I took the video "Bunny hopping on the Moon" and converted it up from 15 FPS to 35 FPS in speed, for the study of how the moonwalk looks up-speeded. I keept and up-pitched the audio as reference of how much faster the video is in compare to the original video (it is more than the double speed). The original video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdwcLytloU
@ctcole77 Step 1: Get a life.
Step 2: Get out and smell the air, what's left of it.
Step 3: When this reality falls on it's face, you and me will have a nice chat.
911 = HAARP = draconians, illuminati, NSA, CIA, MI5, MI6, and all the other intelligence agencies all over the world. The only thing that will save you now is yourself. Good luck with that. Seriously, I mean it.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930
STEP ONE: Go to google images.
STEP TWO: Type in "flight 77 debris".
STEP THREE: Pull your head out of your ass.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Bob Pugh, independent cameraman, filmed the pentagon on 911. In his video, there is no obvious plane wreckage. No large tail pieces, no luggage and no bodies. Get lost fool. 911 was an inside job. I look forward to a face to face conversation when this reality falls on it's face. See you then.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
haha this is too funny xD kinda reminds me of a teletubby xD
ILikeWeatherGuy 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 The one and only physical limit of any relevance here is Mach 1. At sea level, that's 340.29 m/s, 761.21 miles/hr or 661.5 kt. Both aircraft that hit the WTC were well below Mach 1 at 383 and 470 kt.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You still don't understand me. I said that aircraft have large safety margins that suicide hijackers are not likely to follow. The simple fact that an airplane is rated for a certain speed does not mean the airplane is guaranteed to instantly fall apart at that speed plus one meter per second.
Besides, the actual figures were 383 kt for AA11 and 470 kt for UA175.
Your case is extremely weak. Nonexistent, in fact.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
@ApolloWasReal Then show me the VMO/MMO limitations review fact sheet from Boeing that indicates a 767 would be capable of that speed. The engines and the frame were not designed for that speed and structural failure would have set in well before the craft struck the building. Don't play word games. Science facts are just that, science facts. "Wing flap" would have ripped the alleged 767 from the sky before it could have hit the target.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Man I was just reading some posts from you from about 5 months ago.
You were a very condescending little prick now that I look back, and I never insulted you until about the 6th time you said to me "you're too stupid for words" and things to that effect.
Now that I read some of these posts, I realize how arrogant, conceited and condescending you were,trying to belittle me with your dumb-ass ignorance.
Looks like you didn't have us crusaders on the run after all.
Too stupid
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Wrong again! Aircraft have safety margins. Flying an aircraft over its published safe limits does NOT guarantee that it will fall out of the sky. It simply increases the probability of a failure. But hey, you'll still believe whatever you want to believe, even that 767s didn't hit the WTC despite thousands of people seeing them do just that with their own eyes.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago