|
On February 10 2011 20:15 Mawi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 19:49 emythrel wrote:
I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility Ireland Vs Britain still today England cannot come into EU due to how the Britains killed ireland and the whole war and they stopped all imports to Ireland so they starved to death, I dont think everyone remembers but an American wrote an essay that they should eat their babies when they turn 1year old. I read about it in school it was pretty intresting he wasn't mocking the irish he just simply told the public irish are being treated as animals etc ( just read this 2weeks ago at my English C class) So they had to do a cruel thing to survive.
England has been a member of the EU since 1973...
|
under stalins rule you can argue that the people just died due to the conditions of the environment and time they were in.
I call absolute bullshit on that. Communists coming into a village, and taking away ALL the crops, so the people starve to death is not conditions of the environment.
Neither were the state slave labour camps. You'd get sent there for having the audacity to be a rich enough peasant to afford to live in a brick house.
|
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but some Americans still kid themselves saying that the USA won the Vietnam war.
|
Adam and Eve makes no sense,some of the Jesus parts make no sense,most of the religion makes no sense.
Anyone heard anything about Atlantis/Atlantida history that he can share,if anyone ever read something about it PM me.
|
On February 10 2011 20:41 Maeldun wrote:
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but some Americans still kid themselves saying that the USA won the Vietnam war.
I would hope no one would say that, in reality, no body won the vietnam war, there were only losers, if anything, soviet russia gained the most.
|
On February 10 2011 20:41 Maeldun wrote:
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but some Americans still kid themselves saying that the USA won the Vietnam war.
There are stupid people in every country.
The numbers heavily favor the Americans in that war but the fact remains that the US did not achieve its goals...so USA lost.
Some people do not grasp this. Vietnam war was a shitfest. Nobody really came out on top in it.
|
On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire.
They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either.
1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity.
|
On February 10 2011 18:28 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 18:24 TheGiftedApe wrote:On February 10 2011 18:19 Kaneh wrote:On February 10 2011 17:48 Aurocaido wrote:On February 10 2011 17:45 mcc wrote:On February 10 2011 17:40 Aurocaido wrote:On February 10 2011 17:30 Alexhandr wrote:
I personally believe a lot of non-Americans don't believe in the lunar landings because of envy. Or they're just nuts. Or both. As for the Americans who don't acknowledge the fact we planted a fucking flag in the moon, grabbed some rocks, aaand left our footprints and some space-mobile thing there... they're nuts. Or just trolls.
I'm not trying to come across as a jackass who hates the opinions of other people. But the moon landing was a fact, it happened, America did it, live, in front of the entire freaking world. It happened. Like the Holocaust. Like the Crusades. Like the Armenian genocide. Like the mass starvation of Ukrainians during the Soviet Union... it happened. It's real. Shit's documented. Fact is fact. Doesn't matter how you think it happened or if it didn't happened. If it happened it happened and it happened the way it happened and you have to deal with it.
I feel much better now that I got that off my chest. <3 Ok, the astronauts left a flag, some footprints, and a lunar buggy on the surface of the moon correct? I am sure that a lot of the non believers would change their minds if say high resolution images of the American equipment was taken. It seems quite possible with the large amount of image satalites in orbit, along with the most powerful space telescope ever made in Hubble. Yet why have images of this nature never been taken? High resolution images have been taken of the surface of mars, why not the moon showing what was left behind? This is just one of many questions that have been raised that have yet to be answered. The American government is not above streaching the truth. Its involvment in the Vietnam war was predicated on a staged incident that was claimed sank an American ship. It was latter revealed (by the pentagon) that this was a staged event. Why is it so hard to think that maybe the lunar landings were staged as well? If you really have no better proof than possible motives, then explain why Soviet Union never questioned it ? Do I look like a doctor to you? so about those rocks, that international scientists have had thier hands on, and don't have any doubts as to where they came from. Can you explain those? And as thegiftedape pointed out, see those landers in those pictures? or are you going to say they're fake. those questions have been answered. do some research. but hey, conspiracy theorists are pretty immune to reason. if there's a 0.001% chance the conspiracy is true, they'll still beleive it. At some point most reasonable people say hey, this is getting pretty irrational, yeah maybe it's not true, but 99.999% is close enough to accept. obviously they photoshopped it  So they cannot land on the moon in 1969, but were able to construct time machine to get Photoshop ? 
I'm not saying Moon landing is hoax, but photoshoping technique was around way before adobe.
But enough of that topic.
There's a lot of debate about death of key historical figures, whether they died naturally or assassinated.
Stalin, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, etc.
|
People still think the moon landing is a hoax?
The moon...the thing we point lasers at and get a reflection from mirrors we placed there? :/
|
On February 10 2011 20:48 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire. They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either. 1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity.
/sigh A. the towers burned for 59 minutes not hours
B. If normal steel were used, yes fire could have been the cause, but as ive already stated and you can look up yourself the steel used to build the twin towers would not have lost its structural integrity due the heat of burning jet fuel, it just doesn't burn hot enough.
C. all these skyscrapers burned for longer and on more floors, yet they still stand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza (was demolished, didnt collapse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_New_York_Plaza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire(had to be rebuilt as it wasn't done yet although it did not collapse)
And D. Even if im wrong explain to me how fire would cause the buildings to fall at free fall speeds strait down into a pile. Free fall means no resistance aka nothing in the way, such as more building
|
On February 10 2011 20:34 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 19:53 emythrel wrote:On February 10 2011 19:48 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really. Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault. actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol). Hitler was always a kneejerk reactionary military leader. The blitzkrieg was a collaboration thing and relied very heavily on surprise and their superior tank technology. This had little do with Hitler and more to do with common sense. The siege of Stalingrad was one of the biggest tactical blunders to ever grace an attacking army. As if attacking the Soviet Union wasn't enough, doing so in the winter, as well as allowing the lions share of your army to be surrounded in Stalingrad when Hitler had MULTIPLE chances to retreat and cut his losses dramatically is almost hilarious in its ridiculousness. Almost all of Hitler's generals told him point blank that Stalingrad was going to turn into a death trap if he didn't GTFO. He didn't GTFO and it turned into a death trap, and then the Soviet Union steam rolled Germany. That was when the tide changed in the war. It had little to do with the US. The US's main contribution in WW2 occurred in the Pacific theater. The European theater was dominated by the British crippling the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Union picking over half of Germany's available army to pieces. The US helped with Normandy and all that but by that time all the signs for a German collapse was already there because of Hitlers stubborn and frankly retarded attack on Stalingrad. If Germany had never attacked Russia, or if they had retreated from Stalingrad... the war would have turned out differently. I'm not saying that Germany would have won, but the Allied breakout after Normandy would have been much more difficult than it already was if the red army wasn't breathing down Germany's neck at the same time. If Germany had won or just not been completely steam rolled on the eastern front they may have had the time necessary to either develop a weapon of mass destruction, or some sort of stalemate. Hitler's arrogance is why the German army collapsed as quickly as it did. The German military commanders were scary good, the world is lucky Hitler was arrogant.
US helped in Europe a lot also even earlier, but more with shipments of necessary stuff. Russians got a lot from US so they could devote a lot of production towards actual weapons and not to care about producing so many helmets, transport trucks, .... But yes Germans would have lost even without that.
|
On February 10 2011 21:10 BeefyKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 20:48 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire. They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either. 1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity. /sigh A. the towers burned for 59 minutes not hour sB. If normal steel were used, yes fire could have been the cause, but as ive already stated and you can look up yourself the steel used to build the twin towers would not have lost its structural integrity due the heat of burning jet fuel, it just doesn't burn hot enough. C. all these skyscrapers burned for longer and on more floors, yet they still stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza (was demolished, didnt collapse) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_New_York_Plazahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire(had to be rebuilt as it wasn't done yet although it did not collapse) And D. Even if im wrong explain to me how fire would cause the buildings to fall at free fall speeds strait down into a pile. Free fall means no resistance aka nothing in the way, such as more building
ok but how about the steel's rating after 40 years of new york winters. Steel is not stone, it has a finite lifetime. Those other towers you linked weren't crashed into by jet airplanes and the fires weren't fueled by jet fuel. That being said, the WTC7 collapse was shady.
|
On February 10 2011 21:18 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 21:10 BeefyKnight wrote:On February 10 2011 20:48 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire. They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either. 1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity. /sigh A. the towers burned for 59 minutes not hour sB. If normal steel were used, yes fire could have been the cause, but as ive already stated and you can look up yourself the steel used to build the twin towers would not have lost its structural integrity due the heat of burning jet fuel, it just doesn't burn hot enough. C. all these skyscrapers burned for longer and on more floors, yet they still stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza (was demolished, didnt collapse) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_New_York_Plazahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire(had to be rebuilt as it wasn't done yet although it did not collapse) And D. Even if im wrong explain to me how fire would cause the buildings to fall at free fall speeds strait down into a pile. Free fall means no resistance aka nothing in the way, such as more building ok but how about the steel's rating after 40 years of new york winters. Steel is not stone, it has a finite lifetime. Those other towers you linked weren't crashed into by jet airplanes and the fires weren't fueled by jet fuel. That being said, the WTC7 collapse was shady.
I'm aware that those fires were not fueled by jet fuel. But that doesn't change the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to do what we were told it did. I'm tired of repeating my self and as everyone has only provided speculation to the contrary, no evidence. I shall be done with this topic for now but if anyone can show me proof that I'm wrong, please post it as i might check back later and I'd like to know.
|
On February 10 2011 21:27 BeefyKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 21:18 TheGiftedApe wrote:On February 10 2011 21:10 BeefyKnight wrote:On February 10 2011 20:48 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire. They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either. 1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity. /sigh A. the towers burned for 59 minutes not hour sB. If normal steel were used, yes fire could have been the cause, but as ive already stated and you can look up yourself the steel used to build the twin towers would not have lost its structural integrity due the heat of burning jet fuel, it just doesn't burn hot enough. C. all these skyscrapers burned for longer and on more floors, yet they still stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza (was demolished, didnt collapse) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_New_York_Plazahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire(had to be rebuilt as it wasn't done yet although it did not collapse) And D. Even if im wrong explain to me how fire would cause the buildings to fall at free fall speeds strait down into a pile. Free fall means no resistance aka nothing in the way, such as more building ok but how about the steel's rating after 40 years of new york winters. Steel is not stone, it has a finite lifetime. Those other towers you linked weren't crashed into by jet airplanes and the fires weren't fueled by jet fuel. That being said, the WTC7 collapse was shady. I'm aware that those fires were not fueled by jet fuel. But that doesn't change the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to do what we were told it did. I'm tired of repeating my self and as everyone has only provided speculation to the contrary, no evidence. I shall be done with this topic for now but if anyone can show me proof that I'm wrong, please post it as i might check back later and I'd like to know.
you don't have to melt the steel, you only have to heat it significantly to a point where it loses its structural integrity, I believe someone has already posted this.
i think this and the moon landing should not be talked about anymore as there wont be any positive discussion and we should just leave it be.
|
On February 10 2011 21:34 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 21:27 BeefyKnight wrote:On February 10 2011 21:18 TheGiftedApe wrote:On February 10 2011 21:10 BeefyKnight wrote:On February 10 2011 20:48 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 10 2011 20:15 mcc wrote:
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire".
Skyscrapers usually don't collapse due to fire. They also typically don't have fires burning at 1800 degrees, on multiple floors for hours either. 1800 degrees is not the melting point of steel... However, it is sufficient for steel to lose up to 90% of it's structural integrity. /sigh A. the towers burned for 59 minutes not hour sB. If normal steel were used, yes fire could have been the cause, but as ive already stated and you can look up yourself the steel used to build the twin towers would not have lost its structural integrity due the heat of burning jet fuel, it just doesn't burn hot enough. C. all these skyscrapers burned for longer and on more floors, yet they still stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza (was demolished, didnt collapse) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_New_York_Plazahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire(had to be rebuilt as it wasn't done yet although it did not collapse) And D. Even if im wrong explain to me how fire would cause the buildings to fall at free fall speeds strait down into a pile. Free fall means no resistance aka nothing in the way, such as more building ok but how about the steel's rating after 40 years of new york winters. Steel is not stone, it has a finite lifetime. Those other towers you linked weren't crashed into by jet airplanes and the fires weren't fueled by jet fuel. That being said, the WTC7 collapse was shady. I'm aware that those fires were not fueled by jet fuel. But that doesn't change the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to do what we were told it did. I'm tired of repeating my self and as everyone has only provided speculation to the contrary, no evidence. I shall be done with this topic for now but if anyone can show me proof that I'm wrong, please post it as i might check back later and I'd like to know. you don't have to melt the steel, you only have to heat it significantly to a point where it loses its structural integrity, I believe someone has already posted this. i think this and the moon landing should not be talked about anymore as there wont be any positive discussion and we should just leave it be.
Yes someone did. It was me...
|
On February 10 2011 16:31 emythrel wrote:
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
The evidence is actually pretty solid on this one. There is an archaeological site in Newfoundland with many remains of a Viking village that dates to the 11th century.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/4
|
Just going to say this about 9/11.....it's a personal pet peeve of mine, and I don't believe in the conspiracy.
1. I personally don't believe the US government could pull off something this complex without a hitch...aka, the only evidence being "coincidences" and armchair science. To pull off something like this would be the greatest governmental coupe of ALL TIME. Simple logistics here. Think of how many people would have to work a ridiculous amount of hours wiring 3 MASSIVE buildings with explosives.....and noone noticed. I work as a maintenance/electrical support guy for a big company, and so get the "behind the scenes" looks at how building's work and such...and I don't see any way possible for a crew of demolition experts to wire three gigantic buildings with explosives, and noone see them doing it. We're talking weeks if not MONTHS of work here. And noone has mentioned a thing about any such thing. I just don't think its possible. Think of how many hundreds of people would have to be "in" on this, and yet not a single one has even peeped. Look at things like Wikileaks and such. I don't think there is any way to silence hundreds/thousands of people, many of which would have to have full knowledge of what went on.
2. Fires...the whole jet fuel fire thing is SOO ridiculous. No, pure jet fuel burning out in your test garage doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. It does, however burn hot enough to ignite things that do burn quite fiercely, aka, paint, office furniture, carpet, electrical equipment, etc. I'm speaking from personal experience here. I saw the aftermath of a single transformer blowing up and burning in a building. It burned hot enough to completely warp and twist solid I-beams. Obviously circumstancial evidence...but more evidence than most people provide. Noone has any idea how hot it was inside those buildings.
3. The "coverup". I agree it doesn't look good, but people are forgetting some things. What else COULD they be covering up? I say gross incompetence. The fact that key people were warned multiple times of this, and yet did nothing, not trying to "start a war", but instead just being complacent, saying, "that could never happen". The fact that the very date was specified as a possible target date, and yet noone was alerted, and nothing was done.
4. Motivation for the war. Too few people could have benefited from this, imo, and the risk/reward for something this big is.........just ridiculous. Seriously, think about this. I've seen people's arguments for motivation to go to war...and it just doesn't make sense. You risk being viewed as one of the worst mass murderers in history to.........make Homeland Security Laws? REALLY????? Or make money with your private defense contractor buddy in a war with Iraq? REALLY???? Sure it might sound good, but it really makes no sense from a practical standpoint. What did they accomplish with this that would justify the risk of getting your whole government turned upside down??? What if just ONE person tattled with enough evidence to prove it? Out of the hundreds that would have to be involved? They would risk their heads, careers, wealth, reputation, etc, for............what? I don't see it.
|
The most commonly accepted account of the Nanjing massacre is from Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking. Unfortunately, the numbers in the book are somewhat misleading and have been consistently inflated by Chinese nationalists.
It was still a horrendous war crime that the Japanese have yet to apologize for, but the number of people killed was not in the millions (it was most likely in the low hundreds of thousands). Very often the number of people displaced by the occupation get quoted as the number of people killed.
|
The foundation of any major religion.
The actual reason for going to war in the Middle East
-Debatable, but probably is actually the truth.
|
Creationism
Actually no, it's not even debatable so nm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
