[Mr.PD]

What about the laser reflector they left on the moon?
The one scientists still shoot at. I saw that on a show debunking the conspiracy theorists.
The Apollo guys left a reflector on the moon to bounce laser beams off of for some kind of measurements. That's what they said on the National Geographic show I watched.

I believe we sent people to the moon. If they had faked it, they would have done a better job of faking it. And, the Russians would have known.

 

[F1GTR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Then how did the towers go down? Controlled demolitions? Secret American Superweapon? Nukes? Artillery shellings? Giant rockets strapped to the roof of the towers?

Yes, quite clearly controlled demolition.

If you watch the footage of the buildings falling you can see the squibs going off as the buildings are coming down. Couple this with all the other evidence from that day (i.e. put options mania, Silversteins "coincidental" insurance policy taken out on the entire WTC complex days before, Mayor Willie Brown being instructed/tipped off as to not to get on a plane that morning, Marvin Bush, the President's brother, running security on the entire complex, the debris from the towers being quickly escorted away and demolished at a private landfill before forensics could be run on it, and on and on and on) plus hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the secondary explosions and all the firefighter's accounts of what they saw that day and I'm perplexed as to how anyone with the slightest bit of reason and common sense can come up with any other conclusion.

Have you seen the film "Loose Change" yet? If not, I highly recommend you view it along with "9/11: The Road to Tyranny" and "Martial Law: Rise of the Police State". You can view LC at Google Video but the film quality is nowhere near what it would be if you were watching the actual DVD. There is a link to view it on the main page of the LC website and a discussion forum there as well to ask questions and do research. There was a thread here a few months back discussing it but it was whisked away to the land of lost threads never to be seen again.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

I simply don't understand the majority's fear and animosity towards finding out the truth of that day. What we have been told clearly isn't that and each day more and more people are waking up to find out that they've been lied to.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

But did a plane hit the pentagon?

Or was that staged?

Is anything real, or is truth and free will the illusions that we create for ourselves to make life worth living?

-Matt

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Then how did the towers go down? Controlled demolitions? Secret American Superweapon? Nukes? Artillery shellings? Giant rockets strapped to the roof of the towers?

Most of the intelligent (as opposed to totally lunatic) people who've asked questions about the way the towers fell believe in the potential for a controlled demolition. There is a lot of footage showing individual explosions leading the collapse by a few floors. The non-conspiracy rebuttal for this phenomenon is that the kitchens on each floor were being blown out by gas explosions. I still haven't seen any serious investigation as to whether the kitchens in the building ran on gas or electricity, and whether the kitchen locations correspond to the individual explosions. I find it odd that a building of that size would use gas, but it's certainly not impossible. Also, it's not clear how the implosion would have triggered kitchens blowing out several floors down from where the actual implosion was at any given point. I still think the conspiracy angle is a shaky explanation though.

Where the demolition theory is easier to accept is with building 7's collapse. That one really does look like a controlled demolition, and the lion's share of Physics professors writing papers critiquing the event seem to concentrate their arguments on what happened to building 7. I do think that, given the evidence, even assuming Occam's razor, it is reasonable to question about what happened to building 7. Part of the problem is that there aren't a slew of professors writing papers advocating more conventional theories for building 7's collapse, because there really is not enough evidence to build a conventional case for. Did the shaking ground from the twin towers falling somehow destabilize the internal structure for building 7? If evidence exists, it's gone now. Why didn't similar buildings in the neighborhood collapse or sustain serious damage then? Even if there was serious structural damage, why did building 7 come down in free fall time? Apparently a Civil Engineering group is working on a detailed analysis of the collapse of building 7. It will be interesting to read that report when it comes out.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6 So, you are saying that if some rocket scientist happened to drop in on head-fi and gave you some explanation about why the moon landing was possible, you would somehow believe that as opposed to all the other websites and literature filled with rocket scientists stating why they believed that the moon landing was not a hoax? Of course this debate is about what others have told us. Like I said in my previous post, most of our knowledge is based on what others have told us. How do you know that we can't breathe on the moon? How do you know that there are snow leopards in the Himalayas? How do you know what's in the earth's crust? I could go on and on but I bet you don't have first hand experience about any of the questions I just asked, except from reading about it or having others tell you, but I bet you could still give very intelligent answers about them. First hand experience can be overrated...except when it comes to headphones, amps, and cables.

But there aren't 2000 webpages on the internet dedicated to, "Snowleopards in the Himalayas thought to be a hoax."

Anyways, I think your here just for the sake of argument now, so my time here is done. Good thread head-fi!

JD

 

[stewgriff]

I have to commend this debate, since it's the first one in weeks not to invoke vicious personal attacks

...

Anyway, I believe we landed on the Moon. The little problem of the Soviet Union would have readily exposed a hoax, as the Americans stood to win the crown in a then neck-and-neck space race. We simply haven't gone since, because of the expenses involved (upwards of $130 billion; surely more than what would have been needed for a stage mockup), the lack of a practical reason to repeat manned lunar ventures, and the overall greater efficiency and reliability of robot probes.

And about the 9/11 tragedy...If the government really destroyed the WTC and covered it up, what reason did they have? F1GTR, can you explain me that?

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewgriff And about the 9/11 tragedy...If the government really destroyed the WTC and covered it up, what reason did they have? F1GTR, can you explain me that?

That one is easy... there are almost too many reasons to mention, some related to greed, some related to domestic politics, some related to international politics. All of the reasons are best left out of a headphone forum

 

[stewgriff]

AlanY, Care to PM me your thoughts? I've gotten curious about this new conspiracy, as I didn't understand the concepts of politics back then (in 5th grade) and can now only see a possible vendetta against the potentially destabilizing force of Afghan theocracy/Islamic fundamentalism as a potential reason for coverup.

Anyway, back to the Moon. We landed on it and have a bunch of space rocks to prove it, folks... Let's get to that less political point.

 

[F1GTR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 But did a plane hit the pentagon? Or was that staged? Is anything real, or is truth and free will the illusions that we create for ourselves to make life worth living? -Matt

Hi Matt,

If you have a moment I strongly encourage to view the LC film...assuming you haven't already.

They cover everything that occurred that day including the Pentagon and Flight 93. The portion of the film that deals with the Pentagon is outstanding and poses a whole mess of unanswered questions. Something obviously hit the building that day but it definitely wasn't a major airliner. I lean more towards a government drone or a cruise missle after seeing the evidence that the film presents.

 

[ooheadsoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1GTR Everything has bias, does it not? The "Official Story" has bias. The 9/11 Commission is biased. I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your point?

Well, if you put Pravda (truth

) and Noam Chomsky (self declared communist) on the same level as the 9/11 commission well then I have no point. Sorry for bringing it up.

 

[F1GTR]

No need to apologize for anything. We apparently just share different views of the world.

The 9/11 commission and "truth" are polar opposites. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

[marvin]

There are a lot of engineering papers on how the WTC tower fell. It's just that conventional wisdom isn't nearly as glamourous as conspiracy theories, so they get much less press coverage.

Here's one of them.

The biggest strike against the controlled demolitions theory is that controlled demolitions are very work intensive, and quite noticable. Walls get knocked out, pillars get drilled, explosives are jammed in every corner, supports are chopped, and det cord bundles litter hallways. It ain't as simple as a team of SEALs walking through the front door and placing bundles of radio detonated C4 everywhere.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1GTR Hi Matt, If you have a moment I strongly encourage to view the LC film...assuming you haven't already. They cover everything that occurred that day including the Pentagon and Flight 93. The portion of the film that deals with the Pentagon is outstanding and poses a whole mess of unanswered questions. Something obviously hit the building that day but it definitely wasn't a major airliner. I lean more towards a government drone or a cruise missle after seeing the evidence that the film presents.

I've seen videos and pictures of cruise missile damage. Hell, I work for a company that makes some of them. I can tell you this, cruise missiles do nowhere near that much damage. FAEs can, but no one in the building would survive if that was the case.

 

[n_maher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1GTR Yes, quite clearly controlled demolition.

Just...uh...wow...

The only thing clear here is that I'm glad I'll never have to read another one of your posts.

Speaking from someone who had friends working in the towers on that day, as a licensed structural engineer who designs buildings (although not skyscrapers), and as someone who spoke with the engineer who designed the towers I'm pretty confident that your "truth" is not the truth.

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin There are a lot of engineering papers on how the WTC tower fell. It's just that conventional wisdom isn't nearly as glamourous as conspiracy theories, so they get much less press coverage. Here's one of them.

Do you have any links to papers about building 7's collapse?