the top floors would've just fallen into the lower floors when the 747 (is it really the 747?) created the huge hole in the building, but I'm sure some people still believe the building have its structural support at the outer walls, because the media and expert said so...
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
