The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
RDW - please only post pics of Gillian Anderson. It's the only point of this thread.0
-
I am saying you'd have to debunk Airy's Failure, regardless of what I think, or anyone "thinks". It was a scientific experiment proving stars move, not the Earth. What am I supposed to do about it, its not my fault someone did an experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDe8mXzM408
Now check out the part where he says Airy omitted the parts that would prove the Earth is still. I bet he did!0 -
I thought this thread was supposed to be about conspiracy theories?
Why does it keep getting spammed with pics of one woman, who is past her best?
Its always easier to quickly post a pic and laugh than it is to look into these things, I get that, but something isn't untrue just because you can't be bothered to check it out, or some wanky distraction is more important.
You have to laugh because you don't know anything about any of it, because you never checked it out before, which is pretty shocking in this day and age since all the info is now readily available.
You guys act like women that have husbands that beat them up and say "Oh he is a nice guy really" and pretend it doesn't happen. If their friend said "How did you get that bruise, did your husband hit you?" she says "Hahaha that's hilarious" as if it is impossible.
This is what you guys are doing, you know there's something to it but you dare not even go there, just lol.
Get out of the way then - while the more level headed thinkers of the world do all the relevant research necessary and sort it all out for you. Its no different to the Americans standing up to the British, less than 5% actually did stand up, the other 95% were calling it a conspiracy theory that the British are oppressing anyone. This is no different. Laughing at actual facts of life and so on, its alright for some, I wish I could do that. :roll:0 -
Manc33 wrote:I am saying you'd have to debunk Airy's Failure, regardless of what I think, or anyone "thinks". It was a scientific experiment proving stars move, not the Earth.
You didn't answer my question. I'm interested in what you yourself believe. Stars rotate around the Earth or not?0 -
You are correct in saying a helium filled balloon rises because the helium has a lower density than air. But what decides which direction the most dense material travels? Cough cough gravity. Gravity being the attraction between two objects. I'd find some experiments to show this but you'd 'debunk' it by saying the experiments are fake/hoax/what they want you to believe, and then accept that as a valid debunk.0
-
The light from the stars is historical. Some appear in the red shift, some in the blue. Neither categorically prove that the stars move around the earth nor are all travelling away or towards us. Hence, the huge flaw in the big bang theory but that doesn't mean that the stars rotate around the earth.
Due to the immense time period it takes for the light to travel all the way to us, all you can do is make suppositions and try to prove or disprove their direction of travel based on the refraction of light.
Now if the stars moved around us, can you explain the re-occurrence of periodic comets and non-periodic comets? The periodic comets' passing has been predicted due to their orbital travel as far back as Galileo.
Or, do you think there there some bloke out there with a giant catapult 'avin a laugh?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The weight. More density = more weight. Gravity is a thing added onto this for no reason.
Why aren't we harnessing the power of earths gravity?
If everything is being "pulled" then there's a polarity to gravity and you could use that "pressing" force somehow, but we can't because there is no force.0 -
So much stupid.Manc33 wrote:The weight. More density = more weight. Gravity is a thing added onto this for no reason.
Why aren't we harnessing the power of earths gravity?
If everything is being "pulled" then there's a polarity to gravity and you could use that "pressing" force somehow, but we can't because there is no force.
0 -
What's stupid is not even taking any notice of the question I asked. :shock:
Calling it "stupid" doesn't do much.
Why aren't we harnessing the force/pull that is caused by gravity?
Think of the gravitational pull on a skyscraper for example, all that "force" pulling on it.
You can't say anything to that apart from "its stupid"? That's disappointing.0 -
The 911 ball is another true one you laugh inexplicably about.
How did NBC film it if it ain't there?
A chimp can observe things better than that.0 -
Considering that there is a 9/11 video showing a ball (not a plane) going into the WTC and the video comes from a well known national news network, what is there to poke fun at about that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShbY0Oa-6v8&t=5m29s
You just laugh and it doesn't exist anymore? That's really childish. You guys just laugh because you don't know what else to do or whether something is true or not so just default to laughing at it. You dismiss something before knowing.
Anyone doing that deserves not to know anything, you're basically stopping yourself knowing something by laughing as if you know for certain it doesn't matter.
Its like insolent kids that won't settle down for a lesson and don't want to be taught (most kids are like that) but they have a reason - they are kids!
What reason is there for laughing at something you know nothing about once you've become an adult?
More worrying, what sort of an example is that to set to kids? They are ignorant enough already, without any help. :roll:0 -
RDW wrote:Inevitably, someone has already uncovered the 'gravity conspiracy' - it turns out the World Trade Centre was hit by a 'remote-controlled anti-gravity ball'
Woah. Something doesn't stack up here. If gravity doesn't exist then how could the anti-gravity ball do such damage? Help me here, does anti-gravity exist then. The truth is out there somewhere...
Or do some people need to get out more?
:roll:0 -
Now you're throwing in things I never even said. There's a ball, I never said it uses anti-gravity.
Ignoring reality is a novel concept, but not one I am likely to pursue, for obvious reasons.0 -
orraloon wrote:Woah. Something doesn't stack up here. If gravity doesn't exist then how could the anti-gravity ball do such damage? Help me here, does anti-gravity exist then. The truth is out there somewhere...
Don't ask questions! You'll break The Matrix!
Anyway, even the anti-gravity ball isn't nearly as mysterious as Manc's post editing - Gillian laughing is now above the post she was responding to...0 -
0 -
You just can't answer it and wouldn't even know where to start answering it.
Gillian Anderson is more important to you than you being treated like a pillock and knowing nothing about anything then I have no problem with that. Don't shoot the messenger.
I went to the time and trouble of finding these things and you just laugh at it?
Laughing doesn't make any of it go away though does it (as I have already said a long way back in the thread). So what's the point in laughing then? I mean at some point you stop laughing but you're still stuck having to answer the original thing you laughed at.
What do you do then just laugh again or something? Show me the ropes... I want to learn how to banish all my reasoning and pretend I cannot see things I can clearly see, teach me how, I am sick of knowing things now and want to resort to ignorance and laughing like you guys, how do you do it?
I mean if apes could talk and you showed them that NBC video, they would say yep, that's a ball going into the tower, not a plane (seen loads of planes and know what they look like, not a ball). So what's up with you guys? How can you have the "observational skills" (if you can call it that in your case) of a blind slug?0 -
Repeatedly.Manc33 wrote:How did NBC film a ball if it isn't there.
Eh eh calm down calm down.
Got bad news for you Manc lad, NBC didn't. Fraid you been spending too much time with them 'Merican conspiracy fxxkwits on the interweb again.
Just because a TV channel might show some dubious video does not make it real. Ever heard of video editing and agendas? You surely must have in this conspired world.0 -
So you're suggesting NBC purposely inserted the ball?
I bet they "weren't meant to" broadcast it. :roll:
Thing is, they did.0 -
Nope. Suggesting some numbnut concocted some agenda- or general fxxkwittery-driven film which a TV channel showed, once maybe?, to help fill their 24 hour rolling news demand, before realising what a crock it was and retracting. Got the retraction clip? Thought not. Wouldn't fit your agenda would it?0
-
orraloon wrote:Nope. Suggesting some numbnut concocted some agenda- or general fxxkwittery-driven film which a TV channel showed, once maybe?, to help fill their 24 hour rolling news demand, before realising what a crock it was and retracting. Got the retraction clip? Thought not. Wouldn't fit your agenda would it?
Not sure what you're talking about, this isn't some after the fact video, it was broadcast live on the day of 9/11.
So you're suggesting someone edited a ball into footage that had not even been broadcast yet?
They replaced the NBC live feed with that video, then switched back?
Oh yeah, so plausible. :roll:
Yet again someone is assuming they know about something when they don't (you think it is footage from a documentary made afterwards).
This is what happens when you've never looked into 9/11 ever, ever, ever. I cannot believe people can just ignore this stuff, or how they manage to.
If Arabs did 9/11 why haven't they done anything else since? Same with the moon landings, if we could land there in 1969 why not go back? Its not hard to realize these things, its just not nice to have to.0 -
I wonder if the number of eyewitnesses to two planes hitting the twin towers outnumbers the number of eyewitnesses that saw the towers being attacked by a giant ball.0
-
Bondurant wrote:I wonder if the number of eyewitnesses to two planes hitting the twin towers outnumbers the number of eyewitnesses that saw the towers being attacked by a giant ball.
That's your proof?
Regardless of what people say they saw, there's a ball on the NBC live feed and you can't change that fact, even with eyewitnesses. Its not hard to pay actors to say certain key things at the right times, its already been shown that some people were planted there to give a canned response. Not looking into it though you won't know that, so you can't fit any of it together like someone that knows the other stuff can.0 -
0
-
If you had any imagination you'd be typing your own reply to me instead of just posting a picture again.
Do you only read books if they have pictures?
Words making you think?
They can make "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968 but any NASA footage of moon landings a year later MUST be genuine, herp derp.
I saw George Clooney floating around in space so it must be true.0 -
0
-
No Manc. It was just me wondering, a flight of fancy if you will. I wonder if anyone at all saw a large sphere bouncing into a building on 9/11.
I wonder also if footage shown in terrible resolution makes people who like to believe things leap on said footage like a tramp on chips.0
