KungFuSV

… you’re still basing your beliefs and claims on commonly spread conspiracy “theories” that have already been disproven by real science and engineering assessments … again - did you read my prior reply post on this topic, that discussed the NIST findings? If not, please read the details in results of that assessment … just because something happened for the first time doesn’t mean that it was intentionally induced by man via demolition!

dude.... come on..... long span floor beams = better constructed using modern construction techniques. Firefighters could barely do anything in HK which is why it was engulfed in huge flames for 48 HOURS!!!! 😱😱😱 see the pics man........ they totally lost control of the fire..... you're really not helping yourself here dude.... modern skyscraper like office buildings DO NOT come crashing down from fires...... it was cleary planned demolitions..... open your eyes dude..... stop being so gullible and believing everything mainstream media says...... 😩 No other 100m+ steel-framed skyscraper has ever suffered total fire-induced collapse except for WTC7......

'You're full of shit!' Watch more of Piers Morgan discussing Artemis II with sceptic Bart Sibrel and Dr. Brian Keating👇 📺 youtu.be/ZhJP3a_r01M @piersmorgan | @DrBrianKeating

... again -- a false analogy! Did you read my replies about this WTC 7 issue? One key difference is that, due to lack of available firefighters, WTC 7 suffered an "unusual" failure (per Grok) -- "WTC 7 had long-span floor beams (common in modern offices) over a Con Edison substation. Fires caused thermal expansion of steel beams/girders at temperatures hundreds of degrees *below* typical fire-resistance design limits. On Floor 13, a critical girder 'walked off' its seat on Column 79, causing floors to collapse around it. This removed lateral support from Column 79 over nine stories, leading it to buckle. Progressive failure then spread east-to-west through the core columns, then to the exterior, causing the entire building above to descend as a unit." Now then - those high rises in HK did NOT have the same long-span floor beams and DID have firefighters to douse those fires, so the situations are, once again, totally different!

@KungFuSV @bodycountometer @frank_wess6648 @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating Wait you think those Hong Kong towers burning for 48 hours straight were constructed better than WTC7?!?!?! 🤭🤭🤭 👇👇👇

... come on, bro! That video's claims are so naive and silly that I almost didn't bother to comment on it! -------- 1) Color images of USA flag (per Grok) -- Starting with Apollo 12, NASA upgraded to a color TV camera for the lunar surface EVAs. These provided full-color video of the astronauts interacting with the flag: Apollo 12: Color footage shows astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean deploying and saluting the flag. Apollo 14: Clear color video of Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell planting the flag (including moments where they adjust it). This is one of the better-known color sequences. Apollo 15, 16, and 17: Multiple color video clips show the flag being planted, saluted, or visible in the background during rover drives and other activities. Apollo 17 has some of the longest and clearest color surface video, including the flag at the Taurus-Littrow site. 2) Flag fluttering on the Moon -- what a silly claim, as even the images shown in the referenced video clip did NOT show any fluttering of a USA flag that was planted on the surface ... so claim was debunked by the same video that made the claim (how embarrassing)! 3) Clarity of images -- whoever made that claim in the video clip, obviously did NOT know about the TRUE state of imaging technology, even back then! Are you aware about those top secret spy satellites that were parked in geosynchronous orbits, back then? To "spy" on Soviet Union? They had high enough resolution to read newspaper headlines from geosynchronous orbits in outer space! I could go on, but you should be getting the "picture," by now! 😛

@frank_wess6648 @bodycountometer @KungFuSV @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating This is good 👇👇👇

@treasureh8nter @frank_wess6648 @bodycountometer @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating ... again -- shouldn't jump to pre-conceived conclusions ... read the gist of NIST's assessments about WTC 7, as summarized in one of my other (long) replies about this topic.

Yeah it’s Hong Kong, my point is if these 4 tower blocks that were made before the WTC7 building was made, could withstand a fire for 48 hours and not come down, then I’m pretty sure WTC7 could withstand 7 hours of fires….. It was definitely a controlled demolition that brought the entire building down. ☝️ Which means 9/11 was a planned inside job with people setting up charges inside all World Trade Center buildings.

... shouldn't jump to pre-conceived conclusions -- can't meaningfully compare the two cases, anyway, since many factors are totally different ... including the design and construction of the buildings, nature of building fire impacts, efforts to try and save the building (before collapse), etc.

So last year these 4 high rise towers built BEFORE WTC7 in Hong Kong were on fire for more than 48 hours……. Guess how many crashed down like WTC7 did….. 🤣🤣🤣 NONE 😱😱😱 WTC7 crashed down from fires in like what 2 hours?!?!? Whenever someone believes 9/11 WTC7 came down naturally due to fire, you know they are gullible AF!!!! 😩

... not much A$$ to kick, as there have been other such "testimonials" by other demolition "experts" that were NOT privy to the depth of information available for the NIST assessment ... and they have been debunked ... ... arriving at a conclusion solely based on viewing some limited video clips, is kinda like a medical examiner proclaiming the results of an autopsy on a corpse, while never even having been present during that autopsy procedure! 🤔 Read my other long reply post carefully to get the "rest of the story" about this controversy!

@bodycountometer @KungFuSV @treasureh8nter @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2RIq… We Dutch do the best ass kicking, and this is from an actual demolition expert. But I bet you are good little sheep.

... seems like I overlooked replying, so here we go -- A)  Flawed conspiracy claims about WTC Building 7 Collapse (per Grok) -- WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires, as conclusively determined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) after a multi-year investigation involving computer modeling, structural analysis, video evidence, and physical data. The claim that fires inside WTC 7 could not have caused its collapse (often tied to controlled-demolition theories) has been thoroughly debunked by peer-reviewed engineering analysis, independent reviews, and physical evidence. No credible structural engineering consensus supports explosives or other non-fire mechanisms. Below is a fact-based breakdown addressing the key claims. What actually happened: The fire-induced collapse mechanism ** Debris from WTC 1 started the fires: When the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., debris damaged WTC 7 (370 feet away), severing up to seven exterior columns on the south and west faces and igniting fires on at least 10 floors (primarily lower floors 7–9 and 11–13). ** Fires burned uncontrolled for ~7 hours: The building's sprinkler system failed because the water supply was cut off (damage from earlier tower collapses). These were ordinary office-content fires (furniture, paper, etc.), not diesel-fuel fires (NIST ruled those out as a factor—no sustained heat or visible smoke consistent with fuel oil). ** Unique structural vulnerabilities amplified the damage: WTC 7 had long-span floor beams (common in modern offices) over a Con Edison substation. Fires caused thermal expansion of steel beams/girders at temperatures hundreds of degrees below typical fire-resistance design limits. On Floor 13, a critical girder "walked off" its seat on Column 79, causing floors to collapse around it. This removed lateral support from Column 79 over nine stories, leading it to buckle. Progressive failure then spread east-to-west through the core columns, then to the exterior, causing the entire building above to descend as a unit. This was the first known case of a tall building collapsing primarily from fire, but the combination of prolonged uncontrolled fires + specific design features made it possible. NIST's models replicated the observed sequence exactly. Debunking the most common claims 1) "Fires have never collapsed a steel skyscraper before—so impossible" -- This was true until 9/11, but it ignores the unprecedented conditions here: no firefighting (FDNY focused on life safety elsewhere), failed sprinklers, 7+ hours of burning, and WTC 7's long-span design with transfer girders. NIST explicitly notes that if sprinklers had worked, collapse would likely have been prevented. The event led to 13 building-code recommendations (e.g., better fire endurance for long-span structures). No other tall building has matched these exact conditions. 2) "It fell in free-fall at demolition speed / symmetrically like a controlled demolition" -- ** The visible north-face collapse (18 stories) took 5.4 seconds—40% longer than pure free-fall (3.9 seconds). ** NIST broke it into three stages based on video analysis: * Stage 1 (0–1.75 s): Slower than gravity (exterior columns buckling). * Stage 2 (1.75–4.0 s, ~2.25 s duration): Gravitational acceleration (free-fall) because the internal structure had already failed, providing negligible resistance. * Stage 3 (4.0–5.4 s): Slowed again by debris resistance below. The symmetry resulted from internal progressive failure (core first), not simultaneous explosive cutting of all columns. Demolition charges would produce audible blasts and visible flashes/ejecta—none observed. 3) "Explosives / controlled demolition (no plane hit it, so must be pre-rigged)" ** NIST tested blast scenarios: Even the smallest charge to fail one critical column would produce 130–140 dB sounds audible for miles. No such sounds were recorded, and seismic data showed nothing. ** No explosive residues found. No evidence of pre-planted devices (thousands of pounds of cutter charges + wiring would have been noticed during years of occupancy). ** Simulations of hypothetical blasts did not match the observed collapse sequence or timing.Claims of "near-simultaneous column failure" come from outlier studies (e.g., a 2020 University of Alaska Fairbanks report funded by 9/11 Truther groups). These have been rejected by mainstream engineering bodies; they used flawed assumptions about fire temperatures and ignored NIST's validated multi-step modeling. 4) Other minor claims (diesel fuel, "pull it" quote, etc.) ** Diesel: NIST explicitly ruled it out—insufficient heat/sustainment and no matching smoke plumes. ** "Pull it" (Larry Silverstein quote): Actually refers to withdrawing firefighters, not demolition (standard FDNY terminology). ** Foreknowledge (BBC reported collapse early): Simple miscommunication amid chaos; the building was visibly bulging and creaking for hours, and officials expected failure. The evidence is overwhelming and transparent NIST's 2008 final report (NCSTAR 1A) is publicly available, based on thousands of documents, photos, videos, interviews, and advanced simulations. It was open to public comment and has withstood scrutiny for 15+ years. Independent reviews (Popular Mechanics, structural engineering journals, USA Today fact-checks) all affirm the findings. Alternative theories rely on cherry-picked videos, misrepresentations of "free fall," or appeals to "it looks like a demolition" without addressing the physics, audio/seismic data, or lack of explosive evidence. No peer-reviewed engineering study has overturned NIST's conclusions. In short, fires did cause the collapse of WTC 7 under the specific conditions present on 9/11. The science is settled. B)  Flawed support for WTC 7 conspiracy claims, as provided by Univ of Alaska at Fairbanks (per Grok) -- The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study on WTC 7, led by Prof. J. Leroy Hulsey (with co-authors Feng Xiao and Zhili Quan), does not successfully debunk or invalidate the NIST explanation for the building's collapse. It was a four-year computer modeling effort (draft 2019, final report March 2020) funded entirely by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), an advocacy group whose stated mission is to challenge the official 9/11 narrative and promote controlled demolition as the cause. Its principal conclusions were that (1) fires could not have caused the observed collapse, and (2) the only mechanism matching the videos was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. The team used finite-element modeling (SAP2000 and ABAQUS) to simulate structural response to fire loads below Floor 13 and to test NIST's initiation hypothesis (thermal expansion leading to girder walk-off at Column 79). They released their massive model dataset (hundreds of GB) for public review. While the study is detailed and transparent in releasing data, it has fundamental flaws in methodology, assumptions, independence, and scientific acceptance that render its conclusions unreliable as a rebuttal to the NIST findings. Here's a breakdown: 1. Clear sponsorship bias and lack of independence AE911Truth commissioned and fully funded the project (~$316k). Hulsey had prior connections to the group. The two external peer reviewers listed in the final report—Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski and Dr. Robert Korol—have both co-authored papers and statements supporting controlled-demolition hypotheses for the WTC towers. This is not the independent, arms-length peer review expected in mainstream structural/fire engineering. The study was explicitly framed as a reevaluation aimed at testing (and ultimately contradicting) NIST. Models were used to rule out fire scenarios rather than neutrally exploring what could have happened under realistic conditions. This reverse-engineering approach designing/testing to match a desired outcome (symmetric near-free-fall collapse requiring simultaneous column removal)—is not standard scientific practice for forensic failure analysis. 2. Oversimplified and unrealistic fire modeling NIST's multi-year investigation (detailed in NCSTAR 1A and supporting reports) used physics-based simulations calibrated against extensive evidence: videos, photos, eyewitness accounts, debris analysis, and fire-spread data. Fires burned uncontrolled for ~7 hours on multiple floors (especially 7–9 and 11–13), fueled by office contents, with debris damage from WTC 1's collapse dislodging fireproofing. Thermal expansion of long-span floor beams/girders (a design feature of WTC 7) led to a critical girder (A2001) losing support at Column 79, triggering interior progressive collapse that pulled the exterior columns inward. The UAF team instead applied simplified, uniform temperature distributions and static/linear analyses in key stages. They did not fully replicate the dynamic, time-varying, multi-floor fire progression or all observed damage/unknowns (e.g., exact insulation condition, construction variances). Early presentations (2017) contained clear errors, such as misstating NIST's boundary conditions (claiming fixed exterior walls when NIST used flexible ones) and comparing global vs. local displacements incorrectly. While the final report addressed some points, the core modeling still relied on assumptions that did not match the documented fire behavior. Critics (including technical analyses of the draft) noted issues like questionable animation sources, inconsistent use of dynamic analysis, and failure to show that no plausible fire scenario could initiate progressive failure—only that their specific simplified inputs did not. 3. Does not actually disprove fire-induced progressive collapse The UAF claim that "only near-simultaneous failure of all columns" matches the videos is the key overreach. NIST never claimed a single-point failure; their global LS-DYNA models showed cascading connection failures and floor collapses over multiple stories, leading to rapid buckling and the observed exterior facade behavior (initial east penthouse drop, then full collapse in ~5.4 seconds with a brief period of near-free-fall acceleration once the interior had already failed). Progressive collapse in tall steel structures under fire can appear rapid and somewhat symmetric once critical thresholds are crossed—especially in a building with long-span girders and no active firefighting. UAF's own simulations ruled out their tested local failures but did not exhaustively test realistic, multi-floor fire scenarios with dynamic propagation. Proving "our model with these assumptions doesn't collapse from fire" ≠ proving "fire is impossible under any conditions." No other independent engineering analysis has replicated the UAF results or found NIST's core mechanism implausible. 4. No acceptance or publication in the broader engineering community The report was never submitted to or published in a peer-reviewed structural/fire engineering journal. It remains a university technical report promoted almost exclusively by AE911Truth and 9/11-focused outlets. Mainstream bodies (NIST, ASCE, SFPE, etc.) stand by the fire-induced collapse as the first well-documented case of its kind, leading to code changes on fireproofing, structural integrity, and sprinkler reliability. No professional engineering society has called for retracting NIST or adopting the UAF conclusions. In contrast, NIST's work involved hundreds of experts, physical testing, and validation against real-world data. It has been the basis for building safety improvements worldwide. Bottom line The UAF/Hulsey study is an advocacy-funded modeling exercise that challenges one specific aspect of NIST's initiation hypothesis under limited assumptions. It does not provide credible evidence that fire-induced collapse was "implausible" or that simultaneous column removal (the implication being explosives) is the only explanation. Its conclusions rest on biased sponsorship, simplified inputs that do not match the documented event, and selective testing that fails to rule out the full progressive-collapse mechanism NIST identified. The fire-induced collapse of WTC 7 remains the consensus explanation among structural and fire engineers, supported by the most comprehensive investigation conducted. Claims of controlled demolition require extraordinary evidence (undetected pre-planting in a heavily occupied/secure building, no matching seismic or audio signatures, etc.) that the UAF study simply does not supply. For the detailed NIST sequence, see their final report (NCSTAR 1A). For the UAF report itself, it is publicly available on the UAF site—review the assumptions carefully.

@KungFuSV @treasureh8nter @frank_wess6648 @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating Not saying you are gullible bro, but you can definitely trust me with your car keys and wife. Enjoy that holiday! Take all the time you need.

@treasureh8nter ... see my reply to you, under your response to OP.

This is an excellent compilation of all the reasons why the 1969 Apollo missions were totally fake and completely staged 👀👀👀 @KungFuSV 👇👇👇

... that list is so full of ERRORS that have long been DEBUNKED before! Do NOT be gullible to such BS ... I could DEBUNK that list, but it's too long for me to waste my time with that effort! Let me give you another example of similar FAKE info -- recall that incident called 9/11 back in 2001? WTC? All kinds of conspiracy BS with that event, as well -- there was even a video "documentary" about that, called "In Plane Sight" ... its premise was that those B767s that crashed into WTC were remote controlled and carried bombs in its belly that would get detonated just as they hit their buildings ... it even showed a bright flash in the belly of one B767, just as it hit its targeted building ... ... that seemed kinda "interesting," as I had previously purchased a CNN DVD documentary about that event and I had never noticed that flash when I watched that documentary, before ... so I retrieved that CNN DVD and played back that exact same video sequence ... and slowed down the playback of that scene to go into slow motion mode ... ... and guess what? There was NO SUCH FLASH in the ORIGINAL video of that crash into that building! NO FLASH, at all! That video sequence from "In Plane Sight" was post-edited to try and buttress its conspiratorial agenda! So ... I've seen too many such conspiracy BS about the Moon landing, as well, with one example being that claim about the Van Allen Belt being an unpassable radiation barrier that would have made the manned Moon mission to be "impossible" to occur ... which just shows how UNEDUCATED that claim is -- whatever radiation exposure there would be, is related to the length of time spent being exposed while passing through that Belt ... so when Apollo zips straight through, the amount of exposure wouldn't have amounted to anything of significance, anyway! Just one more example about claimed lack of any redundancy regarding equipment on the Apollo 11 spacecraft (per Grok) -- -------- Yes, Apollo 11's onboard electronics equipment included multiple redundancy features designed to reduce the criticality of single-point failures, particularly in guidance, navigation, control, and communications systems. These were critical for a crewed lunar mission where failures could be catastrophic, and NASA emphasized reliability through a combination of duplicated hardware, dissimilar backups, modular design, and software fault tolerance. Primary Guidance Systems (Apollo Guidance Computer – AGC) Apollo 11 carried two independent AGCs: one in the Command Module (Columbia) and one in the Lunar Module (Eagle). These handled guidance, navigation, and control (collectively the Primary Guidance, Navigation, and Control System or PGNCS in the LM). Having separate computers across the two spacecraft provided built-in redundancy for key flight phases. The AGCs used a modular design with standardized integrated circuits and included features like parity checking on memory words (to detect corruption) and interrupt handling for hardware issues. They were built for high reliability using early silicon chips, with no hardware failures occurring across the entire Apollo program. Abort Guidance System (AGS) – Dissimilar Redundancy in the Lunar Module The LM had a dedicated backup computer: the Abort Guidance System (AGS), built by TRW (different from the MIT/AGC team). This was explicitly engineered as dissimilar redundancy—using different hardware, architecture (e.g., a strapdown inertial measurement unit instead of the AGC's gimbaled one, an 18-bit MARCO 4418 computer with magnetic core memory, and separate software), and logic to avoid common-mode failures that could affect both systems simultaneously. The AGS could handle critical abort, ascent, and rendezvous tasks (e.g., liftoff from the Moon and docking with the Command Module) if the primary AGC/PGNCS failed, though it was not precise enough for landing. It was lighter and lower-power but sufficient for safe return. During Apollo 11 specifically, the AGS was used for attitude control after a gimbal lock during ascent and provided independent verification of navigation data ("Pings and Ags agree" calls were routine). It demonstrated its value by enabling continued operations when needed. Software and Fault-Tolerance Features in the AGC The AGC's real-time operating system used priority-driven scheduling and cooperative multi-tasking. It could perform "soft restarts" (automatically deleting lower-priority tasks while preserving critical guidance functions) in response to overloads or alarms. This was famously tested during Apollo 11's lunar descent, where 1201/1202 program alarms (caused by rendezvous radar data overload) triggered restarts, but the computer continued controlling the landing without interruption. Additional protections included restart safeguards against power transients, parity errors, or infinite loops. Other Onboard Electronics Redundancy Communications systems (S-band transponder for Earth link and VHF for LM-to-CM) included redundant components like backup power amplifiers, modulators, power supplies, receivers, and antennas. The VHF transceiver had two channels, with one as explicit backup; switching allowed continued voice, data, and ranging even after partial failures. Power and control systems incorporated redundancy (e.g., three fuel cells in the Command/Service Module, where any two sufficed; double regulators/check valves in propulsion; and 12 reaction-control thrusters in the LM, only six of which were needed). Note that the Saturn V launch vehicle's Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) used triple modular redundancy (three computers voting on results), but this was separate from the spacecraft's onboard electronics. These features reflected Apollo's overall philosophy: extensive redundancy (often dissimilar) where weight and power allowed, plus graceful degradation via software, to ensure crew safety and mission success even with partial failures. No critical electronics failures occurred on Apollo 11, and the systems performed as designed under real stress. -------- So ... do NOT automatically believe everything that is posted about those conspiracies BS ... especially if totally supportive of much desired self-confirmation bias! 🤔🙄

@frank_wess6648 @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @DrBrianKeating This is truly excellent!!! Thank you for compiling this sir!!!

@treasureh8nter @fetsmal ... seriously strange things are happening to many top scientists and engineers ... note especially the case regarding retired USAF Major General William Neil McCasland, a former AFRL Commander -- amgreatness.com/2026/03/30/som…

@KungFuSV @fetsmal Did you watch “the age of disclosure”?

If there was ever any more concrete evidence that we never landed on the moon in 1969 then here it is: NASA is about to launch Artemis 2 to fly around the moon and back. A non stop Journey. Yup that’s right, go around the moon and back…… Not land and come back. Just fly around and back. The Artemis shuttle will be in continuous motion there and back. We are struggling how to land on the moon and come back safely in 2026, do you really think we were able to do it in 1969?!?!? 🤭

... oh, that one? It is, as they say, complicated! There are many things presented that are true, and others that are distortions of actual truths, so do NOT believe everything that is presented, at face value! There IS an actual disinfo war going on, regarding this entire issue, and portions of what Luis Elizondo claims are NOT totally correct. There are also much more "stuff" that are involved, but apparently those have either been held back, or the producers and advisers just weren't aware about them. All in all, it's an "interesting" presentation, but gotta be careful about that disinfo war and impacts, thereof.

@treasureh8nter @fetsmal ... yes, indeed! He's absolutely correct! 🤔😱

@KungFuSV @fetsmal 👀👇👇👇

@treasureh8nter @fetsmal ... that was a rhetorical question, not a literal one! That said ... even if you already believe in space aliens, Disclosure (if/when it ever occurs) will still be extremely eye-opening ... for everyone (including me)! 🤔😲

@KungFuSV @fetsmal Dude you think I don’t think aliens exist?!?! Come on man…… 😅

... once again -- you're making claims without any credible facts to back those up! Every country will engage in some levels of lies and propaganda ... out of necessity! But that does NOT mean that everything, therefore, ends up being all lies and propaganda! You will be totally shocked at the level of technologies that existed, or were theorized, back then, but which subsequent federal government priorities then sacked and ignored for too many decades ... which sometimes inflicted totally insane and incompetent impacts upon progress in too many critical fields of endeavor! Do you realize that the foundational theoretical works for hypersonic flight physics were already done back during 1950s/1960s? What were missing, at that time, were the necessary manufacturing methods to fabricate required physical materials to implement those theories into actual practices in industry ... which we're just now finally inventing the required manufacturing methods to do that! I happen to know the story behind the computer codes that ran the Apollo capsule and how it had to get totally optimized to the max, in order to fit into the extremely limited memory space available inside those onboard mission computers ... those codes were developed by experts at MIT, so the "best" minds worked on that ... ... and NASA, back then, was staffed by tons of really competent actual scientists and engineers ... without any of the current Woke/D.E.I. BS that has destroyed too many otherwise bleeding edge programs ... in other words, back then, the situation was one of everyone working for the advancement of the country, in order to compete in that Cold War vs. USSR ... ... even today, there are still tons and tons of beyond top secret technologies that have continued to receive their required government funding, and have progressed way beyond everyone's wildest imaginations! Just as a quick teaser -- there actually exist "Star Trek" technologies that enable humans to travel among the stars in our galaxy and even beyond, to other galaxies ... but those are way beyond top secret, so we must still play along with currently restrictive space propulsion technologies like chemically fueled rockets to send payloads into space ... ... believe in space aliens from other worlds beyond our own Earth? Just wait for Disclosure to occur ... you will be totally shocked! I've already said too much, so that's it, for now! 🤔

If you think the US govt does not have the capacity to lie then I’m sorry buddy….. you need to open your eyes…. 😩 Think about it scientifically and technologically Purely from a 1969 technology capability capacity. There is NO WAY we could have landed on the moon back then with the tech we had…… FACT

... once again -- you're making baseless accusations (now even against ISRO?) that are NOT backed up with any credible proofs! Can you just provide some credible proofs for your accusations? You do realize that anyone can fabricate unproven claims and spread those around as "factual," right? 🤔

@KungFuSV @fetsmal Yes because there’s NO WAY 2021 pictures could be photoshopped right? 🤭🤭🤭 Come on bro you’re smarter than this…. 😩

... once again -- you're making a blanket claim about those Apollo photos being "fake" without any credible proof to back up that claim ... so how do you want to provide your credible proof that those pictures are all actually "fake"? Since you're totally skeptical of images from NASA, how about we look at related images taken independently by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) Chandrayaan2 (Lunar) Orbiter, of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 landing sites with their left-behind Lunar Modules (LMs) on the Moon's surface -- backyardastronomyguy.com/apollo-isro I hope you're NOT going to claim that ISRO is in cahoots with NASA about this issue? 🤔😛

@KungFuSV @fetsmal lol bro you do realise those Apollo photos are fake right? You have no idea what they look like. They could be freaking giant for all we know 🤭🤭🤭 Come on man…….

@treasureh8nter ... you won't get anywhere with your claims, if you just assume a blanket denial of anything that's related to NASA ... you have to actually prove your contentions with credible evidence to back up your claims!

@KungFuSV NASA supppsedly installed the reflectors on the moon All the info is given by NASA to these independent organisations.

Artemis 4 is when NASA plan to land humans ‘back’ on the moon. Have a look at their planned human landing system below. And compare it with what NASA used in 1969 on their successful Apollo 11 mission…… What’s wrong with the picture? It’s clear that the 1969 Apollo landing system was not possible nor realistic. Having the shuttle module in 1969 detach with the landing module, then landing, then the landing module launching again back into space and reattaching itself to the shuttle module, and then rocket boosting all the way back to earth would have been completely impossible without computers and advanced systems…… The new Artemis 4 system looks far more realistic by not having to detach and reattach but instead having the whole shuttle system land as a whole…. We CLEARLY never landed on the moon back in 1969…… 😉 Why are people so gullible?!?!?! 🤭 #NASA #Artemis2 #fakemoonlanding

... why is that such a difficult thing to do? They folded up that Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) and stored it in one of the quadrants of space available on the Lunar Module (LM) that descended to the Moon's surface ... since it measured only 5.5 × 5 × 3 feet when folded up, it was totally compact enough to fit.

LMAOOOO it really is ridiculous that people actually believe that they mounted the Lunar buggy on the side of the lunar module, flew it 250,000 miles, landed on the moon, took the buggy down, assembled it and drove around for a laugh 🤣🤣🤣 They really do think we are idiots!!!! 🤭 I’m looking forward to seeing them mount the buggy on Artemis 3 and 4 🤣🤣🤣 @KungFuSV

... not so fast on your conclusions! 1)  Apollo 11 landed men on the Moon and manually deployed the world's first laser reflector there on July 21, 1969 ... see pictures below (left column) for what USA's reflector looked like. 2)  Soviet Union's deployment of its first laser reflector (that was actually made by France) was done via being mounted upon its Lunakhod 1 lunar rover, as Soviet robotics capabilities, back then, most likely didn't yet allow separated deployment of such a package ... that deployment was done on November 17, 1970 (2nd time in history, some 1.3 years after Apollo 11) ... see picture below (right column) for what USSR's laser reflector assembly on its lunar rover looked like. 3)  Note the extreme differences in sizes of respective reflector assemblies ... the manually deployed one is much smaller than the one mounted upon a lunar rover ... so Apollo 11 actually did have its crew manually place its laser reflector on the Moon's surface.

so the russians placed reflectors on the moon unmanned in the 60s..... and youre saying i should believe the US went to the moon because humans placed reflectors on the moon? lol wouldnt it make sense then, that the US just placed reflectors unmanned too? 😅 lmaoooooo if you can place reflectors on the moon unmanned then thats no proof of anything LMAOOOOO fyi @KungFuSV, heres your answer to your reflector argument 😉

... back again. I'll provide more information in response to your other reply post on this thread, but note that the article that I had provided above is NOT from NASA, but is from a totally independent professional organization called Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ie, IEEE).

@KungFuSV Come on dude…… it’s all bs….. NASA said it worked so it worked…. 🤭 But hey they lost all the telemetry data and original recordings of all the Apollo missions….. 🤣🤣🤣