Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob

  • 29 Replies
  • 4587 Views
*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« on: June 15, 2007, 08:24:07 PM »
Hey y'all, I know you what you might be a thinkin': What the heck is another nooblet doing posting another useless thread about evidence for the conspiracy.

So, here's my question (for those that are total idiots and haven't already figured it out): Is there any hard evidence for the Conspiracy? Not the burning of the library and other non-facts, but actual hard proof, documents, and other things.


Oh, and Tom, stay the heck out of here unless you have actual evidence.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17947
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2007, 08:28:51 PM »
A piece of foam destroyed a multi billion dollar space shuttle on live TV. How's that for hard evidence?

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2007, 08:38:16 PM »
Dear god, must we go over that again? I assume that you mean the Colombia and/or Challenger shuttle disasters.

Until I know which one you are talking about, I will not post anything (i give him 2 days to repost here).
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2007, 08:41:32 PM »
Correction, a piece of foam traveling ~800 MpH damaged a multi billion dollar space shuttle on live TV. The shuttle was then destroyed by heat in excess of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit on said damaged area of space shuttle. Anything else? Seriously Tom, your shit's weak sauce.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2007, 08:42:50 PM »
Err...

That was what I was trying to avoid: An explanation of the other shuttle explosion, not the one he meant.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

?

Ammo

  • 209
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2007, 08:53:15 PM »
A piece of foam destroyed a multi billion dollar space shuttle on live TV. How's that for hard evidence?

what the fuck does that have to do with a conspiracy.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Tom has a BS in BS.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2007, 08:58:10 PM »
Proving that NASA uses cheap balsa wood in their fake shuttles and thus proving that they area Conspiracy.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2007, 09:07:51 PM »
C'mon Ammo, get you stuff together! We ALL know how easy it is to build a craft as large as a 757 out of balsa wood, and then shoot it into the air with liquid fuel rockets.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2007, 09:35:59 PM »
The key is to only using elmer's to put it together.


And... Back on Topic.

Here Tom, here boy! I got a nice place where you can copy and paste!
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2007, 09:50:20 PM »
Err...

That was what I was trying to avoid: An explanation of the other shuttle explosion, not the one he meant.
He could not possibly mean the Challenger mission, it was destroyed by poor construction of the solid rocket booster. That and NASA launched outside of the safety margin stated by the SRB's designers, which was actually much smaller, but this was not realized until after the disaster. The designers original safety margin test results was obscured by hundreds of other documents (specs, test results, systems diagrams, etc...). NASA acknowledges that the people in charge of giving the go/no go for launch were irresponsible and the launch minimums were raised substantially their after. Not to mention the SRB manufacturer received quite the backlash and the SRB its self was completely overhauled.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2007, 09:52:18 PM »
My apologies, a quick read of Wikipedia had given me an innacurate picture of what had happened, and thus my arguement was off, thank you for correcting me.

And, Tom, come on boy.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2007, 09:56:02 PM »
My apologies, a quick read of Wikipedia had given me an innacurate picture of what had happened, and thus my arguement was off, thank you for correcting me.

And, Tom, come on boy.
No problem, everyone makes mistakes. What really matters is the ability to admit them.
<cough>FE'ers?</cough>

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2007, 09:58:32 PM »
Don't be silly Renty, it is in an FE'ers genetic makeup that they can't admit a mistake. Instead, they have to leave the thread and never return. If one is Tom Bishop (before being semi-banned) one would simply delete the thread.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2007, 10:11:17 PM »
You must have read my article. Horray!  ;D

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2007, 10:14:20 PM »
ACtually no, but I see your point.


And Tom, I know you are on right now, come out, come out wherever you are.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2007, 08:56:30 AM »
Plain and simple Tom.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2007, 01:53:52 PM »
Tom, I beg you to post at least one more time.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2007, 03:31:49 PM »
There is no hard evidence that doesn't make better sense if the conspiracy is fake.

eg Launchpad fires in the early days, forcing the government to fake the rest of tthe space race.

Maybe they wer using crappy technology and it went wrong?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17947
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2007, 05:19:17 PM »
Correction, a piece of foam traveling ~800 MpH damaged a multi billion dollar space shuttle on live TV. The shuttle was then destroyed by heat in excess of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit on said damaged area of space shuttle. Anything else? Seriously Tom, your shit's weak sauce.

If the shuttle is traveling at 800mph and a piece of foam falls off, it does not strike the shuttle at 800 mph.

Despite what NASA uses as an excuse, despite what avoidance techniques their public relations people babble, the bottom line is that a piece of foam destroyed a multi-billion dollar space shuttle.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 05:25:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2007, 05:32:36 PM »
Ok, Tom. Maybe you should look up the reasons WHY a piece of foam would destroy a space shuttle before you bash the idea.
Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open.

*cough* Tom *cough*

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2007, 10:23:27 PM »
The heat tiles on the space shuttle are basically the consistency of charcoal so a relatively large pice of foam striking it would cause some damage, nothing really that dramatic on its own, but then when you pair that small crack with 3000 degree heat it becomes a major problem becuase that much heat will flow through the crack and ravage whatever is behind it ie. a wing and cause catastrophic failure
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2007, 10:42:21 PM »
If the shuttle is traveling at 800mph and a piece of foam falls off, it does not strike the shuttle at 800 mph.

Why do you do this to your self Tuna? I'm sorry but I'm afraid I must give you a digital mushroom slap: The foam would not go as fast as the shuttle, your right. I was being generous with 800 Mph. The foam more than likely was going in excess of 1000 Mph, and the shuttle would have been pushing 2000 Mph. You obviously know nothing of  (theorized at the least) space flight, so the next time you try and counter an argument involving space flight, be prepared for the same phallus shaped red mark across ones cheek.

Despite what NASA uses as an excuse, despite what avoidance techniques their public relations people babble, the bottom line is that a piece of foam destroyed a multi-billion dollar space shuttle.

Show me something that doesn't get destroyed by a piece of foam traveling ~800 Mph and I will show you something that was never intended to go into space (a main battle tank, for example). Keep in mind that this "foam" has the consistency of concrete, but much lighter weight.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 10:45:40 PM by rentacow »

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2007, 12:26:35 AM »
Tom, the shuttle is going a lot more than 800 mph when the foam flew off and hit. The air resistance and other things caused the foam to slow down to roughly 800 mph, and the difference in speed of the foam and the shuttle is how fast the foam hit the shuttle (not sure if 800 is a correct figure, whether it is the speed difference, or lotsa other little details, but the post is still valid).


EDIT: You snuck in there Renty. Curses...
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2007, 01:22:25 AM »
Tom, the shuttle is going a lot more than 800 mph when the foam flew off and hit. The air resistance and other things caused the foam to slow down to roughly 800 mph, and the difference in speed of the foam and the shuttle is how fast the foam hit the shuttle (not sure if 800 is a correct figure, whether it is the speed difference, or lotsa other little details, but the post is still valid).


EDIT: You snuck in there Renty. Curses...
lol, Sorry.
Yes, the velocity difference is right. remember that the shuttle is going 2000 Mph*, and the foam, 1000 give or take 200 Mph. The foam is hauling ass no matter what way you slice it.

*Still not nearly fast enough for orbital velocity (~17,000 Mph). The shuttle is also only about 200 miles down range. Video evidence shows a large piece of foam passing the leading edge of the wing very early in the launch, thus my estimated speeds.

Keep on diggin' that grave Tuna. Is their any OTHER evidence suggesting a conspiracy?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2007, 01:24:34 AM by rentacow »

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2007, 10:18:58 AM »
Yes Tom, care to share with the class?

is Tom tuna?
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2007, 10:23:48 AM »
A piece of foam destroyed a multi billion dollar space shuttle on live TV. How's that for hard evidence?
Extremely dense insulation foam which is not light especially taking into account the size of the piece which hit the shuttle, The silicone based ceramic tiles are unbelieveable fragile, i know as i've experimented with them myself, bad results when dropped -o-

there was now a space where there is no ceramic tiles to deflect heat causing the duralumin body to melt at approximately 1200 degrees, more than enough to vapourise the material in the 3000 degree entry temperature.

Don't question my understanding of material properties as i am an engineer, you will not win.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2007, 10:28:28 AM »
Just stop guys, Tom has left this thread when he saw he had lost.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2007, 10:36:53 AM »
The problem is that he will never admit it. If he would admit it rather than continuing to argue with us, I would be happy.
Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open.

*cough* Tom *cough*

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2007, 11:17:23 AM »
I'm pretty sure there is zero evidence of the conspiracy.

Re: Conspiracy Evidence, not a noob
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2007, 11:18:46 AM »
I'me pretty sure your correct.
Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open.

*cough* Tom *cough*