Are there still people who don't know the moon landings were faked in a studio? Here's a link to some of the proof that they faked it all. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&p=4001964&viewfull=1#post4001964
I tried to post a comment on the first YouTube video in this link. http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ This is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00 Here's the comment I tried to post. When I clicked to post it, a note came up saying the comment would have to be approved before it could appear. Let's see if it appears.
Better yet, let's wait and see if anyone ends up caring. Your shadow BS is completely ridiculous, and you know it. CJ's website has actual scientific fact backing it up, you think all that can be undone because of some stupid shadow? Get real.
Most of the people I have talked to who think the Moon landing was faked, I regard as technological morons. It would be easier to actually do the Moon landing then to fake it with all of the details. I mostly ignore anything such people have to say about anything technological. psik
I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg This video is a lame attempt at obfuscation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00 I dealt with this issue on this thread... http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663 ...but I'll address it again here. The two main flaws in the argument put forth in that video are that there's no shadow under the spot where they say the plane is, and that the background behind where they say the plane is can be clearly seen. There's nothing blocking the trees. If there were a plane where they say that there is one, the trees in the background would be blocked.
Read the part on space radiation half way down post #1. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
I can say it with a straight face because I have seen aircraft landing or making low-level fly-bys with a trail of smoke either because the were releasing it in an air show or because they had a fire on board. That white object is wavy, and the waves appear in the same place in the next frame taken from the other gate camera. There is also a group of red, sliver and blue lines a little off the ground in front of the smoke trail. The shadow of the aircraft would, becausd of the angle of the sun, by on or beside the smoke trail. You lot really need to learn how to interpret photos. You can't see any detail in the trees behind the aircraft in any of the other frames. - - - Updated - - - I can say it with a straight face because I have seen aircraft landing or making low-level fly-bys with a trail of smoke either because the were releasing it in an air show or because they had a fire on board. That white object is wavy, and the waves appear in the same place in the next frame taken from the other gate camera. There is also a group of red, sliver and blue lines a little off the ground in front of the smoke trail. The shadow of the aircraft would, becausd of the angle of the sun, by on or beside the smoke trail. You lot really need to learn how to interpret photos. You can't see any detail in the trees behind the aircraft in any of the other frames.
I have never seen anybody with credential in airfield fire fighting who support the idea that that is anything other than a smoke trail from a damaged aircraft or that anythng about the crash site is inconsistant with the crash of an aircraft like a 757.
This is the frame in question. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg The trees are very clear. There's nothing between the camera and the trees. From the shadow of the Pentagon we can see that the angle seems to be about forty five degrees. The shadow of the front of the plane would be visible. This anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate. You might as well try to tell us that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a pig.
I've already discussed this on another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663 Nobody addressed the question in post #15. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links-2.html#post1061951867 Here's the part no one addressed. Let's hear a pro-official version poster address it.
The smoke in the first frame is denser because it has just been emitted from its source. In the frames covering the time of impact onward, it has been disipated by the turbulence under the wing of the plane that emitted it. Go watch an airshow some time. It is not an enigma.
that last sentence is the understatement of the century. thats what all official conspiracy theory apologists do when they are cornered,deny the reality you just posted by posting a rolleyes smiley or something like that. another one is changing the subject,that one is very popular around here.
That's how they avoided the question in post #15 of this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links-2.html#post1061951867 It's such a clear anomaly that they have to either avoid the question, or give a lame answer. This answer below is pretty lame. So smoke looks metalic when it's first emitted from the engine and it looks like smoke a second later. I can't find an example of that. I can only find examples that show this guy to be wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIZIaR8i-M Hey leftysergeant- Please post a video of jet exhaust which shows you to be correct.
Your questions have been answered a million times. You constantly deny that the answers are fitting for you. It's no ones fault that you don't understand. Do you have any sources that show he's wrong? The lamest part about your posts is that you link back to other posts you've made, you don't even have credible sources. You're just a link bot. Argument ad youtubium...fail
That particular anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate. As I said before, it's so clear that you might as well try to tell us that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a pig. You pro-official version people are pretty good sophists but there is a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. When you pro-official version people are cornered, you tap dance around and play games until the issue blows over and then you go on as if nothing had happened. Then, the part of the debate in which you were cornered gets buried and forgotten. What we truthers have to do is keep reposting a link to the part of the debate in which you were cornered. That way your success rate will be close to zero as all of the viewers will see your lameness and they will know that you don't even believe your own arguments. You Black Knights will never leave no matter how clear it is that you don't even believe your own arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 Tell us whether you agree with leftysergeant's explanation? All of the viewers are watching.
Few rational people think that the smoke in the pentagon videos looks metalic. Further, it is not normal jet exhaust but vapor or mist of some sort from a damaged engine. Your video is irrelevant but on the suggested menu that popped up is on that shows exactly how smoke behaves when emitted from an aircraft at low altitude. [video=youtube;4hs8aXTGR-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hs8aXTGR-I[/video]
All the viewers? What are there? 15 of us around here that actually show up? Oh, and my "handlers" right? I have to make sure that they know I'm doing a good job. Grow up. Yes, I do agree with Lefty's explanation, because after some brief research it appears that he is absolutely spot on. His explanation trumps your "shadow" crap any day of the week. Settle down linkbot. Secondly, once a link that you post has been debunked and shown to be a lie you have to quit using it. If anyone that follows your link to the "A few debunking links", and reads the thread they'll see that you get called out. Anyone will see that your links get trashed within a few posts after you make them. You're not impressing anyone.
If something lame is said with an authoritative patronizing attitude, it's still lame. Tell us what the object on the right of the picture which you say is "Smoke" looks like. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg What exactly is his research? He told me to go watch an air show and I would see that he was right. All of the videos I see which show jet exhaust prove him wrong. He lamely posted a video that shows smoke which wasn't even coming from the engines. It's amazing how you pro-official version people can post such lame stuff with such authoritative attitudes. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) -------------------------------------------- 6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth. -------------------------------------------- What you're doing is tap dancing around and while you wait it out so that you can bury this part of the thread to reduce the number of people who see it. This section of the thread in which you make it very clear that you don't even believe your own arguments is a good argument to post on this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/289757-shills.html Why am I having technical problems that make it difficult to post? The screen keeps going up and down by itself.
