Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 30, 2014, 08:51:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which of the two groups is the stupidest?  (Read 5175 times)
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1098


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2012, 11:09:20 PM »

I see them all in the same direction here. It`s an illusion on your behalf, you see the elongated shadows look like lines being cast from the side of the pic but upon careful inspection you will find that it is a elongated object casting the shadow still in the same direction, not the same as the moon pic

Well, if you don't understand what you see, I can't help. Do you really think that the phenomenon is same in our atmosphere, and in the moon where isn't atmosphere at all? Air has it's role regarding how the light bends in the earth, so how about if there isn't any? What will be the amount of perspective correction outside the earth?
Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9963


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2012, 04:20:57 AM »

The Muslims!
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Jaime
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4942


North Pole, fucking elves left, right and centre.


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2012, 04:45:22 AM »

as opposed to everything just instantly appearing WITHOUT a cause  ?  Grin


As opposed to your bearded floating spirit thingy instantly appearing without a cause?
Report to moderator   Logged

Trans Milkshake.
PJim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3379


I took my potatoes down to be mashed.


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2012, 05:16:54 AM »

The Shining Code---Kubrick FTW

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2g-qvloXns" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2g-qvloXns</a>

Every notice how "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" is "A11 (apollo 11) work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."?
Go watch Rob Ager's film analysis or buy his very reasonably priced DVDs off youtube. BY FAR the best stuff out there.
Report to moderator   Logged
jprc10
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 419


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2012, 08:28:08 AM »

Long read (8 parts), but worth it for a different take on the "moon landings".

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Report to moderator   Logged
jprc10
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 419


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2012, 08:44:49 AM »


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Nirvana
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4403


Maggot Filled Ass.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2012, 08:29:38 PM »

Sorry about this, but there is not even one real fact to back up those fairy tales and bullshit which that so called truth.org spreads. For example, they try to make you believe that there was controlled demolition on WTC 1 & 2. While we know that all explosives are based on chemical reaction, which chemicals can be stored in 1000C(1832F) open fire up to 56 minutes, and they still work properly? There isn't such chemical, they all have different reactions to the fire. How about detonation cord? How that can stand in fire? It can't. In fact, there is no way in hell to attach explosives in the space where will be massive plane crash and fire. They also lie to you that burning kerosene will rise the temperature only up to 300C(572F), but if kerosene has so little energy in it, how the fuck they can fly aeroplanes with it? In real world it has enough energy to rise the temperature up to 1500C(2732F) in open space, so there is 1200C(2192F) gap between their truth and real truth. How the hell this happen? Just because they have to lie to back up their story. Name one (1) real physical evidence which back up their conspiracy theory? You can't, because there isn't even that single one. There is only claims, faked pictures and videos, which has nothing to do with truth.
no building had ever fallen from a plane impact until 911.  modern advanced building.

please tell why WTC 7 went down if you even know what that is. also explain the other top 39 reasons to doubt the official story.
Report to moderator   Logged

Chew Tobacco.
The Abdominal Snoman
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16244


^^^SURVEILLANCE TRIBE APPROVED^^^


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2012, 10:04:15 PM »

Every notice how "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" is "A11 (apollo 11) work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."?
Go watch Rob Ager's film analysis or buy his very reasonably priced DVDs off youtube. BY FAR the best stuff out there.

Yes Kubrick using a 1 for the L's is pretty wild when you take into account all the other codes. There is no other reason to use a 1 for l(lowercase)
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19161


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2012, 10:06:36 PM »


As opposed to your bearded floating spirit thingy instantly appearing without a cause?
Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1098


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2012, 11:54:54 PM »

no building had ever fallen from a plane impact until 911.  modern advanced building.

please tell why WTC 7 went down if you even know what that is. also explain the other top 39 reasons to doubt the official story.

This is the basic argument what you get from those guys, so let see whats wrong in it? No building has fallen from the plane crash? That is truth and do you know why? Because not even one building has have plane crash at that height and with that magnitude. What that means is you can't have any knowledge about this kind of happening, and you can't have any kind of previous knowledge how it should go down. There is old joke about the russian ass buzzer, which have two features: it doesn't buzz and it doesn't fit in any ass. Have you seen one? How do you know how it looks? You imagine it. Just like you imagine how WTC should look when it goes down.

What comes to WTC7, it went down  because WTC2 collapse against it and destroy the facade side of the building. When you look video about the collapse, try to find one which has collapse of the penthouse of the WTC7 in it. Claim about the super fast collapse is based on the fake video, which does not include collapse of the penthouse. In true world, facade and the penthouse went down seconds before of the collapse what they show you in the truth.org- fake videos.

Top one reason doubt the conspiracy theory is simple. There isn't any kind of explosives which are capable of performing the following three points:

1. it must have enough energy to cut core columns, which are massive steel structures
2. it has to be in inferno up to one hour and detonate without any problems
3. it can't show any marks of explosion, no blast wave, no pressure, no air burst over the speed of 500 m/s

Why? Because there isn't any real video material which have any evidence about the explosions.  When you detonate the explosives, immediate result is the blast wave, which goes at the speed of 1000-14000m/s depending which explosives you have used. That is one hell of the blast and it would be visible in those circumstances at the WTC, but there isn't any sign of that, and that means there wasn't any explosions. And if there isn't any explosions, there can't be any conspiracy, because it is based on the explosions which bring the towers down. No such explosives, no explosion, not any detonation cord which you can put in fire, no any means to accomplish this task, so it is impossible.  

When you look videos about the happening you see that when tower start to collapse there is only few broken windows. What kind on explosion leave windows of the building intact? Furthermore, there was a great pile of debris after the collapse, and in that pile, there wasn't even a single pylon, which show marks of the explosion. There wasn't any sign of any kind of explosion anywhere, so could there still be blasting demolition? No way in hell.  In blasting demolitions they use lots of protective mats to prevent shards flying everywhere. Those mats are big and heavy, and you can't hide them in the structures of the house. This is only way to prevent shards to fly, but even this can't hold the pressure wave. How many of these mats has recovered from the ruins? Not even single one, which means there wasn't any. All this is based on real facts and the real evidence, so what you have in the bottom line? Controlled demolition of the WTC 1 & 2 is impossible mission and there isn't any real evidense to confirm it happen, so claims about it happen must be lies. So simple. If you don't agree, name one (1) explosive which can be hold on 1000C/1820 F fire up to one hour and it will detonate after that. You can't, because there isn't such thing.
Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9963


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2012, 01:03:26 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o</a>

This is the full 2 hour version of the original dvd "Blueprint for Truth-The Architecture of Destruction". In 2 hours Richard Gage, AIA of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth takes you through most of the scientific forensic evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of WTC was accomplished with explosive controlled demolition.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
orion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1126


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2012, 08:43:10 AM »

Say that to Buzz Aldrin's face and see what the fuck happens.

Pretty sure I could take Buzz Aldrin. Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
orion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1126


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2012, 08:46:08 AM »

And that should be so in the earth also, but look at the picture? Shadows has at least three different angle, like in the picture from the moon.  Here is another example:

It is called perspective distortion and you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

What comes to these conspiracy theories, I have study them little bit, and all the amazing secrets what they show to you is just like this. They point out an uncommon effect and show it to the ordinary folks, who look it without any understanding about the subject, so it is miracle for them. Anyone who has little bit of knowledge about anything will see what it is all about, but like this example, you have to know something about photographing to understand the pictures. When you peal all the lies away, the main argument against the moon landings is simple: I don't believe it happen. There isn't any real evidence to back up that argument, so they have to invent some, and this is the outcome from that. Picture, taken in the moon which have perspective distortion because it really is taken in the moon, is evidence that it has been taken in the studio with multiple light source.  

Perhaps I didn't state it correctly, check out the shadow of the lunar lander, it is going west to east, now check out the shadow on the astronaut taking the pic, it is going north to south.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nirvana
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4403


Maggot Filled Ass.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2012, 02:18:19 PM »

This is the basic argument what you get from those guys, so let see whats wrong in it? No building has fallen from the plane crash? That is truth and do you know why? Because not even one building has have plane crash at that height and with that magnitude. What that means is you can't have any knowledge about this kind of happening, and you can't have any kind of previous knowledge how it should go down. There is old joke about the russian ass buzzer, which have two features: it doesn't buzz and it doesn't fit in any ass. Have you seen one? How do you know how it looks? You imagine it. Just like you imagine how WTC should look when it goes down.

What comes to WTC7, it went down  because WTC2 collapse against it and destroy the facade side of the building. When you look video about the collapse, try to find one which has collapse of the penthouse of the WTC7 in it. Claim about the super fast collapse is based on the fake video, which does not include collapse of the penthouse. In true world, facade and the penthouse went down seconds before of the collapse what they show you in the truth.org- fake videos.

Top one reason doubt the conspiracy theory is simple. There isn't any kind of explosives which are capable of performing the following three points:

1. it must have enough energy to cut core columns, which are massive steel structures
2. it has to be in inferno up to one hour and detonate without any problems
3. it can't show any marks of explosion, no blast wave, no pressure, no air burst over the speed of 500 m/s

Why? Because there isn't any real video material which have any evidence about the explosions.  When you detonate the explosives, immediate result is the blast wave, which goes at the speed of 1000-14000m/s depending which explosives you have used. That is one hell of the blast and it would be visible in those circumstances at the WTC, but there isn't any sign of that, and that means there wasn't any explosions. And if there isn't any explosions, there can't be any conspiracy, because it is based on the explosions which bring the towers down. No such explosives, no explosion, not any detonation cord which you can put in fire, no any means to accomplish this task, so it is impossible.  

When you look videos about the happening you see that when tower start to collapse there is only few broken windows. What kind on explosion leave windows of the building intact? Furthermore, there was a great pile of debris after the collapse, and in that pile, there wasn't even a single pylon, which show marks of the explosion. There wasn't any sign of any kind of explosion anywhere, so could there still be blasting demolition? No way in hell.  In blasting demolitions they use lots of protective mats to prevent shards flying everywhere. Those mats are big and heavy, and you can't hide them in the structures of the house. This is only way to prevent shards to fly, but even this can't hold the pressure wave. How many of these mats has recovered from the ruins? Not even single one, which means there wasn't any. All this is based on real facts and the real evidence, so what you have in the bottom line? Controlled demolition of the WTC 1 & 2 is impossible mission and there isn't any real evidense to confirm it happen, so claims about it happen must be lies. So simple. If you don't agree, name one (1) explosive which can be hold on 1000C/1820 F fire up to one hour and it will detonate after that. You can't, because there isn't such thing.
and now for the other 39 reasons.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=442153.msg6330345#msg6330345  also join here and explain
Report to moderator   Logged

Chew Tobacco.
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1098


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2012, 11:07:56 PM »

and now for the other 39 reasons.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=442153.msg6330345#msg6330345  also join here and explain

You don't need 39 reasons so see, that the so called "truth org" is full of shit. As I say, there isn't any kind of explosives which you could use environment like in WTC towers after the plane crash, so controlled demolition by explosives must be lie = there goes your conspiracy down the drain. You poor stupid doesn't understand that if the main argument is lie, all arguments depending to it must be also lies. 
Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9963


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2012, 11:36:34 PM »

You don't need 39 reasons so see, that the so called "truth org" is full of shit. As I say, there isn't any kind of explosives which you could use environment like in WTC towers after the plane crash, so controlled demolition by explosives must be lie = there goes your conspiracy down the drain. You poor stupid doesn't understand that if the main argument is lie, all arguments depending to it must be also lies.  
The explosives were planted prior to the plane hitting the building.  George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."  If you watch this documentary created by professionals and not crack pots, it details how easily this could have been done (starting at 1:07:06)  Their will always be people who blindly accept what their governments tell them to do, because this is precisely what Governments train their citizens to do.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o</a>

I'm not saying I know the Truth, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that what the Government is saying is deeply flawed science.  Also Governments have a history of False Flag operations utilised to enter into Conflicts or to promote a hidden agenda.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1098


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2012, 02:14:35 AM »


The explosives were planted prior to the plane hitting the building.  George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."  If you watch this documentary created by professionals and not crack pots, it details how easily this could have been done (starting at 1:07:06)  Their will always be people who blindly accept what their governments tell them to do, because this is precisely what Governments train their citizens to do.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o</a>

I'm not saying I know the Truth, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that what the Government is saying is deeply flawed science.  Also Governments have a history of False Flag operations utilised to enter into Conflicts or to promote a hidden agenda.

Planted before plane hitting the building? And you doesn't see any problems with that? Planted, exactly how? How do they know how to plant those explosives, so they doesn't detonate or brake down when plane hit the building? We have all seen how the collapse start from the floor where plane hit, so the demolition explosives must be present in that space. How? They can't know exactly where the plane will hit and how much damage it will do, so how the hell they can plant explosives there? And fire after the hit last 56 minutes, so name one explosive which can be in fire that time and it is still working?  There isn't any. You are believer of stupid bullshit, and if you think about these facts, you know I am right.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20532


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: September 28, 2012, 07:06:02 AM »

I would say Moonbots are stupidest.  Because thier belief is based on argument over evidence where as creationist beliefs are based on faith in spite of evidence. 

Generally all CT is argument based.  They use argument  as the basis of evidence where as practical people use evidence as th basis for argument.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1098


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2012, 11:10:15 AM »

Perhaps I didn't state it correctly, check out the shadow of the lunar lander, it is going west to east, now check out the shadow on the astronaut taking the pic, it is going north to south.

What should be checked out is your medication. Ok, your argument is that there is more than one light source? Please explain how there is only one shadow per object? Multiple light source = as many shadows as there is light sources. If you need to know more, look at this video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Nirvana
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4403


Maggot Filled Ass.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2012, 11:27:48 PM »

are you saying that getting "attacked" by Afghanistan and then retaliating for it against Iraqistan is illogical?
Report to moderator   Logged

Chew Tobacco.
Alex23
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Posts: 2362


http://twitter.com/A23Studios


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 01, 2012, 08:54:12 PM »

Science = always prevails.





Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!