« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13   Go Down

Shuttle crashs

  • 360 Replies
  • 77538 Views
?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1512
  • +0/-0
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Shuttle crashs
« on: January 26, 2008, 08:06:36 PM »
Tom Bishop claims that we have never gone into space along with other FE'rs.  My question is what about the shuttles that crashed on their return trip?  Where they not coming from space?
Logged
Quote from: Eddy Baby on May 24, 2011, 05:54:00 PM
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.
?

eric bloedow

Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2008, 08:26:22 PM »
i talked about this before: apparently Tom thinks the space shuttle can turn invisible and make vertical takesoffs and landings, like the fictional starship in Star Trek 4.

hell, just this week he claimed it could land on an aircraft carrier!
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2008, 08:27:26 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 26, 2008, 08:26:22 PM
i talked about this before: apparently Tom thinks the space shuttle can turn invisible and make vertical takesoffs and landings, like the fictional starship in Star Trek 4.

hell, just this week he claimed it could land on an aircraft carrier!

IT'S CALLED A FUCKING BIRD OF FUCKING PREY!!!!!!!!!

And I thought Tom claimed they could go into space?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2008, 09:00:14 PM »
Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 26, 2008, 08:06:36 PM
Tom Bishop claims that we have never gone into space along with other FE'rs.  My question is what about the shuttles that crashed on their return trip?  Where they not coming from space?

The Shuttle crashes were a prop malfunction.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2008, 09:35:19 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 26, 2008, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 26, 2008, 08:06:36 PM
Tom Bishop claims that we have never gone into space along with other FE'rs.  My question is what about the shuttles that crashed on their return trip?  Where they not coming from space?

The Shuttle crashes were a prop malfunction.

...
Logged
?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • +0/-0
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2008, 09:45:16 PM »
Quote
The Shuttle crashes were a prop malfunction.

Then how did one crash coming back in from a height an airplane couldn't reach?
Logged
*

Optimus Prime

  • 1147
  • +0/-0
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2008, 12:09:12 AM »
Give it a minute... Tom will have to get a script edit for this one... I don't think it's been specifically brought up before...

Wait for iiiiiiiit.... ;)
Logged
Dyslexics are teople poo!
*

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1337
  • +5/-2
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2008, 12:46:01 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow
just this week he claimed it could land on an aircraft carrier!

Interesting point considering Charles Johnson's claim that the space shuttles are used for narcotics laundering, and the well known fact of CIA involvement in the drug trade and the fact that the CIA regularly uses the military to do things.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/default.htm

Space shuttles are high altitude airplanes that do not fly as high as is claimed.  (Unfortunately, the US government certainly does not have a reputation for honesty, and neither should anyone who insists its baseless claims are genuine.)

There is a claim that several of the so-called "space" shuttles have been shot down deliberately as part of an inside job for an unscrupulous test or experiment.
http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/skies/skies5.htm
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2008, 02:11:35 AM »
Quote from: Optimus Prime on January 27, 2008, 12:09:12 AM
Give it a minute... Tom will have to get a script edit for this one... I don't think it's been specifically brought up before...

Wait for iiiiiiiit.... ;)


Woohoo... Hey, Tom... What does this say? (Case-sensitive)

« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 02:16:14 AM by Trekky0623 »
Logged
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2008, 03:23:59 AM »
ERROR: Unable to identify image.

The shuttles were faked, in fact they were taken up to high altitude by antigravity lasers projected from the surface of the earth by hidden bases. The conspiracy invented this technology instead of going into space, which they knew was impossible. The laser aren't visible, but the shuttles were props loaded with pyrotechnics in order to make us think that NASA actually made mistakes.

DISCLAIMER: I do not actually believe this shit, and in order not to be perceived as offensive to the families of the souls who died on those shuttles, I am putting this Disclaimer in to state that I am in fact being sarcastic.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2008, 10:31:07 AM »
Quote from: Germanicus on January 26, 2008, 09:45:16 PM
Quote
The Shuttle crashes were a prop malfunction.

Then how did one crash coming back in from a height an airplane couldn't reach?

The Shuttles are high altitude gliders.

How would you know how high it was when it was crashing into the earth?
Logged
?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • +0/-0
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2008, 12:35:19 PM »
Observation
Logged
?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2008, 01:17:07 PM »
Gliders are really light. They wouldn't be carrying around tonnes of rocket fuel, because then they wouldn't glide
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2008, 02:12:02 PM »
Quote from: The Evil Dr Robot-Ham on January 27, 2008, 01:17:07 PM
Gliders are really light. They wouldn't be carrying around tonnes of rocket fuel, because then they wouldn't glide
What would a glider use rocket fuel for?   ???
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2008, 03:10:50 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 26, 2008, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 26, 2008, 08:06:36 PM
Tom Bishop claims that we have never gone into space along with other FE'rs.  My question is what about the shuttles that crashed on their return trip?  Where they not coming from space?

The Shuttle crashes were a prop malfunction.
Couldn't they go into the upper atmosphere and have something go wrong?
Logged
?

Officer Friendly

  • 12
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2008, 04:27:48 PM »
The shuttles are high altitude gliders? How high? Debris from Columbia was observed entering the atmosphere. Aircraft can get that high, they're called rockets. So was the space shuttle a glider capable of riding one hell of a thermal, then gliding -gliding- through space, which is a difficult place to glide through, what with the no air, or was it a rocket. Which means rockets work just fine. Incidentally, i bought a child's toy that you use to estimate the height your model rocket reached. Explain how that works Bishop you lie-mongerer.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2008, 04:33:37 PM »
Why don't rockets work in the FE?   ???
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2008, 05:07:18 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on January 27, 2008, 04:33:37 PM
Why don't rockets work in the FE?   ???
Newton's laws unapply. duh.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2008, 05:13:20 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 26, 2008, 08:26:22 PM
i talked about this before: apparently Tom thinks the space shuttle can turn invisible and make vertical takesoffs and landings, like the fictional starship in Star Trek 4.

hell, just this week he claimed it could land on an aircraft carrier!

New plans for the space shuttle:

Logged
*

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1337
  • +5/-2
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2008, 11:21:24 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Shuttles are high altitude gliders.

This makes sense and seems rather plausible.
Logged
?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2008, 02:31:31 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on January 27, 2008, 02:12:02 PM
Quote from: The Evil Dr Robot-Ham on January 27, 2008, 01:17:07 PM
Gliders are really light. They wouldn't be carrying around tonnes of rocket fuel, because then they wouldn't glide
What would a glider use rocket fuel for?   ???

A glider wouldn't use rocket fuel. But we know the shuttles do use rocket fuel, because they explode in a fireball of burning rocket fuel when they crash. A glider wouldn't explode like that
Logged
?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • +0/-0
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2008, 09:02:49 AM »
Quote
This makes sense and seems rather plausible.
Except as pointed out before debris was observed entering the atmosphere.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2008, 09:43:16 AM »
Quote from: The Evil Dr Robot-Ham on January 28, 2008, 02:31:31 AM
A glider wouldn't use rocket fuel. But we know the shuttles do use rocket fuel, because they explode in a fireball of burning rocket fuel when they crash. A glider wouldn't explode like that
I've never seen a shuttle explode in a fireball of burning rocket fuel.   ???

The shuttle is a rocket when it is launched.  It is a glider when it reenters the atmosphere.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2008, 09:58:52 AM »
See Challenger explosion.





Your contention that those two are separate vehicles doesn't hold water, because not only are the crew the same, but also the most insignificant of marks(stuff like burns, scratches, etc.) Furthermore, are you trying to tell me that the crew of the shuttles didn't really die, and all of this is a fake? Tell that to their families, then we'll talk.

EDIT: Besides, nobody contends that the shuttle has fuel during the reentry phase, its too dangerous. They dump the fuel tanks, you know that, you've seen em. The red fuel tank and white boosters.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 10:05:13 AM by fshy94 »
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 10:50:15 AM »
They have fuel in the orbiter.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2008, 01:52:13 PM »
Quote from: fshy94 on January 28, 2008, 09:58:52 AM
See Challenger explosion.
Challenger did not explode.

Quote
Your contention that those two are separate vehicles doesn't hold water, because not only are the crew the same, but also the most insignificant of marks(stuff like burns, scratches, etc.)
I didn't say anything about there being two different vehicles.  I said it is a rocket going up and a glider coming down. 
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2008, 01:58:36 PM »
From wikipedia's article on the space shuttle:

Quote
The orbiter carries astronauts and payload such as satellites or space station parts into low earth orbit, into the Earth's upper atmosphere or thermosphere. Usually, five to seven crew members ride in the orbiter. The payload capacity is 50,000 lb (22,700 kg). When the orbiter's mission is complete it fires its Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) thrusters to drop out of orbit and re-enters the lower atmosphere. During the descent and landing, the shuttle orbiter acts as a glider, and makes a completely unpowered ("dead stick") landing.

I thought the fact that it goes up as a rocket and comes down as a glider was pretty common knowledge.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2008, 02:24:03 PM »
Well, technically, it deflagrated, but same difference, it clearly carried fuel. And I thought you were talking about conspiracy, what with two different craft.

And I thought that fact was common knowledge as well, hence why I assumed you must be talking conspiracy :D
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2008, 02:26:26 PM »
Quote from: fshy94 on January 28, 2008, 02:24:03 PM
Well, technically, it deflagrated
It neither exploded nor burned.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2008, 02:30:38 PM »
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Gods of Knowledge
When the external tank disintegrated, the fuel and oxidizer stored within it were released, producing the appearance of a massive fireball. However, according to the NASA team that analyzed imagery after the accident, there was only "localized combustion" of propellant.[8] Instead, the visible cloud was primarily composed of vapor and gases resulting from the release of the shuttle's liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellant. Stored in cryogenic conditions, the liquid hydrogen could not have ignited rapidly enough to trigger an "explosion" in the traditional sense of a detonation (as opposed to a deflagration, which was what occurred).

Not in the traditional sense, yes, but clearly, the fuel was in there, as evidenced by the "fireball", which as you pointed out, is a  misnomer. It's just so commonly referred to as explosion, that I used that too. It did get released, and react with oxygen...hence...burning.
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13   Go Up
« previous next »