Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 12:05:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Hacking group says it has 9/11 legal documents that will 'burn down deep state'

Started by biggytitbo, January 06, 2019, 01:56:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lance My Grey Horsecock (4th Edition in Braille)

Yup:  'ang your clems.  Sweng your swangy nutsops.  Look loose, light shite an' lamps.  Align your haunches with Damp Haloumi an' dance.
19 (55.9%)
Nein:  Shüsterfore für geld ist ein cooting-edge IJ technique or Grandfather's First Packed Lunch and Urine.
1 (2.9%)
| Wanking of Thirst. (Parched.)
2 (5.9%)
  |- Pipe music  (Infernal Badadook.)
4 (11.8%)
    |-Roosevelt (Milk Teeth, Second Amendment)
1 (2.9%)
     | - nonce        x
1 (2.9%)
        | - Anus Rigs.mov
0 (0%)
Bury me in a Pam St. Clement coffin, or alongside Noel Edmonds.
2 (5.9%)
The only conspiracy I'm interested in is a coinspiracy!!
0 (0%)
The only conspiracy I'm interested in is a cockspiracy!!
0 (0%)
Puff the Magic Wanker Wanks Himself To Death
0 (0%)
I CHOOSE RED LEICESTER AS MY MANY SPLENDOURED THING
3 (8.8%)
SteVIe "TOAST THIS IRON ON THE FIRST MORNING SPIRE" sPaRkLe
1 (2.9%)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||::::||||||SHOUT||||||||::::||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 (0%)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||::::||||||GOURANGA!||||||||::::||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 (0%)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||::::||||||ANDBEHAPPY!||||||||::::||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 34

Soup Dogg

If you think the moon landings were faked despite all the evidence, despite the sheer unlikeliness of the alternative, despite the leaps of logic necessary to maintain this belief (why would the Russian's release evidence of a fake? Nobody would believe them anyway!) then you are incontrovertibly and utterly a fucking idiot and you should have your opinion license taken away from you and burnt along with everything you hold dear.

Paul Calf


Mister Six

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on January 10, 2019, 12:26:15 AM
It's astonishing really that in the 21st century, we're having conversations like this as we head into some kind of Endarkenment. I have a friend who is convinced the earth is flat and that the moon is a metal disc. His reasoning behind the moon nonsense is that the same face is always turned towards the earth. I'm ashamed to say that when he first came out with this, I couldn't give him an explanation as to why that was. It took another mate of mine literally seconds to explain it to me at the pub using two beer glasses and no words.

The next time I saw my flat earther friend, I thought it would be a breeze to explain to him using the same representation. It turned out to be impossible because he simply doesn't understand the basics of any rotating object orbiting another rotating object. Although, I was bemused by his apparent ability to grasp the concept of gravitational lock well enough to mock the 'coincidence'.

Hang on though, if your mate can't understand how the same face of the Moon always points towards the Earth, why does he think the disc's face does the same? Surely we should see it rotate, so that sometimes it's just a thin sliver (which would look different from a waxing/waning moon)?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Mister Six on January 10, 2019, 01:52:11 PM
Hang on though, if your mate can't understand how the same face of the Moon always points towards the Earth, why does he think the disc's face does the same? Surely we should see it rotate, so that sometimes it's just a thin sliver (which would look different from a waxing/waning moon)?

As I say, he simply doesn't understand the basics of any rotating object orbiting another rotating object. He thinks that because the same face of the moon is always turned towards the earth, it means the moon isn't rotating. Which means it could be, and probably is, a disc. For reasons.

Mister Six

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on January 10, 2019, 02:14:03 PM
As I say, he simply doesn't understand the basics of any rotating object orbiting another rotating object. He thinks that because the same face of the moon is always turned towards the earth that that means it isn't rotating.

But how does he get the idea that it's a flat disc from there? Surely both a disc and a moon would (save the waxing and waning) look the same?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Mister Six on January 10, 2019, 02:17:37 PM
But how does he get the idea that it's a flat disc from there? Surely both a disc and a moon would (save the waxing and waning) look the same?

Sorry. Late edit. It's because of reasons. Hidden reasons. That the government don't want you to know about.

It's retrofitting a lack of understanding of geometry to a worldview already established. Like the shadows thing: I know the moon landings were faked. Lets find evidence.

buzby

Quote from: Dex Sawash on January 09, 2019, 11:59:00 PM
Just looked, predators carried air to air stinger missiles in that era. Stinger is mach2.2 with 8km range. Still, would have to intercept from in front and would probably just get one shot (not that it woukd take two)
Predator speed 130 and ceiling 25000 feet.
There have only been 6 large commercial jet aircraft engaged by MANPAD missiles like the Stinger. Of those, one was missed (Israeli 767 engaged by two SA-7 missiles in Kenya), two were destroyed inflight (a 737 in Angola and a 727 in Congo) and the other three were damaged but managed to land (a second 737 in Angola, a DC10 in Afghanistan and a DHL A300 in Baghdad). All the engagements occured during takeoff or landing, as the effective maximum target altitude from the launcher for engagement is 10-12000 feet.

The Predator's operational altitude is 25000 feet, so the chances of hitting an airliner at cruising altitude of 35-37000 feet are minimal even if in the optimal position for the missiles IR seeker to aquire the target (i.e. directly behind where the jet efflux is most visible)
Quote
But then didn't a Bristol Bulldog sink the Bismarck?
Fairey Swordfish TSR.1 torpedo bombers form Ark Royal attacked it and damaged it's steering gear, which allowed the Home Fleet to close in sink it via gunfire and a torpedo barrage

All Surrogate


LanceUppercut

Quote from: buzby on January 10, 2019, 02:46:31 PM
There have only been 6 large commercial jet aircraft engaged by MANPAD missiles like the Stinger. Of those, one was missed (Israeli 767 engaged by two SA-7 missiles in Kenya), two were destroyed inflight (a 737 in Angola and a 727 in Congo) and the other three were damaged but managed to land (a second 737 in Angola, a DC10 in Afghanistan and a DHL A300 in Baghdad). All the engagements occured during takeoff or landing, as the effective maximum target altitude from the launcher for engagement is 10-12000 feet.

The Predator's operational altitude is 25000 feet, so the chances of hitting an airliner at cruising altitude of 35-37000 feet are minimal even if in the optimal position for the missiles IR seeker to aquire the target (i.e. directly behind where the jet efflux is most visible) Fairey Swordfish TSR.1 torpedo bombers form Ark Royal attacked it and damaged it's steering gear, which allowed the Home Fleet to close in sink it via gunfire and a torpedo barrage

But if terrorist's had taken over the plane, I'm pretty sure that they would not give a fuck what altitude they were flying at, they would probably be flying at a much lower altitude so they could see what was around and where they were heading to. If these terrorist's had shitty flight techniques and skills, and were trained in small plane's as has been documented they stay pretty close to the ground (in flying terms) . They would just revert to doing what they were taught in what little training they had.

Even though this video says there was no plane at all the interview with the lady at 2:30 till round 5:00 is interesting she claims a white object no wider than her car flew over her head, again the video claims it was a air to ground missile but could it have been a drone? Genuinely interested to find out.
[url]https://youtu.be/MQTNy6Jb26A[url]


touchingcloth

Have I misremembered, or is there a bit of cockpit audio of he hijackers on flight 93 saying something like "put it down", followed by a load of Allah Akbars all the way to the smash?

I wouldn't be surprised if the plane was shot down, but I also wouldn't be surprised if, with desperate passengers battering at the door, the hijackers whose plan was to die made a decision that if there was a chance they were going to get overpowered, they could at least keep some control by flying into ground rather than building. Or if their flying skills weren't up to controlling the plane with all that carry on in the background. Or if they tried some maneuvers to try and shake the people away from the door that resulted in them losing control. I'd be equally unastonished by any outcome on that flight, I think.

BlodwynPig


touchingcloth


Dex Sawash

Quote from: BlodwynPig on January 11, 2019, 12:13:14 AM
did planes have people proof cockpit doors in those days?

No, seems like door to cockpit often was open too.

Crisps?

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on January 10, 2019, 12:07:23 AM
What on earth does any of that prove? That governments drag their feet over science spending? No shit, Sherlock.

No, Dear Watson, it shows that governments around the world do not believe that there's no point in going to the Moon or that it's too expensive, so those two flogged to death excuses for why nobody has gone to the Moon since Nixon are complete bollocks.

QuoteAnd I suppose you're an expert on how much onboard computing power it takes to get to the moon. Care to elaborate?

You want me to elaborate on the line "computing power of a fridge magnet"?


Quote from: phantom_power on January 10, 2019, 12:07:48 AM
So you are basing this all on an idea that it was a bit too difficult to actually do?

It's obviously not difficult though, is it? They did it with ancient tech in seven short years without even knowing in advance if it was possible. The only evidence that matters is that nobody has ever been able to put men on the Moon since then, including the country that did it, despite half a century of progress.

QuoteIt always seems the risk vs reward makes the whole thing not worth it. Would there have been much backlash if America hadn't gone to the moon? Especially considering Russia didn't either? Compare that to the absolute uproar and national identity crisis that would result if the plan had failed and people had discovered the fakery. There is just too much at stake and too many ways for it to go wrong or be uncovered.

As with Watergate, but they risked that for far less potential reward than sticking it to the Commies.

Americans may not agree but, for example, carpet bombing Cambodia is a more problematic activity than faking some spacemen bouncing on a rock. If the plan had failed they'd just blame some rogue NASA personnel, reduce its budget and Napalm some more orphanages to make themselves feel better. 66% what happened anyway.

marquis_de_sad

From 1405 to 1433, the Ming Empire sent expeditionary voyages to far flung regions, including Africa. However, after that, they seemed to lose interest in travelling to Africa, so these voyages stopped. Thus, they didn't happen QED checkmate.

touchingcloth

I did a poo in a Waterstones once, but failed to lock the door correctly and someone opened it on me as I was wiping my bottie. I've not been back to that branch since.

I reckon that - or something very like it - happened on the final Apollo.

Dex Sawash


North Korea has been to the moon we know this because all the defectors lie and say they haven't

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Crisps? on January 11, 2019, 12:19:47 AM
No, Dear Watson, it shows that governments around the world do not believe that there's no point in going to the Moon or that it's too expensive, so those two flogged to death excuses for why nobody has gone to the Moon since Nixon are complete bollocks.

You say they never went and make the case that they still keep putting it off, but then you make the argument that it wouldn't be that expensive really. lolwhut?

QuoteYou want me to elaborate on the line "computing power of a fridge magnet"?

No, I want you to elaborate on the onboard computing power needed to get to the moon and how the equipment of the time was insufficient.

buzby

Quote from: LanceUppercut on January 10, 2019, 10:34:52 PM
But if terrorist's had taken over the plane, I'm pretty sure that they would not give a fuck what altitude they were flying at, they would probably be flying at a much lower altitude so they could see what was around and where they were heading to. If these terrorist's had shitty flight techniques and skills, and were trained in small plane's as has been documented they stay pretty close to the ground (in flying terms) . They would just revert to doing what they were taught in what little training they had.

Even though this video says there was no plane at all the interview with the lady at 2:30 till round 5:00 is interesting she claims a white object no wider than her car flew over her head, again the video claims it was a air to ground missile but could it have been a drone? Genuinely interested to find out.
[url]https://youtu.be/MQTNy6Jb26A[url]
Flight 93's ATC radar altitude track shows it climbing to it's cruise altitude of 35000 feet, before climbing to 41000 feet once the hijackers took control followed by a series of three steep dives. It never flew at low level.:


My point is you wouldn't send a Predator drone to shoot down an airliner as apart from it needing to be in exactly the right place at the right time (which is pretty difficult given how slow Predators fly) the chances of a successful shootdown against an airliner are less than 50% with small IR-guided missiles like a Sitinger (which was designed to shoot down slow-moving low flying low-IR targets like helicopters, or fast-moving low flying high-IR targets like ground attack aircraft). You would send a fighter armed with real air-to-air missiles like an AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM.

In regards  to what the woman in the video says, a Predator has a wingspan of 50-55 feet, which is a lot bigger than her people carrier. The Air-to-Surface missile they try to say it was in the video is the AGM-158 JASSM. The problem with that supposition is that it didn't exist. Production of the prototypes began in December 2001 to begin testing the following year, but repeated launch test failures delayed the completion of the development programme until April 2003. Even then, it wasn;t reliable enough to enter service, so a further improvement programme was required, but that was delayed until 2008 to save money and it only entered into operational service in 2009.

Crisps?

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on January 10, 2019, 10:16:48 AM
Me and Mrs Nose went to San Francisco for our honeymoon in 2005.  We've been saying ever since then that we should go back.  We haven't been back, but still keep saying we should go back.  Just because we haven't been back, it doesn't mean we didn't go there in 2005.  Cos we did.

And nobody else has ever gone to San Francisco since 2005 either?

QuoteAside from all of the mountains of independent and verifiable third party evidence which is an easy Google search away, China confirmed several years ago that they spotted loads of Apollo debris with their first probe.  And, as I mentioned earlier, you can see the rover tracks on Google Moon.

And I posted LRO images (which are, from what I've just seen at Google Moon, far more detailed) in reponse to that. For example (click to enhance):



Which Apollo mission is that?

QuoteNot forgetting the hours of film footage available to watch on YouTube.

Alongside countless hours of Moon Landing Hoax videos. I think "they faked the Moon landings" addresses NASA's video and photo stash though. The ones they didn't destroy, that is.

buzby

Quote from: Crisps? on January 11, 2019, 12:54:56 AM
And I posted LRO images (which are, from what I've just seen at Google Moon, far more detailed) in reponse to that. For example (click to enhance):



Which Apollo mission is that?
That's the Soviet Luna 17 lander platform that carried the Lunokhod 1 rover isn't it?

The Lunokhod programme managed to successfully land two rovers on the moon with even less computing power than the Apollo LM had.

BlodwynPig


touchingcloth

What if They landed on the moon so that we would be in awe of Them and They spread the hoax stories so that we would fight amongst ourselves?

Crisps?

Quote from: marquis_de_sad on January 11, 2019, 12:29:12 AM
From 1405 to 1433, the Ming Empire sent expeditionary voyages to far flung regions, including Africa. However, after that, they seemed to lose interest in travelling to Africa, so these voyages stopped. Thus, they didn't happen QED checkmate.

And nobody else ever travelled to Africa either. Good point, as always.


Quote from: Johnny Yesno on January 11, 2019, 12:42:24 AM
You say they never went and make the case that they still keep putting it off, but then you make the argument that it wouldn't be that expensive really. lolwhut?

What?

QuoteNo, I want you to elaborate on the onboard computing power needed to get to the moon and how the equipment of the time was insufficient.

Comparing Apollo to a fridge magnet was a joke (like when I previously compared it to a Tamagotchi), based on the old comparisons people used to make with 486 computers or whatever. You may not find it funny, but I did, and that is all that matters.

Second, the point is not that the computers they had then were insufficient, but that computing power is drastically more powerful now than it was then.

Just tell me the one again about how you had to ask a bloke in a pub how the Moon works. That was great.

Crisps?

Quote from: buzby on January 11, 2019, 01:06:23 AM
That's the Soviet Luna 17 lander platform that carried the Lunokhod 1 rover isn't it?

It's Luna 17, yes. Which of course doesn't prove the Soviets landed men on the Moon.

Pdine

What strikes me as sad is that Stanley Kubrick went to the trouble of having his name be an anagram of 'Ask bulky cretin', and yet no-one ever did. What agony that secret must have been.

Replies From View

Quote from: Crisps? on January 11, 2019, 01:24:09 AM
Second, the point is not that the computers they had then were insufficient, but that computing power is drastically more powerful now than it was then.

So what they had during the Apollo missions was the computing power they had then, not the computing power we have now?

Difficult to grasp but I think I understand.  In fact I have just finished taking it in, and can now confirm that it is an excellent point and it is duly noted.  They had the computing power they had then.  Yes.

Buelligan

But they could and probably did, simply join them together.

Just because they were in the olden days doesn't have to mean they were stupid, I mean, look at some of the stuff we give credence to now.

Replies From View

Quote from: Buelligan on January 11, 2019, 08:56:31 AM
But they could and probably did, simply join them together.

Just because they were in the olden days doesn't have to mean they were stupid, I mean, look at some of the stuff we give credence to now.

Ah but what we give credence to now isn't what they gave credence to then.

Operty1

You should have seen the car my grandad had in the sixties, it was archaic to what we have now, and he always got to where ever he wanted to get to...wait...what?