Moon landing

[exe ex machina]

g.g., if the moon rover theory is not good enough for you, tell me how the flag in the second video does not flap when the astronauts aren't touching it? The flag did not budge even when the astronauts passed by it! On Earth, this would have caused the flag to flap. This is even more evidence that the astronauts were in a vacuum on the moon. I know this won't change your mind about it, but I know whatever reply you have to it won't have any scientific evidence to make it a good argument.

Also, you conspiracy theorists are just as guilty of playing the man and not the ball. Did you see the part in video 3 where Bart Sibrel confronted Buzz Aldrin? Talk about playing the man and not the ball!

It wasn't filmed on some beach in Florida, or some desert out in Arizona. It was filmed in Virginia, the Langley Research Center. I provided some links back some pages for people to have a read. No responses.

Meanwhile, whenever people give me stuff to read that tries to debunk the theories, I'm always reading them, watching them etc. I don't ignore them.

There's your 'vacuum' possibly. It wasn't even cloth just sitting there, it was being held out by splints to keep it in an up-state. They even said that themselves.

What about the inflatable tires then? Or those pics where the buggy is sitting there in the middle of the moon surface and no tire tracks behind it!! Like it hadn't been driven there, but plonked down by crane - like they have at Langley Research Center.

There's a lot of interesting and seemingly convincing evidence for both sides of the argument. But the mere fact the US and NASA have lied so much about stuff they got caught out on (tires) or tampered with photos, or all the other evidence that they stay forever silent about because they don't have a way to debunk it....that is enough proof to believe it was fake.

I respect your opinion and perception that it wasn't fake. I just won't agree until they make a believer out of me, which they will be unable to do anyway.

 

[stickman11]

So if they could send a man to the moon in the 60's, why haven't they gone back their.

And why haven't they gone to mars. Couldn't they build a hollywood set red enough.

 

[exe ex machina]

So if they could send a man to the moon in the 60's, why haven't they gone back their.

And why haven't they gone to mars. Couldn't they build a hollywood set red enough.

The reasons why they never sent a man back to the moon is obvious. The USA have discussed "revisiting" the moon and they project it being decades away still till technology is up to speed. Ahem.

But funny you should say that about Mars. All those probes sent to Mars, collecting Martian rock and dust, gathering intel about the surface, temperature, terrain, etc......and how good those images came back in color photography/film. Don't be surprised to see a Mars Mission. It will be fake of course, and they'll probably get away with it because of how much fim/photographic technology has developed compared to the 60's. All those 60's days were just ridiculous considering b&w photos were far more possible than color photography. How the color ones were ALWAYS crisper, cleaner and better exposed than the b&w ones.

But with the Mars one, we'll hardly be able to catch them out now. However, I believe lies always get exposed eventually, and NASA will somehow in some way, leave tell-tale signs still.

But...by all means, continue everyone believing the Moon landing was real, and that the Mars missions will be real. But keep your eyes peeled.

 

[Killer eagle]

Wacky conspiracy theorists.

They remind me of hippys and greenies.

Save the trees man....

 

[exe ex machina]

Wacky conspiracy theorists.

They remind me of hippys and greenies.

Save the trees man....

Shows how wrong you are....i hate hippies, and love concrete and asphalt. Seriously.

I think of people who fall for govt lies and implicitly accept what they're fed as the real whack-jobs. Think about it...you accept what youre fed implicitly.

 

[otaku]

Shows how wrong you are....i hate hippies, and love concrete and asphalt. Seriously.

I think of people who fall for govt lies and implicitly accept what they're fed as the real whack-jobs. Think about it...you accept what youre fed implicitly.

So far all you have done is regurgitated the main theories from a bunch of websites. Nothing startling there. All the theories epounded have been debunk, quite conclusively.

You say you read and watch everything posted, but obviously you aren't thinking it through.

Go back and critically examine each theory you have posted then read and examine each debunk of the theories.

If you can point out a flaw in the debunking, feel free and we can settle that up - as it stands you have shown nothing new or startling (or even vaguely indicative of the moon landing being faked)

 

[exe ex machina]

So far all you have done is regurgitated the main theories from a bunch of websites. Nothing startling there. All the theories epounded have been debunk, quite conclusively.

You say you read and watch everything posted, but obviously you aren't thinking it through.

Go back and critically examine each theory you have posted then read and examine each debunk of the theories.

If you can point out a flaw in the debunking, feel free and we can settle that up - as it stands you have shown nothing new or startling (or even vaguely indicative of the moon landing being faked)

Fair enough. But I do think a few things are suspicious enough to reserve belief of Moon Landing.

The picture of the dune buggy with no tire tracks behind it.
How NASA originally explained they used inflatable tires, but when debunked on that, they quickly changed their story and presented a dune buggy that didn't have inflatable tires.
The Langley Research Center photos of simulated moon walks and that B&W official moon photo where you can see the ceiling and light of the inside of Langley Research Center.
And, tho you choose to not value it, that website where most my latter links came from, with their research done into it, some official documents that are questionable towards a Moon Landing, and just that dude's overall formulating of what he sees/knows to be false about it.

I seriously have watched read the debunk stuff. Like when Lance offered up stuff that I cant explain away because I'm not a scientist. And I might add, those last videos from inside the Apollo module were pretty cool.

You know, I ain't a NASA insider, or scientist. I cant personally dredge up anything. Have to rely on what exists out there, and trust me I do sort thru a lot of it, trying best I can to discriminate between what SEEMS plausable evidence/info and what doesn't when trying to construct my opinion. I guess this is just one where I just don't believe it. You guys can believe all you like. For the sake of a debate, neither one of us I don't think could ever convert someone over to their side. But it's interesting anyway.

 

[Killer eagle]

Shows how wrong you are....i hate hippies, and love concrete and asphalt. Seriously.

I think of people who fall for govt lies and implicitly accept what they're fed as the real whack-jobs. Think about it...you accept what youre fed implicitly.

Personally... i think of the people who fall for conspiracy theorys on a half hour video and a few pictures of some conspiracy theory website the real whack-jobs.

Think about it... you dont take much convincing.

 

[exe ex machina]

Personally... i think of the people who fall for conspiracy theorys on a half hour video and a few pictures of some conspiracy theory website the real whack-jobs.

Think about it... you dont take much convincing.

That's interesting, because to me the people who accept govt lies do so automatically, without even any convincing. You never even saw the moon landing in the 60s. You just were born and started accepting it like you accepted Santa and the Easter Bunny. Same with 9/11. You just accept the official story because the mainstream media told you thats what you should believe.

With 9/11, to be a believer of no cover-up, it would mean you just automatically accepted it. To be a disbeliever, it means you once used to, like we all did, but youve started to question and raise concerns, and notice that what other people are saying, especially experts/politicians/intel/military, seems to make a lot of sense, or puts doubts on the official story.

Have you ever even doubted, or questioned them?

Of the two, you faithfully believe every single thing that comes out of the mainstream media, and therefore would find it difficult to question that authority, to discriminate between truths and lies, seeing as you implicitly believe 911, that says to me you find it very hard to separate truth from fiction, or that you put too much faith in mainstream media/govt.

While I don't automatically believe or disbelieve, reserve judgment, until I get more of an understanding of the situation, incident, story, etc. I don't always leap to the anti-govt pov. I take each 'story' on its merits, one story at a time, and IMO the moon and 911 are lies.

 

[Roll Tide]

While I don't automatically believe or disbelieve, reserve judgment, until I get more of an understanding of the situation, incident, story, etc. I don't always leap to the anti-govt pov. I take each 'story' on its merits, one story at a time, and IMO the moon and 911 are lies.

I suppose you think the holocaust is a lie as well.

 

[exe ex machina]

I suppose you think the holocaust is a lie as well.

I get offended by such assumptions because it means people like yourself who believe the standing-authority, think people like myself who may ONLY believe 1 or 2 conspiracies, are somehow total CT crackpots who believe anything and everything.

I take each 'incident' on its merits. As I do with anything. If I was a Judge, your assumptions suggesting that if every time a case was brought before me, I would automatically have the same judgment every time, that I do not have the ability to discriminate from case to case, etc.

This is offensive and absurd to me, because I value objectivity, always questioning oneself too, testing one's beliefs, etc.

Yet, the idea that people like YOU (not you personally, but people who usually believe the standing-authority), are the types who automatically believe everything you're told and who seemingly cannot discriminate, is somehow a ridiculous notion to yourselves. Perhaps sometimes you people ought to see yourselves outside yourselves sometimes.

 

[Roll Tide]

Perhaps sometimes you people ought to see yourselves outside yourselves sometimes.

That's also good advice for you.

 

[exe ex machina]

That's also good advice for you.

You needn't tell me that considering my personal belief is....

"valuing objectivity, always questioning oneself too, testing one's beliefs, etc."

 

[exe ex machina]

I'll put it this way...

Regarding the moon landing...I lean more towards fake than real. But I'm not 100% convinced either way. But some things are so questionable that I'm too alarmed to lean the other way. I'd need some huge proof to be convinced.

Regarding 9/11...I'm convinced the govt/intel are involved, to what capacity Im not sure, but I'd demand an invesitgation to see how far. But I already know a cover-up as such has happened. 9/11 smacks of cover-up. Somethings already have been determined to be. However! I am always keeping in contact with my structural engineer friend, and I do read debunk sites, because it's important to sift out the speculations, sometimes we cant until more effort is put into debunking, beyond just "you guys are nuts" or "the govt didnt do it, ok" or "how could they do it?". As time goes on, things get debunked just as much as things get more suspicious. Hence, the need for a commission to re-open the case.

 

[Killer eagle]

With 9/11, to be a believer of no cover-up, it would mean you just automatically accepted it. To be a disbeliever, it means you once used to, like we all did, but youve started to question and raise concerns, and notice that what other people are saying, especially experts/politicians/intel/military, seems to make a lot of sense, or puts doubts on the official story.

Thats where your wrong.

I think ive stated before, ive watched 2 videos on the conspiracy theory, one of them was loose change, and the other i cant recall the name. But ive also read a bit about it on other websites, and ive personally come to the conclusion that it wasnt rigged by the US government. I havent just automatically accepted it. Obviously the US government isnt telling us everything, but that could be for security reasons, or that because they dont really care about a few whacked out conspiracy theoriests- i think theyre more concerned about stabilizing Iraq and getting there troops home.

 

[exe ex machina]

Thats where your wrong.

I think ive stated before, ive watched 2 videos on the conspiracy theory, one of them was loose change, and the other i cant recall the name. But ive also read a bit about it on other websites, and ive personally come to the conclusion that it wasnt rigged by the US government. I havent just automatically accepted it. Obviously the US government isnt telling us everything, but that could be for security reasons, or that because they dont really care about a few whacked out conspiracy theoriests- i think theyre more concerned about stabilizing Iraq and getting there troops home.

I haven't even seen Loose Change. I've only seen little bits and pieces of internet footage. I originally believed it was terrorists, and was actually gung-ho about kicking anti-american ass. At some point, something didn't add up. Suspicious things started being unravelled, because as you know, we the people don't ever know anything until insiders leak stuff that experts start to dissect etc. Then I saw this file of pentagon footage that showed a small craft hit the pentagon, not a boeing, and it doesnt exist anymore. But when I saw that is when I turned. After that, once you believe (goes for either side) it's easier to start reading bits of info or photos etc the way you're already inclined. It's harder for you to look at that perfect lawn and see it as 'clear' evidence adding to cover-up, just like it is harder for me to look at a diagram of a pancake explanation and see it as 'clear' evidence proving no demolitions occured.

I'm not sure about 'stabilizing iraq and getting troops home'. As pretence to invade iraq has clearly been established, their goals and desires there have to be understood. Oil, weapons, construction contracts, pretence to invade iran, continue sense of foreign terrorists in order to pervert the constitution more, etc. These could all be reasons why Iraq and troops there will continue and perhaps even increase to take in iran etc.

 

[exe ex machina]

A Sherlock Holmesian attitude is that once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, has got to be true.

Taking that attitude...

re: WTC. If planes/jet fuel melting steel etc is impossible, and if WTC7 also doing what it did is impossible, then a controlled demolition, however improbable, has got to be true.

re: Pentagon. If a Boeing and its flight path is impossible, if the perfect missile-hole left in C wing is impossible, if a 2 foot single engine is impossible, then a military drone involving missile, however improbable, has got to be true.

re: 911 itself. If 19 terrorists penetrating the extent they did, including breaching pentagon airspace the extent they did, and no wreckage of a Boeing found in Pennsylvania, etc, is all impossible considering the govt/intel had been tracking them and had info on the day/time of the strikes, and were practicing this scenario days before, and operation northwoods established, then a govt/intel directive to stand down and allow 'terrorism' to occur, or even to simulate terrorism (anthrax included), however improbable, has got to be true.

I think things like the google video of the SIS insider, the overwhelming opinion from demolition experts and engineers, cannot be entirely discredited as bogus. To label the whole notion of 'inside-job', or 'sanctioned terrorist strike' or even just 'cover-up' as crackpot is erroneous. Maybe 'inside-job' to a lot of people, but the 'cover-up' and 'sanctioned terrorism' ideas have already been established, to some extent, by the commission and congress.

That's why the re-opening of the commission is not a "shouldn't be done" thing because there well may be an 'inside-job' proof being covered-up.

 

[otaku]

Fair enough. But I do think a few things are suspicious enough to reserve belief of Moon Landing.

The picture of the dune buggy with no tire tracks behind it.
How NASA originally explained they used inflatable tires, but when debunked on that, they quickly changed their story and presented a dune buggy that didn't have inflatable tires.
The Langley Research Center photos of simulated moon walks and that B&W official moon photo where you can see the ceiling and light of the inside of Langley Research Center.
And, tho you choose to not value it, that website where most my latter links came from, with their research done into it, some official documents that are questionable towards a Moon Landing, and just that dude's overall formulating of what he sees/knows to be false about it.

I seriously have watched read the debunk stuff. Like when Lance offered up stuff that I cant explain away because I'm not a scientist. And I might add, those last videos from inside the Apollo module were pretty cool.

You know, I ain't a NASA insider, or scientist. I cant personally dredge up anything. Have to rely on what exists out there, and trust me I do sort thru a lot of it, trying best I can to discriminate between what SEEMS plausable evidence/info and what doesn't when trying to construct my opinion. I guess this is just one where I just don't believe it. You guys can believe all you like. For the sake of a debate, neither one of us I don't think could ever convert someone over to their side. But it's interesting anyway.

There is something in what you say in general, however in this situation there is so much evidence pointing to man landing on the moon that it isn't funny.

Go google "mirrors on the moon" - you will be shown how scientists use mirrors placed by Armstrong to determine distance from the earth and thing of that ilk.

unless you then add in complications like robotic missions to the moon in the 60's you have clear proof that men have, in fact, landed on the moon.

 

[exe ex machina]

There is something in what you say in general, however in this situation there is so much evidence pointing to man landing on the moon that it isn't funny.

Go google "mirrors on the moon" - you will be shown how scientists use mirrors placed by Armstrong to determine distance from the earth and thing of that ilk.

unless you then add in complications like robotic missions to the moon in the 60's you have clear proof that men have, in fact, landed on the moon.

I haven't looked into that extensively to make a statement. But I have heard theories that they were placed there by unmanned missions which were done right thru the 50s-etc, and that it's not unfeasible. But I'm not gonna come out and say that's what I believe, 'cos I haven't really judged both sides of that debate. With all CTheories, there's always a whole bunch of different tacks or other theories that get jumbled in.

All I have tried to focus on, to avoid getting lost in these jumbles, is just focus on the actual images of men on the moon, and when reading articles, skim over the jumbles, to get to the debates related to those images....could be the actual physical images, the things going on in there, or facts/info related to images and image technology etc.

Also, with so much stuff out there that debunks or adds suspicion, sometimes your journey thru all the possible data out there might only be fairly young in its journey. There's always a tip and an iceberg. Sometimes you really like something you find and start mentioning it, unaware yet that either it's debunked or that there's better suspicious stuff still to find, or they go into it better that it debunks the debunk. And the same would apply in reverse...where the people who believe find/recite stuff that's not accurate or that there's better debunk stuff out there to use on CTers, etc.

 

[yeah-nah]

A Sherlock Holmesian attitude is that once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, has got to be true.

Taking that attitude...

re: WTC. If planes/jet fuel melting steel etc is impossible,

Why is this impossible?

 

[exe ex machina]

Why is this impossible?

Go see the final few pages of the 911 thread.

But on that...the maximum temperature jet fuel can burn in optimum conditions is 1700 fahrenheit. The certifiers of the steel used in WTC underwrote that it can sustain temperatures of 2000 fahrenheit for up to 6 hours. Hence why the WTC was plane-proof. Due to all the fire-proofing etc, even if blown off in those floors, the estimated possible temperature that jet fuel could have reached was around 500 fahrenheit. Thermate was discovered in some salvaged steel from the wreck of all three sites. Thermate being an explosive. There were 47 huge vertical supporting steel columns in the center of WTC towers. Even in a pancake scenario, the horizontal floors would collapse but leave the huge vertical columns standing there. The official explanation for why they're not there, by the commission, was a blatant desperate lie "there were no 47 columns in the buildings construction". Blatant because the plans etc for them clearly are there.

 

[Pessimistic]

Go see the final few pages of the 911 thread.

But on that...the maximum temperature jet fuel can burn in optimum conditions is 1700 fahrenheit. The certifiers of the steel used in WTC underwrote that it can sustain temperatures of 2000 fahrenheit for up to 6 hours. Hence why the WTC was plane-proof. Due to all the fire-proofing etc, even if blown off in those floors, the estimated possible temperature that jet fuel could have reached was around 500 fahrenheit. Thermate was discovered in some salvaged steel from the wreck of all three sites. Thermate being an explosive. There were 47 huge vertical supporting steel columns in the center of WTC towers. Even in a pancake scenario, the horizontal floors would collapse but leave the huge vertical columns standing there. The official explanation for why they're not there, by the commission, was a blatant desperate lie "there were no 47 columns in the buildings construction". Blatant because the plans etc for them clearly are there.

I always thought that the melting steel was a poor theory - jet fuel whatever is an acellernt and while it blows out windows the 'heat' is in one place for only a short time.

he only feasibel thing is the steel could buckle = but again that's hard to believe

 

[yeah-nah]

Go see the final few pages of the 911 thread.

But on that...the maximum temperature jet fuel can burn in optimum conditions is 1700 fahrenheit. The certifiers of the steel used in WTC underwrote that it can sustain temperatures of 2000 fahrenheit for up to 6 hours. Hence why the WTC was plane-proof. Due to all the fire-proofing etc, even if blown off in those floors, the estimated possible temperature that jet fuel could have reached was around 500 fahrenheit.

I dont know about the thermate or centre columns. What I do know is that kerosine fires can cause enormous damage. (I work in oil industry accident insurance - refinery fires and the like). Ive seen I-beams twisted in all sorts of ways after fires.

Dont know anything about steel in buildings, but in platform and refinery fires, the fire proofing is everything. If it fails, or there is none, theres usually a lot of damage.

The steel certification is pretty meaningless on its own with out knowing what its based on. (loads, type of heat, % loss of strength, design of bolts etc). Dont believe that the fire only reached 500F either. Even non oil fires can reach higher temps in certain conditions.

Honestly couldnt give two hoots if it were a conspiracy or not. America is a cancer on the world either way. Just my opinion re the steel fwiw.

 

[exe ex machina]

I dont know about the thermate or centre columns. What I do know is that kerosine fires can cause enormous damage. (I work in oil industry accident insurance - refinery fires and the like). Ive seen I-beams twisted in all sorts of ways after fires.

Re the certified steel, that certifications doesnt say much. eg guaranteed for 6 hrs at 2000F under what load conditions? After 6 hrs what is the % of original strength? Compression, tensile? Radiant or convective heat? And so on.

Cant say I agree that the fire would only reach 500F either.

Dont know anything about steel in buildings, but in platform and refinery fires, the fire proofing is everything. If it fails, or there is none, theres usually a lot of damage.

Honestly couldnt give two hoots if it were a conspiracy or not. America is a cancer on the world either way. Just my opinion re the steel fwiw.

Appreciate your input very much. Always worth hearing people with actual experience/knowledge in certain fields to contribute. You gotta absorb it all, not be selective.

I personally haven't devised all that information, just going by what those groups of scientists and engineers in that 911truth group are relating.

Regarding your comments tho, and what I've gleaned from that groups detailing....

1. Beams twisting etc is likely. As my structural engineer friend in the US tells me too. That a few inches of bending can be all that's needed to bust the joints loose and cause a floor to fall. However, he does say that it is improbable that pancaking would occur the very way WTC happened. As in, pancaking would mean huge chunks of concrete and steel would fall off and remain in large chunks on the ground, that huge steel beams and supporting structures would remain standing, that a building would show lean, falling to the side. He also said pancaking would be even more unlikely for such a huge construction as WTC, the amount of floors, given the amount of supporting beams it would have. The whole WTC was blown into fine dust and liquified too. Again, impossible in pancaking.

2. Re the certified steel....I cant say. However there is a pdf file that can be downloaded where a professor does go into really fine details and the answer most likely is in there. I can link it here if you drop by again.

3. I also cant say it would only reach 500 F. That was an estimate anyway. But considering the steel is certified at 2000 F for 6 hrs, but that the buildings were ablaze for only minutes, especially that FEMA admitted all the jet fuel suffocated within 10 mins, then any temperature around 500 F to a possible maximum of 1700 F seems improbable to have caused identical collapses after mere minutes. Also, the second tower that got hit was the first to collapse, it burned for even far less time than the first tower had been hit.

4. Also, WTC7 only had two insignificant fires on two floors. Seeing the footage of it, it was measly. Even more ridiculous that it should topple. Hence why the commission fobbed off trying to make up lies for it by saying they had no probable answer/reason why it collapsed.

 

[Marklar_33]

We're all a little insane anyway. But regarding this, it's just if you're gonna do anything (post a theory and argue it) don't do anything half-assed.

Agreed, I wish I could be bothered reading through it all, Im sure you make some excellent points...