Backdoor to finally exposing 9/11

Originally posted by Lillydale
You offered a link and claimed it contained pictures of PASSENGER bodies

No one has yet proved that they were not passenger bodies - just another truther lie!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
You offered a link and claimed it contained pictures of PASSENGER bodies

No one has yet proved that they were not passenger bodies - just another truther lie!

I will not discuss this with you here.

I replied to you in the appropriate thread. You can finish up there.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Lillydale




WE are not talking about seeing stars we are talking about taking PICTURES both you and to many beers dont seem to be able to tell the difference
The Astronauts would have seen stars if they looked away from the bright suface and gave their eyes a few seconds to adjust.
Taking a picture on the Moon which is LIT by the SUN remember would be like taking a picture on a very very sunny day on Earth.
So to take a picture exposure shown on link I posted above for a 400 asa film speed at f16 is 1/250 th of a second.
The picture on the other link was to take a picture of a star at 400asa
film speed at a wide f2.8 was 30 seconds so can YOU now see thats why no stars show on MOON pics shutter was open for a fraction of a second.

NOW IF GUYS CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT what else has CONFUSED YOU

For someone here that claims a great knowledge of Physics I wonder how he cannot grasp this to many beers maybe

[edit on 10-2-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Lillydale

 

WE are not talking about seeing stars we are talking about taking PICTURES both you and to many beers dont seem to be able to tell the difference

I have no idea who you think this "we" is but you are way off base. I responded to someone else. I responded to someone that was not you. I responded to the words they (the 'not you' person) actually used. What were they?

So you can see stars outside during the day, can you? According to your claim you must be able to! - Now do you realise how silly that argument actually is?

You do see what word they used there, correct? If you go back and look at the conversation, you will see that WE (that does not include you, it only includes me and the person I was talking to and the third party that was involved but NOT YOU) were talking about what someone can SEE. If Dereks wanted to discuss photography, he should have gone there. He did not. Sorry you are so confused as to what is going on here but if you just read the thread, maybe it will come clear.

Again, you were not in the conversation so you are not part of any "we" that I know of. We were discussing what you can SEE as that is what Dereks was talking about that I replied to.

If you want to reply to me, try and keep up.

reply to post by Lillydale


Lets see hmmmbeer opend this thread using the logic that the moon
landing was a hoax and if that was so could 9/11.
Any memeber is allowed to comment on a thread or a post in a thread.
If you want to attack someone with your stupidity use u2u.
You commmented on what dereks said to hmmmbeer I am able to
comment on what you BOTH said.
The ONLY evidence we have for the NO STARS claims are pictures or
video taken on the moon YOU cannot argue with THAT!

I will list some facts to make this EASY for you.

The light source on the moon is the sun.
No atmosphere on moon so light is not scattered.
All reflected light on the moon is from the surface rocks etc.
The exposure setting to take a picture on the moon is the same
as a very very sunny day on earth because when outside on the
earth guess what the light source is!
If the astronauts look at the bright surface then look quickly at
the sky they would NOT see stars until their eye adjusted to the
light level.

The same happens when you walk from a bright room into a room in
total darkness.

I provided links to show exposure times to take pictures of the moon
and to take pictures of stars.

You can try this but I dont think you would as it would prove you
WRONG.

What I am trying to show is that if his moon hoax claim is wrong then it
follows he is just as wrong with the other.

Also as he claims to be a whiz at physics HE should know the basics of
optics and photography.

If you dont want people to post against you DONT post.

If hmmmbeer only wanted comments about 9/11 he should not have
linked it with the moon landings.

His logic is flawed on the moon landings so you do the maths!


[edit on 11-2-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh hail the great protector of the truth!

It appears intelligent debate is not available here. Like the Monty Python argument skit - contradiction is the automatic gain saying of the others views.

Just for once - without dodging - answer some simple questions:
1) explain the damage to the pentagon - deep penetration, small holes, no damage where engines should have been etc - however it is consistent with say a missle hit
2) how did the towers fall at or near free fall speed (no decleration) - however that is consistent with explosives
3) no crater under moon lander - in fact no displacement of material at all - however consistent with it being placed there by a crane

Please dont point me to other articles. I want it in your words.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by hmmmbeer]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I provided links to show exposure times to take pictures of the moon
and to take pictures of stars.

You can try this but I dont think you would as it would prove you
WRONG.

LOL you are are riot a moment. I have no idea where you got your ideas but perhaps you need to re-read what I said. I never once said anything about why there are no stars in the photographs. If anyone were on the moon taking pictures, then the camera and the nature of photography would make those stars invisible in the pictures.

I understand fully why there are no stars in picture from the moon. What you do not understand is that Dereks asked about what you can SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The word used was SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


When I explained that the atmosphere on Earth is why you do not see stars during the day that you would see if there were no atmosphere, I was perfectly correct.

Dereks chose to argue with this. Perhaps you do not know this but I caught Dereks in a blatant lie he refuses to even acknowledge. Seeing him here claim that the atmosphere makes no difference in your ability to see into space during the day is a little scary.

Go back and read again. I never once got into the debate about whether or not we went to the moon or whether or not stars would show up in the pictures. Dereks argued that the atmosphere does not prevent you from seeing the stars during the day. SEEING the stars. SEEING... the stars. Get it yet?


If you want to argue about the moon landing and photographs, argue with mmmmmmmmmmmmbeer.

You are picking a fake fight with me. In fact you are making up one just to engage in. You say things about what I will do and what I do believe that are not based on anything I have actually stated in this thread.

Deny ignorance? Seems to me you are giving it such a tight hug, it is having a hard time breathing. Please go read my posts again and either come back with something that addresses what I actually did say - like how correct I am about the only point I made.

Making up crap to argue with me about just to have things to argue with me about is really really sad.

[edit on 2/11/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I guess you havent been here long enough to know there are paid agents to simply argue and disclaim everything you post.

I know there are people here that have an agenda and a goal and everything in between me and that goal is fair game. I know people here will respond to me and make no sense whatsoever in relation to what I said because they just needed someone to give them an excuse to hit reply and say what they were waiting to say already anyway. I expect these people but I refuse to just let them steamroll over me.

Anyone who wants to argue with me based on crap I never said will be corrected no matter how obviously they are just another troll looking to tow some party line somewhere.

You'll never ever get a direct straightforward answer to a legitimate question you pose.

All you can hope for is that some of the people reading these will pick up a few ideas and seek the truth rather than blindly accepting the rubbish that is the OS. Think for themselves as it were.

It seems to be working to a degree - I assume you have seen 911 Poll.

Dont take anything here too personally.

Thanks for the supportive words but don't worry. I find it hard to take anything here personally when my name is Lilly and most of these people keep calling me a guy. If they cannot even guess my gender by my name, then they can hardly get me on a personal level!

My favorite so far is reply to: Sir. Which translates roughly to...Attention Lilly, SIR.

I am just correcting the idiots, not taking them personally but thanks.

[edit on 2/11/10 by Lillydale]

Thanks for starting the thread. I am glad you looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Hopefully as more people become aware the truth will finally be exposed.


As for the moon hoax I am still undecided. There are valid arguments that we never went to the moon. There's also valid arguments saying that the astronauts saw structures there after they landed. So if you want to go the route of we never went then the alien base theory can't be true. If you want to believe the alien base theory then we must have went.

I personally think we have a better chance of exposing what really happened on 9/11 than what really happened on the moon.