David C's Moon Hoax Thread (taken from 911 Pentagon)

[David C]

Eyewitnesses that stand right beside the lamppost while you chop it...

I don't know what happened immediately after the crash but they might have cordoned off the area and then taken away the light poles and threw the prepared damaged ones on the ground. If there were any witnesses, the press cold have ignored them and just printed the version given by the planted witnesses.

As for this suppose planted stuff it would have to be planted before anybody saw the planting it. Or do you think the whole pentagon as well as people in the surrounding area were all in on it?

It would have been easy to plant parts shortly after the explosion. Everybody in the Pentagon wouldn't have been able to get close enough to watch the planting of evidence inside the building.

And it would take hours and yet nobody saw them. This doesn't sound a bit farfetched to you?

No, not at all. They whole area could have been cordoned off. The area where the evidence was allegedly planted was out of sight. The few allegedly pieces planted on the lawn could have been planted quickly at any time before the pictures were taken.

You seem to simply want believe these videos over anything we say. They say there were no bodies and you believe them. We say that there were and you don't believe us.

I never said I was sure about anything. I said the evidence I've seen leads to there not being any bodies. You people have provided no evidence that there were any bodies.

So why are you here if nothing we say will convince you?

I'm trying to convince you and also post information for the viewers to see so that they can decide for themselves. This is viewed by a lot of people. Does that have anything to do with your not wanting me to post links? Is this website dedicated to seeking the truth? Is there an interest here in making everybody believe the governments version? I hate to say it but it seems so.

Originally Posted by David C
Here's something I just found. It has a lot of interesting stuff.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/


Fun site there...but he gets it wrong when he "poo-poos" the breakaway design of light poles (saw a nice example the other morning, a car had knocked one down sliding on the icy roads), and he doesn't comprehend wing tip vortices, and the difference in their power between slow, flaps down flying and clean wing high speed flight.

...among other things...he also got the NORAD air defense structure/composition/location/response capacity all wrong as well as the capability of the fighters responding that morning.

All the usual mistakes and ignorant assumptions. Edit...David, you used the term "interesting"...does this mean that you believe it all, that you think it's accurate? Trust me when I say he has it wrong on many counts...I spent about all my USAF career in, or in support of, NORAD...I can consider myself something of an expert in that arena.

All I want to do is find out the truth. That's why I post that stuff. I want everybody to analyze it and say what they think. It it has mistakes, I want to know about them.

Why is making "the most sense" to you the standard by which you judge truthfulness? Why is an explanation that makes sense to engineers the world over suddenly wrong merely because it doesn't makes sense to a handful of non-engineers?

Engineers can be corrupt. There are engineers who say the twin towers fell because of softened steel and there are other engineers who say they fell because of controlled demolition. When a layman sees two groups of professionals saying opposite things, what's he supposed to do except use his common sense?

Why must all explanations "make sense" to lay people for them to be true?

Some things are obvious such as the fact that the glass isn't even broken in some of the windows where the wing of the 757 was suposed to have hit the side of the pentagon. Also, there is no trace of the wings.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30

Have you seen the security video from the Pentagon? (The whole thing, not just the few frames showing the actual impact.) You can see people on the scene mere minutes after the impact. No eyewitnesses from the highway, many of whom no doubt stopped to gawk at the event, report seeing people running, or vehicles driving, around the lawn putting stuff down immediately after the impact.

Maybe it wasn't immediately after the impact but sometime before the pictures were taken.

David C made NO claims. He is not being reasonable because he refuses to answer questions and won't stop to discuss posts made by members. Disagreements are great but one has to take a stand before a disagreement can happen.

I said I was too busy to devote much time to the thread because of work and I'd try do do some serious posting during the weekend. Didn't I do some serious posting yesterday?
On some other forums where I've debated nobody complained when I posted articles that made a good case for the theory that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. It was considered normal to post something that made a good case and ask people what they thought of it and to analyze it. It was considered to be his stand and no summary was considered necessary. Nobody ever asked me to summarize it before they'd even look at it. This is the first forum I've ever come across where people say that. I find it very strange but I'll change my habits. I do have to say that this rule makes it harder for a believer in the conspiracy to make his case.

It is rather better than your technique; you post link after link without making any sort of statement aside from "This is interesting."
Imagine if you were in a debating hall and practiced the same thing you are doing here; ignoring the response, and simply name a website for the person to look at. How do you think YOU would be treated?

Besides, why should I bother to bring up a point and tell you why I disagree with it? Others are doing that, and you're ignoring them. You just say "This makes more sense than you guys do", and post another link.

Those links I've posted make some very good arguments and you guys still haven't addressed them. You only complain that I haven't summarized them. If I were in your place and I truly believed my views were correct, I'd read a posted article and refute all of the points I disagreed with. I would complain that the poster hadn't summarized it.

People ARE giving their opinions, yet you continue to post links.

Those links are my rebuttals to your arguments as they contain explanations which refute what you guys say.

Your words are important because it shows that you really understand what the issue is you are talking about.

I posted a link instead of summarizing it to save time--not because I didn't understand it. As I said before--if I were in your place, I wouldn't delay refuting the info in a link just because I suspected that the person who posted it didn't understand it. If I'd summarized everything I posted, I wouldn't have been able to post nearly as much info as I did and the viewers wouldn't have been able to see it and judge for themselves. Is that part of your strategy?

Do you intend to post links to EVERY conspiracy theory website and video and ask for opinions on them?

This is a place for debate; you talk about the subject, then defend your position.
This is NOT a place for advertising conspiracy websites and videos.

You're just dismissing alternative theories with no analysis. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for that.

With the Pentagon the bulding was reinfoced concrete al metre thick, totally different to the WTC. As to the windows, David C. you really need to do some real research (ie not just reading up all the CT sites and swallowing them hook, line and sinker.) The windows in the Pentagon were armoured glass about a foot thick. They were designed to resist a truck bomb like the one at Oaklahoma. That is why they didn't break.

Look at this picture again.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30
The first window to the left of the hole is broken. The second one looks shattered. The third and forth ones are intact. Is that what happens to armoured glass.

Read up what the Firefighters and Emergency workers who were there stated.

I saw a film of firefighters saying they'd heard explosions. Watch "Loose Change" or "Painful Deceptions".

Find out what the Montgomery County Resue team members who were at the Pentagon have to say

People can be corrupt and lie. If the evidence shows that the crash is inconsistent with a 757 and people say they saw a 757, the people are lying.
Look at the fifth picture here.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...the_boeing.htm
There's no sign of wings or any other part of a 757.
(This link has the picture which supports my argument. I hope it doesn't get me banned)

Just to show that two can play the drop links game.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

I think it's great that you posted that. I'm going to look at it when I have time and if I see anything I think is wrong, I'll post it. I don't feel any tendency to ask you to summarize it. In fact that idea seems totally assinine to me. That's how debates are done. Both sides present all the info they have and they hash it out and hopefully the truth will prevail. There shouldn't be any limitations on posting info.

if I was really going to do seagull postings like him I would have dropped more than one link

You guys call it seagull posting. If I post a few links with some good info that I don't have time to summarize, maybe some of the viewers will read it and join the forum and post a comment on it. I'll follow the rules but I have to say they are totally arbitrary and seem to be designed to keep the truth from prevailing.

You know, in the Moon hoax thread on LC, he was the same way.

Here's the moon thread from LC.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4560
My posts start around page 17. I did a lot more arguing there because during the summer my work load is light and had the time. At the end of September my work load increases and I don't have as much time to do serious debating so I've been posting stuff for others to see in the hope that someone runs with the ball. That's all my intentions were.
I gave up on the moon debate because all the good videos are going off-line and now I hardly have any evidence to show.

The part I've quoted is fascinating. We have the CTers claiming that the Pentagon was built to withstand a bunker buster, and then they get all suspicious when they can't see oodles of damage from plane crash.

That's not all. Where are the wings of the plane?
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...the_boeing.htm

If practically the entire structural engineering community says, "This is what almost certainly happened," I trust them. They would know; I do not. I have no reason to trust people without training in the relevant field unless they somehow show that they are truly equipped to answer questions, and I've not seen anyone from the CT side who can. At least, not that can answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner, including providing evidence.

Show some evidence that the entire structural engineering community says this is what almost certainly happened. What about Steven Jones?
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
He's an engineer. (This links supports my argument and I don't have time to summarize it now. That shouldn't stop anyone from watching it and giving an opinion.)

We are trying to teach critical thinking skills here, I think. Don't just take someone's word for it, in other words, but know whether their word is worth taking.

Steven Jones sounds like he knows what he's talking about to me. Why don't some of the engineers here watch this video and say why he's wrong? I'd reall like to hear the opinions of the engineers.
http://www.question911.com/linkout.p...20Evidence.wmv

[Nicolas]

I gave up on the moon debate because all the good videos are going off-line and now I hardly have any evidence to show.

Have you in the meantime found a way to describe what evidence we can use if anything published is not allowed?

[David C]

Have you in the meantime found a way to describe what evidence we can use if anything published is not allowed?

I tried to follow up on your post there but it wouldn't let me post. The forum was closed.
As I said before, some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie. The only proof is in the footage. I see no proof there. I do see a lot of proof that the moon missions were faked such as the reflections of the great big light in the astronauts' helmets. I can't show the picture now as it's off-line.
I've never seen any moon footage that couldn't have been taken in a studio or outside in area 51.

Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof. The rock issue is still up in the air but the fact that there are reflections of an artificial light source in the Apollo astronouts' helmets that's obviously much bigger than the sun when compared to the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronauts' helmets makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.

How is saying that you shouldn't simply link to any possible theory is dismissing that theory?

He didn't analyze anything in the articles or videos I posted. He just dismissed it as ridiculous. Sorry, but they's laugh him out of the debating hall for that.

[Nicolas]

some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie.

That extrapolation is no valid criterion on which to dismiss anything published, no matter what the subject is.

Especially as you include "peer reviewed, official publications of the biggest experts on the subjects, backed up by the professional community" in "some article in which some expert says".

Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof.

But some paper saying they're real is written by all those trained geologists with access to the right lab equipment. That's the problem with your all encompassing paranoia towards anything published. We'd have to take you by the hand to everything done in world history, as the in between step of publication is a no go for you.

[gwiz]

It's absolutely pointless aguing with someone who will not accept anything as proof. "It could be a lie" as a universal reason for ignoring any inconvenient evidence makes his opinions completely bullet proof.

[Nicolas]

I tried to follow up on your post there but it wouldn't let me post. The forum was closed.

I just tried again, and it's still open for me.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by David C

Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof.

"Some paper"?? Do you mean a paper by a geologist??

The rock issue is still up in the air but the fact that there are reflections of an artificial light source in the Apollo astronouts' helmets that's obviously much bigger than the sun when compared to the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronauts' helmets...snip...

How can you question the validity of the rocks from the Moon based on your inability to analyse the photos taken on the Moon? What does one have to do with the other.

...makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.

Makes "you" think??...or perhaps this is something you've read on a hoax believers site, and you are simply "repeating it" because it agrees with your pre-formed conclusion.

[David C]

I only have a few minutes today so I can't respond to everything.

some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie.

That extrapolation is no valid criterion on which to dismiss anything published, no matter what the subject is.

I never said "Dismiss". I said it doesn't constitute proof. Something written by an expert is mere evidence--not proof.

Especially as you include "peer reviewed, official publications of the biggest experts on the subjects, backed up by the professional community" in "some article in which some expert says".

It is strong evidence but still falls short of proof as even big groups of people are capable of being corrupt.

In part one of this video this scientist talks about corruption in the science community.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...98989248030643

GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32617120640846
(This woman's talk supports my argument that large groups of scientists can be corrupt. I hope it doesn't get me banned.)

Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof.

But some paper saying they're real is written by all those trained geologists with access to the right lab equipment. That's the problem with your all encompassing paranoia towards anything published. We'd have to take you by the hand to everything done in world history, as the in between step of publication is a no go for you.

You're being pretty simplistic. In a world full of honest people your argument makes sense. You're not considering the deceit factor. The fact that people are capable of lying makes written documents mere evidence that something happened--not proof. If there's a document written by a scientist and endorsed by a big group of scientists, it's mere evidence. If you show me an article that says the scientific community believes the moon landings were real, that's mere evidence that it's so--not proof.
I wish "What Happened on the Moon" were still on line. I'd post the time marks showing the reflection of the great big artificial light source reflected in the Apollo astronauts' helmets and the picture of the sun reflected in the shuttle astronauts' helmets. There was no comparison in the size of the reflections. Now that's proof that at least some of the footage was faked and evidence that all of the footage was faked. After seeing that, some document that says scientists tracked the Apollo craft to the moon and back means nothing to me.
The moon landings were faked.
I tried again to post here but I couldn't.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...c=4560&st=3030
I can log in but I can't post on any thread.

"Some paper"?? Do you mean a paper by a geologist??

We also have to be sure that he or she is an honest geologist. Of course I'll listen to an expert if I'm sure that he or she is honest.

How can you question the validity of the rocks from the Moon based on your inability to analyse the photos taken on the Moon? What does one have to do with the other.

All it takes is one piece of proof that the landings were staged and all of the mere evidence that they were real becomes moot.

...makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.

Makes "you" think??...or perhaps this is something you've read on a hoax believers site, and you are simply "repeating it" because it agrees with your pre-formed conclusion.

You didn't show the full context of my quote. That's a pretty low tactic and also a desperate one.

Here's the full quote.

I tried to follow up on your post there but it wouldn't let me post. The forum was closed.
As I said before, some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie. The only proof is in the footage. I see no proof there. I do see a lot of proof that the moon missions were faked such as the reflections of the great big light in the astronauts' helmets. I can't show the picture now as it's off-line.
I've never seen any moon footage that couldn't have been taken in a studio or outside in area 51.

Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof. The rock issue is still up in the air but the fact that there are reflections of an artificial light source in the Apollo astronouts' helmets that's obviously much bigger than the sun when compared to the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronauts' helmets makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.

I saw it on the video "What Happened on the Moon" which is now off-line. I agreed with it. It was proof that at least part of the missions were staged here on earth.

As for all of your arguments about the Pentagon--

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30

In the pictures at the top of this page it's obvious that there is no damage consistent with wings crashing into the wall. I can even see the chain link fence. All other arguments are moot. It was not a 757. What it really was, I don't know.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...giantpsyop.htm
Judging from this picture it was probably a fighter (remote-controlled of course)
I know I didn't cover everything but that's all the time I have today.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by David C

I saw it on the video "What Happened on the Moon" which is now off-line.

Do you mean A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon?

edited to add...I've asked the Mods to split this thread at David C's last post (#249) to keep David's 911 arguments separate from his Moon hoax arguments.

[Nicolas]

David, may I ask you again for this thread, what kind of thing (in a general sense) is proof for you if anything published does not constitute proof?

All it takes is one piece of proof that the landings were staged and all of the mere evidence that they were real becomes moot.

And the other way around, all it takes is one piece of proof that just one lunar landing picture or part of video is real, and it would mean that we went to the moon. And again, as the word proof comes up here, what proof is accepted if anything published isn't? A video is also published, and could have been made by somebody who lies, no matter what side he's on.

Now that's proof that at least some of the footage was faked and evidence that all of the footage was faked.

Meh, they can lie, hold back relevant information that would make the interpretation different. Therefore, according to your own logic, it is no proof but mere evidence.

It was proof that at least part of the missions were staged here on earth.

Same reasoning, mere evidence. According to your reasoning, that is.

In the pictures at the top of this page it's obvious that there is no damage consistent with wings crashing into the wall.

Why is the facade stone gone not consistent with wings crashing into the wall? What damage would be consistent with wings crashing into the wall? Why?

[Nicolas]

I can log in but I can't post on any thread.

I can only post in very few threads, but lunar hoax thread is one of them.

[PhantomWolf]

I add my call for the Apollo stuff to be split off from this thread. Not only has this argument jumped horse midstream it's switched rivers. MUch as I'm happy to argue Apollo (generally better than 9/11) I think this thread should be for 9/11 and have a separate one for Apollo so we can concentrate on each issue rather than getting them all mixed up.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by David C

I wish "What Happened on the Moon" were still on line. I'd post the time marks showing the reflection of the great big artificial light source reflected in the Apollo astronauts' helmets and the picture of the sun reflected in the shuttle astronauts' helmets. There was no comparison in the size of the reflections. Now that's proof that at least some of the footage was faked and evidence that all of the footage was faked. After seeing that, some document that says scientists tracked the Apollo craft to the moon and back means nothing to me.
The moon landings were faked.

But there are other reasons the reflections could be different sizes. Are the visors in both suits exactly the same? Are they curved exactly the same? A different level of curvature will affect the size of the reflection the same way the side mirror on a car makes some objects appear further away or smaller. What about scratches on the visors? A scratched visor would tend to spread out the reflection and there was plenty of dust on the moon. Did both visors have the same coatings? That may have some affect on the reflection as well. Simply saying, "look, here it is a bigger reflection" does not prove anything is faked.

[Nicolas]

And how about the settings and film of the apparatus taking the (motion) picture of the reflection...

[antoniseb]

These posts have been extracted from the 911 Pentagon thread.

[Mr Gorsky]

This is a truly mind-boggling thread.

DavidC, if you are intent on dismissing any written and published evidence provided by an expert because "they could be lying" then hasn't it occurred to you that exactly that same argument could be used to dismiss all of these videos etc. that you keep linking to. They also could be lying.

How do you plan to assess the honesty of a geologist who has published a paper on his examination of the moon rocks and assessment that they are actually from the moon?

If you cannot do that then all you have is "they could be lying".

Is it not more appropriate to accord other human beings (particularly peer reviewed scientific experts) the benefits of an assumption of honesty unless you actually have evidence that they are dishonest?

And, even if there is evidence that they are genuinely and seriously dishonest, they could still be telling the truth about the moon rocks - that would be the point of peer review of course. And no one lies 100% of the time.

If you are really claiming that all of the geological papers written about the moon rocks are lies, how has that deception been maintained for all this time in the face of NASA's willingness to allow research on the samples by any expert that requests it.

Let's face it, Hwang Woo-Suk was incapable of maintaining his little hoax for more than a few months. Here's the story

[Nicolas]

David, may I ask you again for this thread, what kind of thing (in a general sense) is proof for you if anything published does not constitute proof?

I repeat this queston for this freshly separated thread, as I think it is of capital importance for this discussion.

I am fully aware that the next quote is cut out of context, but without you answering this question the only common factor that I have found on which you call something proof is:

I agreed with it. It was proof

Please reassure us that this is NOT your criterion, and that you have clear criteria for what would be proof re the moon landings.

[Jakenorrish]

Having seen the WTC collapse live on TV, I made my own conclusions about it long ago. Those being that it was due to the hijacked planes hitting the buildings at high speed, so I won't ask DavidC about that.

I will however ask him to provide the links and 'proof' he insists is there that the Moon landings were faked. I will then provide him with the 'proof' that they weren't. So come on DavidC, lets sort this claim of yours out.

[dirty_g]

dont beleive anybody anymore cos they "could be lieing"

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Jakenorrish

Having seen the WTC collapse live on TV, I made my own conclusions about it long ago. Those being that it was due to the hijacked planes hitting the buildings at high speed, so I won't ask DavidC about that.

I will however ask him to provide the links and 'proof' he insists is there that the Moon landings were faked. I will then provide him with the 'proof' that they weren't. So come on DavidC, lets sort this claim of yours out.

You can't provide proof before David C made clear what can be considered proof according to him.

I've already spent hundreds of posts to hear (in between of accusations and insults) that anything published doesn't count, so I should warn you before you take too much effort that goes down David C's drain. At the moment, I am clueless as to what proof David C will accept and why.

[Laguna]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

You can't provide proof before David C made clear what can be considered proof according to him.

I've already spent hundreds of posts to hear (in between of accusations and insults) that anything published doesn't count, so I should warn you before you take too much effort that goes down David C's drain. At the moment, I am clueless as to what proof David C will accept and why.

From the expierience in the other threads I would say he does accept videos on YouTube as proof.

[Jakenorrish]

The simple fact is that there is masses of evidence we did go there, and absolutely no evidence we didn't, facts and proof have long been established here, and I can always use the chance to sharpen up my knowledge, so.....

......gloves on, round one. 'Ding ding!'

[Serenitude]

Maybe one of us could webcam themselves reading off a list of the most common moon hoax debunks, and post it on youtube for CTers to watch, so we can convert 3/4 of them to the truth

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Laguna2

From the expierience in the other threads I would say he does accept videos on YouTube as proof.

Given the large number of videos depicting the lunar missions as what they were -men landing on the moon- available on youtube, I say he doesn't.

[Laguna]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Given the large number of videos depicting the lunar missions as what they were -men landing on the moon- available on youtube, I say he doesn't.

Maybe he stopped them as soon as he realized that he was watching the "wrong" proof.

[Obviousman]

I have had past discussions with David C on other boards, and those dealings leave me with little hope that he will be open to examining evidence that goes against his own personal beliefs. I have ceased trying to have a reasonable debate with him on this topic.

[Nicolas]

Well IF he's on the fence as he often claimed to be, he certainly had both legs on one side of it.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Well If he's on the fence as he often claimed to be, he certainly had both legs on one side of it.

Reminds of those famous mugwumps, who had their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.

[Mellow]

I used to believe that YouTube was the worlds ONLY really truthful broadcaster (sarcasm tags not found).... However, now that it is owned by Google, clearly a front for the CIA, we can no longer trust its output.

[dirty_g]

I just don't think I can trust anybody now....... what if he is right and your all not telling the truth??? I saw my girlfriend today and she told me she loved me.... but what if its not true??? I need some hard evidence time to get out the polygraph machine (what if somebody tinkers witht the evidence though)