Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

You are still utterly confused and just spitting gibberish.

The moon does/will not start to rotate/spin. It already does rotate. It has always rotated/spun. Changing its orbital period around the earth (in the extreme = stopping it) would merely reveal the moon's intrinsic spin to an observer on earth.

There is no "starting" about it. You are thick as a plank.


R.

Whatever, Clare. You are drinking the koolaid and that blinds you to all the little things going on right under your nose, things you could maybe help change if you weren't so busy chasing bullshit around. You will just wait until bad things happen because too many Canadians are too apathetic, then you will watch youtube videos to see where it all went wrong, who is to blame and expose lies when it's too late. Clearly some people like their safe little delusion world because its all talk and no action.

No, I don't.

Most of the people who are concerned do not have the resources or knowledge to attempt such an effort. They have used the only tools at their disposal . . . testing residue left after what they feel were chemtrails, etc.

Funny how you are now claiming a different 'point' with Nancy. Earlier you said her misunderstanding was that she didn't realize the Moon orbited Earth. I had to point out how that was NOT Nancy's point of view about a dozen times before you stopped saying it was. NOW you claim something entirely different, as far as I can tell. It's never possible to fully understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you still ARE saying that Nancy doesn't know that the Moon orbits Earth. Who can tell?

Tell us, how many aircraft crash sites have you PERSONALLY inspected on a close, detailed manner?

How many crash investigation reports have you read?

My guess is the answer to both is "zero."

We said much, much, much, much, much more than just 'it rotates'. You ignored it all.

In other words you are saying they have essentially no evidence at all, much less properly obtained samples with a valid chain of custody and an analysis that is repeatable by any qualified analytical lab.

You have, in short, squat. No, that isn't quite right, you have the square root of squat.

Get the samples in situ, analyze them and publish the results. That is what a scientist would do. K00ks just rant and make claims they can't back up with evidence.

Sorry, George, looks like you backed the wrong horse.

Dear Sir,

Which fact trumps which? Independent eyewitnesses who were by the Citgo, not looking for fame, and contradicting the mass story, or these, some of whom were obviously lying (faces in the windows) ...

And which fact trumps which? the gov't claim they found bodies from a plane, or the lack of jet fuel (an obvious missing feature) by April Gallop and originally early news anchors?

Which fact trumps which? The wish to have a plane involved on your part or the flyover black box data?

Whose is the wishful thinking or kook theory?

No. We know there was no plane. Just as we now know Kennedy was killed in crossfire.

No, you didn't. You kept insisting that I didn't know what I was talking about. And you kept insisting it rotates and how I was saying gobbledygook. You cannot reinstate yourself, Menow on this.

I was talking of layers of seeing and knowing. And I was talking of rotation in the now, but you were (without clarifying) talking also of rotation if it stopped.

You confused my points, refusing to see any value or knowledge in what I said. And you picked on my words for it: spin, rotate, revolve, turn. But I always gave context: I always said "relative to its forward motion, its vector, its orbital path around Earth" and I was right.

When I finally tried to use your terms, i.e., rotation only for "relative to itself if all other points are considered fixed" and revolution for "orbit around another point" ... you meanheartedly thought -- and wrongly -- I didn't see any truth, for you had not been trying to really know my point. As such, you could not see that I had the specific terms flipped.

When I finally spoke it in concise manner but with the terms flipped, you suggested it was true but since I still didn't have the terms right, it's "meaningless".

Then I fixed the terms, admitted that error, and you never credited me.

After that, you simply said the point wasn't what I had been clarifying (and since tidal lock would end in a physical stoppage, you were right that the physical stoppage was incorrect in my mind), but the point WAS that Nancy didn't understand there was any rotation AND I DID, and I had been right all along about the circumstances under which you can be right about rotation. (I.e., not relative to Earth.)

I was ignorant of the fact the tidal lock would stop under the real physical stoppage of the forward motion. That was all.

I remember the twists and turns of the discussion. And am far smarter than you gave me credit for.

And now I also know that physical stoppage will CREATE a rotation relative to Earth in the Moon. No thanks to you, who didn't even tell me when I asked. You treated me as a nincompoop. You were wrong.

Dear person,

First, there is common sense. If that misleads, there are experts crying foul about this stuff and guiding ordinary citizens to see the problems.

With no jet fuel, threatening situations for witnesses (such as April, but there are others), impossible trajectory claims (the CIT team investigated 5 or 7 witnesses who were at the gas station and in the best position to know where the trajectory was: left, overhead, or right of a fixed point), and the pilots, who do know black box info have determined a flyover ...

plus the whole thing stinks to high heaven of fakery from what we know of the parallax problems in the vids from the WTC nonsense story, as well as the rest of the whole situation ...

plus Shanksville was a perfect plane "impression" like Wile E. Coyote into a wall, and supposedly flew upside down (yup, the gov't story got wilder and claimed it went down upside down), and then they added the mine shaft idea, but no efforts like at a mine were done ...

Really.
These are not speculations.

Do you need a plane to feel happy about 9/11? It was a sick show of mirrors. You know the hijackers weren't really hijackers, right? You do know that much, right? And other than the few who may have been under their real names, several were stolen Saudi identities.

So, if you don't need hijackers (other than patsies and fanatics and dupes in a drill), why the heck do you need to risk planes which could miss? There was no wish to damage the Pentalawn. No wish do risk harming the rest of the Pentagon. And at the WTC, if a plane had come in to hit the towers, it so easily could have missed, or damaged itself on them and flown out of control.

No, these planners only neded computer blips, some video fakery, a flyby or other confusing aircraft, and some garbage blown up in a bulldozed field in Shanksville.

And the show opened to applause -- the applause of your mind's horror.

And you and I fell for it for a long time. Since then, it's been mere assurances, tiny well-placed lies or obfuscation to keep you happy.

:P

I am still saying Nancy does't realize it orbits/revolves.

I am also saying Nancy doesn't know it rotates at ANY level of understanding of its current motions.

I am also saying that she thinks it would not rotate relative to Earth if you stopped its revolution (and so did I; my mistake which I now know).

What you have not seen is that *I TOO* made a good point and that is how you should be careful in saying it rotates if you do not also point out that it doesn't really revolve ...

If you fail to add the latter part, you are comitting a fallacy of equivocation: you are speaking on the level of what the Sun sees AND what is happening at that level of motion study.

If you however picture the E-M system stopped (and most images do, as well as most people) but NOT physically stopped, you would see the Moon revolving, not rotating and that is a level of understanding but not the physical reality.

Beyond that -- I now know that if the Moon's real motion forward were stopped, the illusion of the orbit around Earth would stop BUT IT WOULD BE SUDDENLY ROTATING relative to us.

In physically stopping the system AND the Moon, that would actually change what happens. This is distinct from simply imagining the lowest real layer of motion (superposition), where no, the Moon does not show rotation as its root motion currently.

I mean around Earth. Without really stopping it, the Moon does not really revolve around Earth. It rotates and creates a sine wave, while in tidal lock.

For understanding however, the layers of motion go: 1. still Moon, 2. Moon orbiting Earth, 3. Moon revolving in orientation towards Earth but on a sine wave also orbiting the Sun.

For physical changes, however, to create those layers in reality, would be different and not work out: Physical needs (conservation of momentum, as you said) requires that if something tried to make the Moon actually still in its forward sine wave motion (seen as revolution around us), it would cease moving the way it is and instead would rotate instead relative to us.

I got that.

You? See MY points?

And will you realize now I'm no sloppy dummy or are you going to continue with that farce?

This page is great -- so to speak, when we're talking about lies --

The antenna that wasn't, at the bottom ...

The perfect alignment in a frame twice (tripod) ...

Two absolutely perfectly aligned shots -- now supposedly a day later AND WITH NO TIRE TRACKS IN THE FOREGROUND ...

And at the top of the page, dust in TV, no dust in high-quality photo AND BACKPACK TOP DOWN ON TV BUT UP IN PHOTO ...

All but the second one I mentioned are ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The second one is highly unlikely.

[link to www.aulis.com]

So, since photos were faked -- at LEAST some ;) maybe as photo op lies -- then did we go? Maybe.

Civil cases are won based upon the preponderance of evidence . . . much of it only circumstantial and in many jurisdictions with only the majority of the jury not a unanimous decision. No chain of custody needed . . . good testimony, reasonable man theory . . . I will take my chances.

Excellent, George. Sometimes cases are in development ... and frankly, seeing as clouds from planes have certain qualities when NOT skywriting or cropdusting ... qualities which are obvious if also the air conditions are relatively known -- but NEVER look like ordinary contrails more than a minute ...

You have a quite reasonable case even before the chemistry can be known.

I understand attempts from honest people to send samples are already done, but the samples were confiscated instead of returned -- and a form letter given.

Hi, George. {>:-)

I meant in my last post: the samples were sent to gov't departments (environment related, I think), and possibly to military and to justice depts.

This was what the people said they'd done, in one of the movies claiming contrails were real, and that movie showed the letters to and from, and some pics of what they said they found in their own lab tests. They basically sent some of it for further testing and for gov't "acknowledgement".

It sometimes happens that one gov't department DOES its job, before another catches it. But increasingly, on key issues, the enfoldment of departments together means less independence of review on key issues submitted by citizens.

I only submit these comments here, to show that something has been tested and citizens have tried. I am not claiming we know yet for sure what was going on.

But if you were at a trial you could prove if it was reasonable, with all the other evidence, to consider the phenomenon likely or even true, even if one part is not fully known yet -- the final test of "stuff".

But some of these people will never believe it could be collected without prejudice and independently ...

Until the gov't (or media) says it was.

Or to make your screed quite a bit shorter, and quite a bit closer to the point, you have never seen a crash site, much less conducted a close personal inspection of one, nor have you ever read an aircraft accident report.

Tell us again why we should trust your unsupported claims?

Also, are you, by any chance a pilot?

Depends on several factors, such as how old you are and how cold it is.

Since this is not a Court of Law the Rules of Civil procedure are not applicable. Your grasp of legal theory seems as flimsy as your grasp of the Scientific Method.

By your reasoning if enough people believe something that is wrong it suddenly becomes right.

Are you SURE you are not a zetatard? Perhaps Freaky in drag?

The simple reality is that anyone who was REALLY concerned with this issue could resolve it with a couple hours of flight time, and a reasonably good high school chem lab.

Guess the issue isn't important enough to resolve.

Got something other than unsupported stories from moonbats like John Lear?

Didn't think so.

Are you really as stupid as you sound? That is, can no-one present information by experts --? And also, can the only experts be people who are in a field specifically?

Duh.

I am presenting others' expertise AND reasonable arguments as a very familiar overviewer of the issues, some in detail and some in combination.

PLUS what a citizens' jury is, is an informed group of citizens: they become informed as they learn through the trial.

Thus, both as myself, an informed citizen who can represent the case, as well as acting as a presenter for others who are experts in each field -- some professionals, some buffs, and some citizen investigators who are expert in side issues (such as what, specifically, various witnesses said and how they add up to what has been found out about the planes and trajectories) by linking to their work, I am sufficient to present the case as an overview.

And I am well qualified to state, as a citizen juror who is far more familiar with the conflicting aspects of the case than you are, the case stands.

Half-deaf audience, you are.

Of course you didn't. You have no sense of reality: look at the past posts and you will find plenty. Did you check? Didn't think so.

I have also handled the issue of what YOU think of John Lear: he is one of America's most distinguished pilots, with some of the most flying hours, many different interests in flight craft, military and civilian, over many years, and experience at crash sites.

So, in that field he IS an expert.

Idiot, you being; Yoda not approve.

To give you more of a chance than your smarmee attitude deserves ...

You want physics science claims, SUPPORTED?

Check out the physics in the affidavit:

[link to wakeupfromyourslumber.com]

Lear's credentials outlined in the affidavit (for short):

1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.

2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.

3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.

4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.

5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.

6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.

[link to wakeupfromyourslumber.com]

SO WAKE UP and read his affidavit.

Talk about pot/kettle....

Quite frankly- I am totally amazed by clunk...

NEVER have I seen such an outpouring that manages to say so little, and that little bit incorrect to boot
All the while totally ignoring presented and supported facts with multipule backing references

What can I say- self delusion doesn't BEGIN to describe clunk...

So lets sum up, shall we?

You have never personally inspected a crash site, never read a crash report, are not a pilot, and have not presented any reason why unsupported claims of your "sources" should be believed, some of these "sources" being notorious dingbats.

In short you would not know whether you were fed a load of codswallop and flapdoodle.

Are you, by any chance, and engineer?

It seems to me, a person who is both a pilot and an engineer, and as a person who has read hundreds of crash reports ("Always study the mistakes of other pilots," said my primary flight instructor, "You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself") and as a person who has had the dubious honor of picking through the wreckage of several crashes, that your qualifications exist entirely in your head and have absolutely no basis in reality.

Have I hit all the bases? Not by a long shot, clunker, not by a long shot.

You are a fun chew toy!

Note, I've given you the affidavit on a page NOT FRIENDLY to the no planes info. This person is not informed about the no planes information and cannot see what the affidavit is saying, to claim that only CIA connection HAS to mean it is influencing Lear's decision to outline items not comfortable to the gov't.

The site is claiming that Lear's experience in the CIA in the 60s-70s led him to claim there were no planes now.

Read the affidavit, however, and you will see that it's the opposite: it is his personal integrity and knowledge which shows here and is the issue which must be taken on its own first.

His testimony is quite clear and factual: and supports so highly
-the testimony of April Gallop,
-and the first person at the Pentagon as a reporter,
-and the fact there are severe parallax problems in the WTC TV evidence,
-and that nothing could have been at Shanksville,
-the Citgo witnesses who were the best possible witnesses b/c in the best position to make the distinction of the flight path direction of the Pentagon (flyover) plane,
-and the fact the passengers are mostly listed on gov't SSN records as still alive, the passenger lists which had no hijacker names until researchers pointed this out -- and then those names were added (to the top, in an obvious plant) -- and so on.

But re. the Pentagon, the best easy stuff to understand on this ... is about the black box which not only Lear but others at Pilots for 9/11 Truth have signed a press release about:

The gov't black box shows the plane flew 300 feet higher than the Pentagon. Press release: [link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

And for the Pilots for 911 Truth videos on the subject:

[link to pilotsfor911truth.org] Two movies:

1. "American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D" Movie

08/03/07 - Three Dimensional view of American 77 Flight Path according to data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Removing altitude and NTSB northern plot data as a variable (see [link to pilotsfor911truth.org] for more information), we use the "impact point" as point of origin working outwards based on heading, descent angles and bank angles to analyze if the data can account for the physical damage path. Please see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two for in depth analysis of complete data provided by US Govt Agencies who claim was generated by the aircraft which struck The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

2. "Flight Of American 77" Movie

Chapter Two of the Pandora's Black Box Series produced and supported by Professional Pilots. This feature film follows the flight as it happens in real time throughout the Air Traffic Control System on September 11, 2001. Analysis includes The Flight Data Recorder, The money and cover-up, Air Traffic Control and Radar, NORAD response and the shocking conflicts/possibilities based on information provided by the US Government.

Nope. None of them. I am a reasonable citizen and I know these people know their field well, so I listen to them.

Have fun, ignoramus.

Oh hey, comicker: lose the posture of superiority as a person. You are low. If you cannot distinguish Lear's experience and the others (about the flight path and black box at the Pentagon) then YOU are not qualified to think even as an ordinary citizen, obviously, comic. You are highly qualified like Lear, are you? No.

You know why you think I'm a fun chew toy? You are so stupid you think I'm stupid; and it makes you a fun punching bag.