Matthew Lewis
-
Posts
611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Matthew Lewis
-
-
Where did you get the impression I care what you think? Why would the thrust have an appreciable effect when it was at any one point for a fraction of a second? Remember the high speed and all? How long do you think it took to cross that lawn? As for the engines, the wings of nearly every plane flex upward in flight. They are designed to. They wouldn't be hanging quite as low as some think.
All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now.
Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account
even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available
evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and
low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-
hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?
While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken
in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim
about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing
anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others who
are posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.
I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.
As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.
Without conceding the point (because I believe you are wrong, not least of all because the angle of
attack could not have increased when it was just skimming the ground, since increasing its angle of
attack at that point would have stuck its nose in the lawn), how about the lampposts being hit by
a plane traveling 500 mph, which is equivalent to a stationary aircraft being hit by a lamppost--or
several--at 500 mph, which would have ripped off the wings, caused huge fireballs to erupt (since
the fuel is stored in the wings), caused it to turn to its right (if the right wing was hit) or to turn to
the left (if the left wing was hit), but in no case to continue on its trajectory? Is this ALSO some-
thing you are going to deny? I can't wait to hear your argument. We actually have a multiplicity
of reasons why the official account cannot possibly be true. In assessing your position, you need
to take them all into account. And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as
a Hollywood special effect? or the absence of debris? or the piece of fuselage that's been traced
back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995? To defend the official account, if that is your intent,
you need to defeat all the evidence that falsifies that account. So your work is just beginning.
. . .
-
I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.
As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.
Without conceding the point (because I believe you are wrong, not least of all because the angle of
attack could not have increased when it was just skimming the ground, since increasing its angle of
attack at that point would have stuck its nose in the lawn), how about the lampposts being hit by
a plane traveling 500 mph, which is equivalent to a stationary aircraft being hit by a lamppost--or
several--at 500 mph, which would have ripped off the wings, caused huge fireballs to erupt (since
the fuel is stored in the wings), caused it to turn to its right (if the right wing was hit) or to turn to
the left (if the left wing was hit), but in no case to continue on its trajectory? Is this ALSO some-
thing you are going to deny? I can't wait to hear your argument. We actually have a multiplicity
of reasons why the official account cannot possibly be true. In assessing your position, you need
to take them all into account. And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as
a Hollywood special effect? or the absence of debris? or the piece of fuselage that's been traced
back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995? To defend the official account, if that is your intent,
you need to defeat all the evidence that falsifies that account. So your work is just beginning.
That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.
It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)
beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,
who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length
to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan
Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check
out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown
over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report
seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH
of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.
If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,
Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?
-
That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.
It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)
beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,
who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length
to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan
Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check
out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown
over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report
seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH
of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.
If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,
Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?
-
If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,
Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?
-
Wow Matthew, you sure are quick on the draw for someone who claims not to post on this forum that much anymore, or for someone who has just a passing interest in conspiracies..
So sue me for being home for lunch and having email.
Should I seriously delay posting just because you're suspicious? 
It IS still true that I don't post on this forum that much. I post on others far more. Don't believe so? Then PROVE IT. I do just have a passing interest in THIS conspiracy. I don't believe I EVER said "conspiracies" in general. Notice I don't post on the vast majority of threads on this topic? Or when I do that it is on a small aspect of the topic? Again, don't believe so? Then PROVE IT. At this point I'm mainly replying to you because you're entertaining.
Since you obviously have much more time to devote to this subject than I do, why don't you post the PROOF that My Pet Goat was not upside down?
Are you visually impaired? The video of him at the school was posted and it shows the book correct. Len Colby also mentioned it. I also posted that the only picture that seems to exist showing him reading a book upside-down was of a different book, a different day and faked which strongly implies that he wasn't reading this book upside-down or else it would be easier to find it and not the other one. Remember? What you FALSELY accused me of posting disinformation?
Of course it is not my job to prove a negative or disprove YOUR contention. The burden of proof here lies on YOU. YOU said he was reading a book upside-down. YOU still have yet to show any proof. Still waiting.
Then PROVE that Bush is not a xxxx..
Good luck.
I never said he wasn't. And again you can't prove a negative.
Of course you avoided this question. "Was he or was he not known for his many verbal misspeaks?"
-
It shows sloppy speaking, exactly what Bush was known for. Even if he meant it the way you think, it only proves he lied
Of course Bush lied .. as did Dick Cheney, Donald Rumseld and every other creep who was involved in making sure that 911 was carried out as planned.. Your excuse of him "sloppy speaking" is as absurd as the rest of the silly excuses you post here.
You have yet to prove they were involved in anything. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Was he or was he not known for his many verbal misspeaks?
So you're backing off about the upside-down book now? Take note everyone. This is as close as you'll see Duane ever admit he was wrong. Of course, it is more than Jack ever does.No, I'm not backing off of anything .. I just said that if the book was upside down, it's irrelevant, as it only helps to prove how distracted he was.. What IS even more relevant is that Bush got caught telling a whopper of a lie about seeing the first plane hitting the first building on an imaginalry TV set at the elementary school.
Usually people have no reason to lie unless they have something to hide.. Or in that idiot's case, something to try to help cover up.
In your opinion.
If you're not backing off then post the PROOF that the book was upside down. It has been shown that it wasn't but YOU said you're not backing off. Put up or shut up.
-
Nope. Still not clear. For both versions. Both can be explained by the lack of a single word. It can't be proven either way.
The lack of a single word? .. You have to be kidding! .. Bush clearly stated that he saw the first plane hit the tower on an imaginary TV set at the elementary school he was visiting that day.. It was a blatant LIE.. When he realized he had said something he shouldn't have, he stuttered and stammered and tried to cover his lies with even more lies.
Yes, the lack of a sinlge word. At least on one instance. The other has its own problems.
"I had seen this plane this plane fly into the first building" (mixed tense already and bad grammar, change fly to "had flown")
"I saw an airplane (had) hit the tower" Just a single missing word
It shows sloppy speaking, exactly what Bush was known for. Even if he meant it the way you think, it only proves he lied. Both instances were well after the event and he may be stupid enough to think he could have seen it on TV. It does not prove he knew about anything beforehand. Why would he? You really think this moron was the mastermind? Why would he have a live feed? Was he supposed to fly it in himself?
Whether the 'My Pet Goat' book was upside down or not is rather irrelevent, considering the fact that Bush LIED about what really took place at the school that morning, and then lied some more to cover his ridiculous lies.
So you're backing off about the upside-down book now? Take note everyone. This is as close as you'll see Duane ever admit he was wrong. Of course, it is more than Jack ever does.
-
I've heard it. He NEVER says he saw the impact. He says he saw a plane hit the tower. The tense in unclear. He could very easily have meant he saw a plane (had) his the tower as did everbody else in the world. You can't prove he didn't as I can't prove he did. That is the point.
Bush's tense is very clear and it proves he got caught in his lies about 911.
Bush lies TWICE about seeing first plane hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPcqfoErA-8
Evidence that George W. Bush had advanced knowledge of 9-11
Nope. Still not clear. For both versions. Both can be explained by the lack of a single word. It can't be proven either way.
It amazes me that a man that had websites devoted to his numerous verbal flubs before 911 is supposed to have spoken exactly accurate on this subject. Tell me, what purpose would it serve for him to have had a live feed of the first plane hitting? Was he supposed to fly it in himself by remote?
the picture I linked is indeed of a different book read on a different day. I already said that. Did you even read what I wrote? There was no disinformation from me, only from you. It is also the only one to be found on the Internet showing bush "supposedly" reading an upside-down book. It is also provably FAKE. If you think there is a picture of him reading the goat book upside-down on 911 then it is up to you to prove it.Why link a web site showing a different book on a different day that's an obvious fake, if not to obfuscate the truth?.. That is indeed disinformation.
Here's the book and the day I was referring to.
Bush Reads 'My Pet Goat' Upside-Down On 9/11
So no, you didn't read what I wrote. I admitted it was NOT the same day but also pointed out that it is the ONLY picture to be found (at least that I could find and you still haven't found another) showing him reading a book supposedly upside-down. I was up front about that. Disinformation would have been to say it was the same day and same book and deliberately hide the truth. Your video, though the title SAYS the book is upside-down does not actually show it. It shows him reading a book but that's it. Can you even tell what he is reading at all? If it supposedly is clear on the video why don't they point it out?
Still waiting for you to PROVE he read the goat book upside-down. Your youtube video that claims it but then doesn't point it out and isn't clear enough to see isn't proof of anything.
-
So he said he saw a plane hit the tower. What tense was he using? Can you say for certain he meant he saw it actually happen or that rather he saw it HAD happened?
Apparently you didn't hear Bush's little screw up speech, where he claimed in front of a live audience that he actually watched the first plane hit the tower on an imaginary, turned on TV set, at The Goat Book School.
I've heard it. He NEVER says he saw the impact. He says he saw a plane hit the tower. The tense in unclear. He could very easily have meant he saw a plane (had) his the tower as did everbody else in the world. You can't prove he didn't as I can't prove he did. That is the point.
btw, just because snopes makes a claim, doesn't mean it's true.
It might not have been called The Goat Book, but after Bush got word that the WTC had been attacked, the book was upside down, and it was on that day .. That is unless you have some information that Bush returned to The Goat Book school at a later date to finish reading to the kids..
Edited to add... You linked the WRONG picture .. That is not the book Bush was reading on that day when the WTC was attacked.. Talk about posting disinformation!
Here's the name of the book that idiot was attempting to read on that day.
The Pet Goat" (often erroneously called "My Pet Goat") is a children's story contained in the book Reading Mastery II: Storybook 1 by Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner. The book is part of the thirty-one volume Reading Mastery series published by the SRA Macmillan early-childhood education division of McGraw-Hill. It uses the Direct Instruction (DI) teaching method, which was originally developed by Engelmann and Wesley C. Becker.[1]
The story gained notoriety in 2001 after U.S. President George W. Bush continued reading the book with an elementary school class for seven minutes after being informed of the September 11 attacks.
the picture I linked is indeed of a different book read on a different day. I already said that. Did you even read what I wrote? There was no disinformation from me, only from you. It is also the only one to be found on the Internet showing bush "supposedly" reading an upside-down book. It is also provably FAKE. If you think there is a picture of him reading the goat book upside-down on 911 then it is up to you to prove it.
-
btw, I wonder if G.W.Bush "misspoke" when he lied about seeing the FIRST plane hit the North tower on 9/11?.. He even "misspoke" about there being a TV in the school, which was of course turned on, so he could see that FIRST plane hit the North tower!
So he said he saw a plane hit the tower. What tense was he using? Can you say for certain he meant he saw it actually happen or that rather he saw it HAD happened?
What that idiot was really doing when the first plane hit the North tower was helping the school kids read The Goat Book, UPSIDE DOWN!!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp
It wasn't the goat book, and the photo showing it upside down is a fake, and it wasn't even on that day.
Video here of him reading that day and it isn't upside down
-
The white area I and many others have called smoke?
No. There is a white blob and an orange blob in the sky, with what looks like a plume below the orange one. That is not smoke?
Since those appear static from one frame to the next I think they are something on the lens.
-
Thanks for the clips. As hard as I try, I can't see an airliner there.
Many can't. As I said, I see "something" blurry there in front of the white smoke which is vaguely airliner size and shape but I can't definitively say it is an airliner. I can say that the white area that many say is a small plane does not look like a plane to me but is more likely to be smoke especially as there is something in front of it.
I can understand how it might be going too fast to be picked up by that camera. But why is there smoke rising in the air (over the lawn, not over the building) before anything supposedly representing the plane comes into view?
The white area I and many others have called smoke? It is assumed to be from a damaged engine.
-
Security cameras are most often placed near points of entry (doors). They would be less likely to point them at open fields. Cameras are also more used in retail situations where they can be useful for deterral of theft or retrieval of stolen property. To be most effective though they need to be monitored which takes manpower
So I guess that means that Walmart has more security cameras than the Pentagon?
Yes, very likely. Different systems for different purposes. Walmart is a retail institution that will use those cameras in theft prevention as opposed to the Pentagon which has much more armed guards, locked doors, access cards and combination locks to guard against instrusion and unauthorized entry.
You failed to mention the securtity cameras belonging to businesses near the Pentagon, that showed what really hit the building .. The businesses who had their security video tapes confiscated by the FBI within minutes after the attack on the Pentapon.. Those tapes have still not been released to the public.
I didn't fail to mention anything. I just wasn't talking about it as that was not included in the question I was responding to. Are you actually following the discussion? But since you mentioned it, some of those tapes have been released. As expected they didn't show much for two reasons, they are pointed at their own business where they are actually usefull instead of some other building or empty lawn and they are slow frame-rate cameras not designed to capture fast moving objects. Can you prove any did not fall into those two categories and should have caught something?
-
And another version with annotations
And one zoomed in without annotations but instead a scale 757 where they say it should be.
Even if you don't agree with the airliner point out you should be able to see that there is a change from one frame to the next IN FRONT OF the white area that some call a small plane but may be smoke.
-
The parking lot video is debatable. what some say is a smaller aircraft looks to me more like smoke from a damaged engine. The plane itself was moving too fast and was too far away for the slow frame-rate camera to adequately pick up. I've seen an animated gif that compared successive frames from that camera and in front of the smoke you can see a very faint something that is vaguely airliner shaped. Some see it, some don't. If I find the gif I'll post it.
Edit to add:
Here it is
You can see there is something in front of the smoke.
Here's another with annotations.
-
Security cameras are most often placed near points of entry (doors). They would be less likely to point them at open fields. Cameras are also more used in retail situations where they can be useful for deterral of theft or retrieval of stolen property. To be most effective though they need to be monitored which takes manpower.
The Pentagon, while secure, has its more secure areas inside. While some of them may have cameras, more common methods of security are access cards, combinations, and/or armed guards.
In my 7 years in the Air Force, at 5 different bases, one of which was in a deployed location, I have only seen two security cameras that I remember. Unless you count the BX where there are more but again that is a retail situation. In both cases they were focused on doors to secure areas and used so that those who needed entry but did not already have the necessary access cards could be viewed from the inside so those inside could decide whether or not to let them in. One of those was not recorded it was only connected to a monitor inside the secure area. I don't know about the other.
Simply put, security cameras are just one possible method of securing an area and not always the best one. Even when used, they are often a slow frame rate (about a frame per second which aids in recording space) which is fine for capturing people but horribly inadequate for a fast moving object.
IMO, the vast majority of the offices in the Pentagon are likely protected only by a few locked doors and the soldiers checking IDs at the entrance. I would assume they use more cameras in the more secure areas but those are not in any position to view an incoming airliner.
-
Looks fake to me.
-
"The URL contained a malformed video ID."
What don't you want us to see, Jack? More inane blatherings that contain unsupported musings of untrained nuts?
Probably a simple mistake in his copy and pasting. What the video is though is the one that "chemtrailers" say is the Germans admitting to "chemtrailing" when the video is in fact deliberately mistranslated. What they THINK is "chemtrails" is actually chaff. That video has been mentioned on this forum more than once before. It only proves that Jack doesn't read anything posted against his views.
More info here
-
NASA is the DEFENDANT in the Moon Hoax Case. All comments by the defendant are self serving and to be disregarded.
Yeah, because they wouldn't know which side they put the rover on.
In the case of the posted photo, there are ROVER TRACKS in the foreground. Yet the photo shows that neither theport nor starboard stowage areas (left and right of the egress ladder) have been "unloaded"...THUS THERE CAN BE NO
ROVER AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE TRACKS.
Quote NASA all you want. Make any absurd assertions you want. The photo presents a situation WHICH CANNOT HAVE
TAKEN PLACE AS SHOWN. No rover, no tracks.
Jack
Your comments with the photo misidentify the stowage area calling YOUR abilities into question. All comments by you are to be disregarded. The other side HAS been unloaded. You can see some debris near that area from when they unloaded it. The only one making absurd assertions is you.
-
Matthew said:
That interview is after they had been separated from their families for weeks because of the mission and weeks of imposed quarantine. There are plenty of other videos and pictures of them looking very happy after the landings.
Then why did Mike Collins go on The Mike Douglas show with his book telling of his depression?
Kathy C
How does what I said say he could not have had some depression? How does somebody having depression prove anything?
-
(Jack shows picture of WRONG side of ladder and falsely claims it is the rover)
Amazing! Immediately after a diagram is posted showing the correct side for the rover (right side as you are looking at it) you still persist in getting the location wrong. Do you even pay attention at all? Do you like being so obviously wrong?
-
There is a news conference held in some auditorium with the 3 men sitting stone-faced on a dais: Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins. I've never seen such crest-fallen people in my life. You have to watch it to believe it. Collins accidentally remarked about his falling over the TV cables. One of the other astronauts starts to speak and mentions the "scientific camera," as a cover for Collins. They sit there like they're in a trance. So what I'm saying is, who can you believe? And that's why I asked my "ignorant" questions.
That interview is after they had been separated from their families for weeks because of the mission and weeks of imposed quarantine. There are plenty of other videos and pictures of them looking very happy after the landings.
On youtube.com there is a sequence of videos claiming the moon walk was a hoax perpetrated by Nixon and filmed by film director Kubrick, who afterwards became a recluse. Kissinger, Nixon's first secretary, Alexander Haig and others around Nixon at that time said he wanted to put a man on the moon in '69 (ater he took office). NASA wasn't ready. I believe, if Nixon faked this, it was a private ode to President Kennedy who said we'd have a man on the moon by the end of this decade (1969).Kathy C
Kubrick was quite busy with some other films at the time. Also of note is there are plenty of signs of atmosphere on the Moon and non-zero gravity when it should be zero in Kubricks films and NONE in Apollo. For Kubrick to have filmed the landing he would have done so in England. He didn't like to fly and didn't leave the country at that time.
-
And I do want to ask Evan a question, since I'm here in this thread anyway. In such low gravity on the moon or floating in their space capsules, how do astronauts keep their food down?
Kathy C
I'm not Evan but I could answer this. Eating or drinking is not dependent on gravity. Food and liquids are moved through our system through muscle contractions. One could (although you probably wouldn't want to) eat and drink while standing on your head.
-
I couldn't find a moon walk thread here because it was everybody fighting. But I have questions. Maybe Jack White could answer.
First Moon Walk
How did we get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts?
Why is it that when the astronauts were on the moon there was gravity. On youtube.com you can see them jumping, not "flying." Often we were shown how lack of gravity made the astronauts in their capsule float freely in the air. Why didn't we see this on the first moon walk?
Also, if there's no gravity, how could they stay on the moon? Wouldn't they fly off into space? And the rocket too?
Thank You,
Kathy C
Hi Kathy...
Not sure why some have to be so hostile... there are other forums for sure yet with Jack here, usually, this is where it would get the most notice and response...
http://www.crystalinks.com/vanallenbelt.html
The Van Allen Belt's Impact on Space Travel
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation.
Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably.
The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation. An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per year.
Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas.
In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.
"Gravity is the force that causes two particles to pull towards each other"
As long as there is mass, there is gravity... the moon being smaller has less gravity as mass has a direct relationship to gravitational pull.
http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-landing-photos-from-space
Now some may say these too are faked.... Leaving garbage around the universe is completely American
... no surprise we left ours on the moon as well.
Here are some good videos that show those transfer orbits and how they skirted the edges of the belts.
Jim Fetzer responds to David Lifton's claims regarding 9-11
in 11 September 2001 attacks
Posted · Edited by Matthew Lewis
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? To help you out I've bolded what I said and what you warped it into. DON'T twist my words to suit your agenda. That's really a despicable thing to do. I NEVER said I didn't care about the truth or my country. But I don't care to argue with the likes of someone like you.
The lampposts were addressed by someone else and as I said "All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now."
Now, are you done trying to put words in my mouth? Because I'm done with you.