Did A Man Really Walk On The Moon?

Oscar winner faces 9/11 backlash

I think we’re lied to about a number of things,” the Paris-born 32-year-old is seen saying in French.

“We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes, are they burned?” she asks. “There was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burned for 24 hours.

“It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed.”

The Twin Towers, she claims, were a “money sucker” that would have cost much more to modernise than to destroy.

The actress goes on to cast doubt on the Moon landing of 1969. “Did a man really walk on the moon?” she asks.

“I saw plenty of documentaries on it and I really wondered. In any case I don’t believe all they tell me.”

Seriously though, does anyone still believe the official Moon landing story? And as for November the 9th…


7 Comments on “Did A Man Really Walk On The Moon?”

  1. Josh says:

    The towers were able to withstand the original collision from the plane, however, the 90,000 gallons of jet fuel it carried exploded and triggered it’s collapse. As for the moon landing, there’s been numerous documents proving its legitimacy. This lady has factual proof right in front of her, but she decides to ignore it.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Not sure why you wrote what you wrote, Josh. You are very wrong, and it’s comments like yours…made without science or math to back them up…that do nothing but perpetuate the lies involving the events of September 11th, 2001.

    The below text, written by Jerry Russell, has a master’s degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

    “Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.

    Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.

    Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.

    How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.

    A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.

    An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.

    The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.

    As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here’s the proof.

    The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

    It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

    Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

    This proves controlled demolition.

    We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.

    A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.

    But let’s suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.

    Let’s suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.

    If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.

    If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.

    How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.

    There was more “magic” at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee.

    The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments.

    Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher.

    A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country.

    The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students.

    At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons.

    First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers.

    Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them.

    For these reasons, the Arab hijackers’ mission should have been an ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for many years now.

    But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was operating them?

    The World Trade Center towers are designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers.

    If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been explained.

    While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the US military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight was also “hijacked” that day, but it was apparently struck down by some sort of missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania.

    Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has continued to the present day. Our traditional American form of government, unfortunately, may not survive — the Patriot Act appears poised to supersede the Bill of Rights.

    Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that the Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day.”

    See also:


  3. boberton says:

    how can she not belive ALL the moon landings? theres alot of proof of the moon landings.

  4. Graeme Ellis says:


    “Highly Skilled aerobatic maneuvers”? The hi-jackers were simply trying to control the aircraft! It is not hard for the average person to fly an aircraft, even a jetliner. The hard part is the landing, and not overstressing the airframe. The hijackers were exceeding the design specifications of the aircraft, and not doing an aerobatics show.

    There is no “anti-hyjacker” system aboard any aircraft. How would the autopilot recognize that the aeroplane was being hijacked? Also, the autoland feature found on many commercial jetliners must be programmed by the pilot, and will not come on automatically. It requires the pilot to line up the aircraft, plug in the VOR, and then, take control after landing.

    F-16’s WERE scrambled from the nearest AFB, but were not instructed to shoot down either of the jetliners, as, until then, a hijacking normally involved landing and demanding ransom.

    Sorry, but I had to correct you.

  5. steve says:

    There have been several documentaries done about the structural issues with heat annealing structural steel. The blasts knocking off fire insulation and like a house of cards it just folded up. Steel bends when it’s hot and is softer and will stay softer. I run tower cranes and have learned that any side hit could crumple me right up!! So I always keep things away from the tower crane. Designs are never perfect either in building. It is a give and take. You want windows, OK, you want no columns in a work space, OK…etc. The buildings are not comparable. The 30’s design is just a tank of a building. Like all modern buldings. I have demolished old bridges and they are twice as heavy for example in 1950 than now even. No exaggerations needed. There was not 90,000 gallons of fuel on the planes we know and the poster was making that obvious. Now was the Empire State building hit by bombs (???wtf) in WW-II. A plane flew into it yes, but Mr PHD Russel written premise is untrue. “Bomber strike” made me think, bomber strike!! That’s a lie. A plane going way slower, way lighter, way less fuel. A big difference between 150 mph and nearly 700 mph. The load moment at impact is phenomenal with that weight. What was the weight of the office machinery and extra wiring the building? The poster gives some equation to engineering, I think to establish their credibility. How much heavier though was the load inside than in 1976?

    It happened so quickly too. The planes took off and in a few minutes were into the towers. Even identifying all domestic flights and raising them takes time and I think there was just not any.

    If Mr Russell is a structural engineer he should mention things about structural engineering and the loads on the building. Why the building failed. What forces made the building fail.

    If our President had gotten up in the middle of reading the goat story and blasted out of the room shouting, ” I gotta goooooo”. Then it would have been he was ,”uncomposed and left the class disheveled”. He is “not a leader” would have been the rant.

    Nobody knew. Remember how quiet it was Sept 12th. Remember how we felt? It was an attack as Dec 7th was. Could we have done better, sure. Well 20/20 hindsight does a couple things, one is fruitful, the other is not.

    1. We blame and finger point. Clinton could have done different, could have had Bin Laden. Bush could have done different, could. We could have produced/drill for more oil for 40 years and we wouldn’t even be in the middle east at all. See that does not change now.

    2. We do different. We make buildings better. We pay more attention to what is going on, all of us. We as a nation track a LOT more stuff down. Sometimes it’s too much, (friskin grannies at LAX). But alas we are. Even if some of it has no common sense.

    We are stuck with doing different in the now.

  6. Paige says:

    What kind of fricken moron are you if you dont believe that we have landed on the moon?? there’s pictures, books, heck, there’s even eye-witness evidence that we have!! I’m in 9th grade at a private high school, and I really don’t think that every single up-to-date textbook that we use and 40,000 dollar-paid teacher is lying to us all. Get the wax out of your ears, crawl out from the rock you live under, and go to a fricken history museum, idiot! god damn, we humans can be soooo shallow and naive đŸ˜›

  7. ripper6871 says:

    Unbelievable. I cannot believe someone who thinks he is learned, would write the drivel about the towers collapse
    being a huge plot by the US. But we not only find idiots that write it, but we don’t seem to be short on people that would believe it. I’m not an architect, but I do know when they try to make a skyscraper strong, they don’t say, “Gee, we better be sure a jetliner full of fuel, can hit the building and not cause a collapse.” I don’t think they made it “plane crash safe.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s