9/11 was an inside job

photos can be faked, as well as video, you know that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, just as I was editing the final bit into my post...

Yes, they can be faked. However, there comes a point where faking all this would be more expensive than actually doing it, especially in terms of keeping people quiet.

Lets be honest for a moment though - what WOULD convince you we had actually been there, hm? Would NASA have to fly you there personally?

Here's another one - prove to me that this "reality" is, in fact, real, and that I'm not actually plugged into some machine somewhere and being used as a battery for some super advanced race of mechanical beings ala The Matrix.

See, you can't... not 100%. However, what you can do is prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt. The problem with conspiracy nuts is... their definition of "reasonable" is anything but, and so impossible as to be asinine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i'm already convinced, and it has nothing to do with pictures, video, and laser range finders

no, not now.

irrelevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, so what convinced you then?

I think it's wholly relevant - conspiracy theorists want absolute proof... problem is, there is no such thing as absolute proof. Even seeing it with your own eyes isn't absolute proof, because the human senses are fallible.

 

you first, simply because i don't believe you when you say "i'm convinced".
i'm interested in what you would call "good evidence".

who said i was a conspiracy theorist?

 

What convinced me? Several things:
1) Copious amounts of video and photographic evidence
2) Interviews with the people that were there
3) Evidence left on the surface of the moon itself
4) The fact that we now have the ISS and are planning a manned mission to Mars (Granted, it isn't NASA doing that one, but meh)
5) Diagrams and facts of what the Apollo units were capable of and designed to do.
6) The scope of what a cover-up of this magnitude would require

I dunno. If you aren't though, I'm curious why this conversation started a few posts ago lol. if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize.

 

the answer is so simple i'm surprised threads like this exist, and that is prove the capabilities of the saturn 5
once that's done, the question is answered.
the thrust, weight, and orbit of the vehicle are known quantities that anyone can verify.
burn times, course corrections are all known.
i found a nice qbasic program that models all of this and yes, the rocket was capable.
i think that pretty well proves it, don't you?

 

No, not really.....we could all just be misinformed and mislead by the powers that be.
And no, there is no proof of anything, but there is plenty of opinions based on the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" [cynic mode on:]

Now let's get back to an air of normality.....
Good one leopold! You are of course correct in your reasoning, as it is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
But so also is the reflector left on the Moon, the unique quality of the returned Moon rocks, the photographs taken from lunar orbit, the fact that it is near Impossible for literally thousands of people involved in such a ridiculous deception to keep it a secret, the fact that it was a period of "cold war" and the USSR were watching, hoping with all their might for failure.

All those reasons, place the chances of any attempted conspiracy of faked Moon landings as being utterly Impossible.

The same reasonings logic and sensibility refute any chance of any 9/11 conspiracy.

 

i don't think that's the case here.
for example there was only two "standard" orbit ALL apollos flew.
the free return and non free return.
the weight of the rocket was known by ALL that built it.
the thrust of the engines have been verified in test stands and published.
all of the above are known quantities, and by a great many people.
the trick is to digest it and structure it so a layman can understand it, and that is what the creators of this program has done.

this isn't philosophy 101

you DO realize none of the landing sites can be viewed by earth based telescopes, right?

 

No, the weight, and all other capabilities were only known by the inner sanctum and NASA....
But of course we outside of that inner sanctum and NASA, have no reasons at all to doubt any of those claims or what was published...the same way we have no reasons to doubt that the actual flights and Moon landings did 100% take place.
To do so is to deny all common sense, logic and evidence that exists to support the epic adventure...mankind's greatest ever.

Did I say that?
You do realize that we have had lunar orbital probes that can do such things quite easily, don't you?

 

really?
the firm that constructed the tanks didn't know how much they weighed?
the people that filled them didn't know how much they held or how much a gallon of RP-1 weighed?
the firm that constructed the mating rings didn't know how much they weighed?
get out much?

only if you are a guppy.
hey, get mikey, he'll believe anything you tell 'im.

and like i said, photos can be faked.

 

Oh sure they did......Quite obviously so, and just as obviously so, as the room full of technicians when Apollo 11 took off, the relaying of communications from Parkes Australia, the eyes of the USSR.
Glad we can agree that in essence, it would be Impossible to pull any faked Moon landings off.
Nice to see you come to the party.

Now once again, you are just posting obtuse nonsense just for the sake of it.

 

man, i just couldn't say that.

 

I doubt that. The problem is of course, [no matter how much and how violently you disagree] is that you are proposing some astronomically difficult government cover-up, involving thousands, in a supposed conspiracy for whatever reasons, political, self gullibility or whatever, based on a few strands of circumstantial crap, as against an overwhelmingly supported and evidenced back reality.
That is an insult to the families of the 3000 that died.
And that is unforgivable in my opinion.

If there was the slightest doubt at all cast by the circumstantial crap, that you and other conspiracy pushers continually raise, the truth would have been out by now....
No conspiracy, no cover up, just a fanatically driven terrorist plot that revealed some shortcomings in security and literally changed the world we live in. You have been watching too many re-runs of the X-Files and Millenium.

 

I have not said anything about a government cover up. I am not responsible for any idiotic conclusions you jump to on the basis of what I do say.

Find a post where I have discussed anything other than the physics of the problem.

It is not my fault that some people think the government to be more important than physics.

It is not my fault that the 10,000 page NIST report never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers. If you think it is there then find it and tell us where it is.

psik

 

OK, I accept all of what you say....
Just a simple question for you.....
Do you believe that 9/11 was a terrorist atrocity committed by terrorists with the hijacking of four planes, two of which crashed into the WTC towers, one in a field, and the other into the Pentagon?

Or if that is too difficult to answer...
Do you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up and conspiracy?

No ifs or buts, or hows or why's', just a couple of questions, that's all.

 

So why not answer my questions?

 

Did you ban me and come up with supposedly "rational" excuses for doing it?

I don't give a damn about terrorism or the government.

I am talking about whether or not an airliner impact against a skyscraper can do enough structural damage with high speed impact and explosion, starting a fire and cause the top to fall straight down and destroy everything below in less than 30 seconds.

The physics of that must be explained. Are you saying Allah made it possible?

How could the 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge be built in 4 months in 1940 and yet a collapse model hasn't been built in TWELVE YEARS to demonstrate what supposedly happened on 9/11?

Physics is not about BELIEVING! Do the experiments.

psik

 

That's the funny bit... It's been explained multiple times... You just won't accept the explanation and keep going off on irrelevant tangents

 

Conspiracy theorists don't answer questions! They just tell other people how smart they are, and how everyone else is a stupid sheep.