No, next...
-
Call the cops
-
Originally posted by freakydancer
Give a basis for your arguement...Comment
-
No, next..Originally posted by Let-Me-InCall the copsComment
-
I would have thought that with all the high powered telescopes that we have today we could have a look at the landing site etc with the ‘naked’ eye so to say.
I recon if this were not true all the conspiracy buffs would have caught onto this eon’s ago and be pumping our ears full of it. That or I am the first person in existence with this thought and I claim that I am the messiah!
(Not the Messiah he's a Very Naughty Boy)Last edited by Swiss Tony; 23 July 2007, 10:18."Wait, I still function!"Comment
-
Beyond reproach, obviously!Originally posted by gingerjediSo are you? Should we take everything you say with a pinch of salt? Or are you suggesting his character is beyond reproach?
I haven't walked on the Moon. However, Threaded has!Last edited by Churchill; 23 July 2007, 10:21.Comment
-
-
Next ....Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodealComment
-
At last, a sensible reply...Originally posted by sasguruIllegitimus non carborundum est!Comment
-
We walked on the moon, but there is no way that A Boeing hit the Pentagon!Originally posted by Let-Me-In
Comment
-
Why do they assume it hit more or less straight on? If it hit at an angle of 30degrees I don’t see what the problem is? Also why use 4 planes and a missile?Originally posted by zathrasWe walked on the moon, but there is no way that A Boeing hit the Pentagon!
I would have thought the Pentagon was designed to take some sort of hit and aircraft do tend to disintegrate when they hit something solid at high speed.
HTH.Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave JohnsonComment
Comment