Can't remember who but someone took out a massive insurance on both buildings weeks before 9/11
All this is actual fact. These are the main points I couldn't get past.
Buildings of huge value in insurance cover arrangement shock horror? That's it is it. Someone took out some massive insurance on both buildings so that's very suspicious is it? Well l'll let you into a secret, every single privately owned massive building has massive insurance taken out on it to protect the owners against catastrophic damage like, for example aircraft crashing into them or terrorist attacks. That's not a conspiracy, it's normal commercial practice and by the way catastrophe insurances run for fixed periods (like your car insurance) usually for 12 months and then get renewed or replaced.
Before you ask, I was an expert on catastrophe insurances a few years ago and the company I worked for arranged the cover on the twin towers. The main problem with the insurances were that they were arranged on a first loss basis with an automatic reinstatement provision. Post 9/11, there was a legal argument (the outcome of which I am not privy to), as to whether this was one loss or two losses. It's a legal technical point as to whether the insurance cover was correctly designed.
As regards the building collapse, the issue here is clear cut. The building was designed not to collapse (inherent strength), massive fires caused by the plane crashes overwhelmed the design. Rather like the Titanic, the designers never for saw the contingencies caused by the actual circumstances occurring. In a perfectly designed world where designers are infallible, disasters would be engineered out. As with the Titanic, they weren't.
So you are saying George Bush and the new world order sunk the Titanic? You've convinced me. Maybe I'll write a book about it and make some money.
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
There are numerous accounts of weaker buildings burning hotter and longer and not collapsing, also theses are not the first planes to crash into buildings they didn't collapse
Can you let me know of these examples, where a civilian aircraft flying heavy with kerosine crashed into a high rise building at 500mph?
So you are saying George Bush and the new world order sunk the Titanic? You've convinced me. Maybe I'll write a book about it and make some money.
Yes according to Tom Clancy, the iceberg was actually artificially created by the CIA, floated out to the mid Atlantic and then sunk in the area that Red October was sunk. It was re floated by the laws of physics (lighter than water) into the path of the Titanic. On board at the time were key members of Rothchild's banking dynasty who started WW1, to pay for their death duties and keep the family fortune topped up.........or at least that's what I read on the Internet.......
So you are saying George Bush and the new world order sunk the Titanic? You've convinced me. Maybe I'll write a book about it and make some money.
Yes according to Tom Clancy, the iceberg was actually artificially created by the CIA, floated out to the mid Atlantic and then sunk in the area that Red October was sunk. It was re floated by the laws of physics (lighter than water) into the path of the Titanic. On board at the time were key members of Rothchild's banking dynasty who started WW1, to pay for their death duties and keep the family fortune topped up.........or at least that's what I read on the Internet.......
Reminds me of the anti-racist joke
Jewish man is walking down the shirt when a fascist comes up and knocks the Jewish man to the ground.
Sometimes the truth, (as most of see it), is not enough. Take 9/11, if the week before a film was released with a story line that aircraft were to be taken over by a group of extremised armed with stanley knifes and then crash them into buildings, most would think that would be stretching a story line a bit too far even for a Bruce Willis film. But thats what happened and it still isnt a big enough event for some.
Just to follow up Bings post. The original insurance policy was purchased to a policy limit which was roughly the value of 1 tower. This was thought to be the maximum possible loss.
The issue for insurers was whether this was one event or two. By claiming it as one event the policy would only pay out to the equivalent of one tower (the policy limit) and not for both if they were deemed to seperate events.
Most Insurers work on a maximum possible loss basis to work out there capacity for a risk.
Just to follow up Bings post. The original insurance policy was purchased to a policy limit which was roughly the value of 1 tower. This was thought to be the maximum possible loss.
The issue for insurers was whether this was one event or two. By claiming it as one event the policy would only pay out to the equivalent of one tower (the policy limit) and not for both if they were deemed to seperate events.
Most Insurers work on a maximum possible loss basis to work out there capacity for a risk.
This is correct. There was automatic provision to reinstate the cover limit (at a premium to be decided). As I understand it was not thought possible for both towers to go down as a result of one incident/loss. It was thus moot as to whether in law, this was one loss providing only the policy limit once, or two losses giving the policy limit twice.
Just to follow up Bings post. The original insurance policy was purchased to a policy limit which was roughly the value of 1 tower. This was thought to be the maximum possible loss.
The issue for insurers was whether this was one event or two. By claiming it as one event the policy would only pay out to the equivalent of one tower (the policy limit) and not for both if they were deemed to seperate events.
Most Insurers work on a maximum possible loss basis to work out there capacity for a risk.
This is correct. There was automatic provision to reinstate the cover limit (at a premium to be decided). As I understand it was not thought possible for both towers to go down as a result of one incident/loss. It was thus moot as to whether in law, this was one loss providing only the policy limit once, or two losses giving the policy limit twice.
I bet if Bin Laden had known that he would have called the attack off
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
A very good friend of mine, called me up one day telling me he had just seen a programme about the Moon Landings. He told me I should watch it if I get a chance.
He said he was convinced it was all faked but I should watch it first as he wanted me to make my own decision.
He is prone to saying things like "I never believe the official stories given, I always like to check them out for myself etc etc"
I did watch the programme. It was hogwash.
I am old enough to remember the live TV coverage. Those involved like Patrick Moore, whose mapping knowledge of the moon had been used by NASA. Moore was a world authority on the Moon. These people described and interpreted grainy black & white pictures of Armstrong and Aldren, walking on the moon and some nutter in his shed in Hicksville California, for presumably fame and fortune or other nefarious reasons, wants to tell me that somehow it was all covered up? Such noble, pioneering, human endeavour being undermined by a few nutters who use smoke glass and mirrors to try and make us believe that we've been lied to is pretty low in my eyes. The Internet gives these theories much more legs than they should be given. Of course the TV channel that made the programme has achieved what it wanted. To create a doubt where the huge weight of evidence, logic and experience says there isn't one.
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
it's not that easy though is it? Look at the images from the moon and the verbal communication - not very clear is it. I just find that one piece of film disturbing.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
I've looked up and it takes light 1.3 seconds to go from the moon to the earth, so i think it's quite reasonable to assume whoever was remotely controlling the camera could comfortably anticipate where the space craft would be as it takes off in a straight line.
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
it's not that easy though is it? Look at the images from the moon and the verbal communication - not very clear is it. I just find that one piece of film disturbing.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
it is pretty easy to do, you could quite easily put it together in your shed if you had the tools. Certainly for NASA scientists it wouldn't be very difficult at all.
Shame to see some not looking at the facts but just insulting people who think differently to them. I don't care if people believe what I believe or not but don't attack it when u have know idea about the subject!
I have looked at the so called "facts" and have done for many years and nearly none of them stand up to any proper scrutiny. Most aren't even facts just questions ie "why didn't so and so do this?"
Any counter argument is dismissed as a cover up or the response is "but what about...." and so introducing yet another question. Because the conspiracy theorists can't imagine a reasonable answer with their limited and blinkered take on things it HAS to mean, in their minds, that anything can be true.
Chesterton said "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." I'm an atheist and a sceptic but I think he was right.
Maybe you could try stop using the internet as reliable source of information or as proof and use Occum's razor instead.
I listen to people like Steve pizchenik(however u spell his name) and mr spring man who know what they're talking about, as well as the 1000 architects and engineers who saw building 7 fall down by a small fire.
Pieczenik is the man who claimed the Sandy Hook School Shooting was a conspiracy too wasn't he. Everything is a conspiracy in his world.
He's just another weirdo making a living making up stuff to sell books and get on TV and you've fallen for it.
Well he knows more than u about intelligence operations. What do u do for a job?
I teach people that it is "you" not "U"
But again you frame it as a question.
So instead of answering the question YOU insult my internet speech. Didn't know u were my fucking English teacher
I would hate to be your English teacher. You got it right in the first sentence and wrong in the second.
Anyway as a Palace fan what do you think about Warnock's return?
@Henry Irving - I have always wanted to know and still struggle to understand when is it correct to use the term effect/effected and affect/affected? You alluded to teaching people earlier, so was hoping you might be able to help. I ask many people and get many different answers, or none at all.
Bit off piste I know
AFFECT is a verb - this hay fever affects me most in August.
EFFECT is not (for the sake of this point) a verb - look at the effect this hay fever has on me in August.
Chances are you will use AFFECT more than EFFECT so if in doubt just start it with an A.
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
it's not that easy though is it? Look at the images from the moon and the verbal communication - not very clear is it. I just find that one piece of film disturbing.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
it is pretty easy to do, you could quite easily put it together in your shed if you had the tools. Certainly for NASA scientists it wouldn't be very difficult at all.
So why weren't the images and verbal communication HD quality then?
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
it's not that easy though is it? Look at the images from the moon and the verbal communication - not very clear is it. I just find that one piece of film disturbing.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
so you ignore the whole mass of evidence that clearly demonstrates men landed on the moon and decide that, because you do not understand how the camera worked, that is evidence enough that it was a hoax. that is how conspiracy stories are created. ignore the evidence and focus on one small point and create a story about that.
For information, remote cameras were developed in 1942 in Germany to monitor V2 rocket launches. Remote cameras have been commercially available for CCTV, etc. since mid 50s. For the Apollo missions a remote camera system was developed and attached to the Lunar Rover which was left behind. The Rover was fitted with an high frequency S-Band dish which transmitted live shots from the moon and allowed NASA to control the camera. There is no mystery to it. Does that allay your worries?
As others have said, the simplest story is probably the true one.
So you might accept the moon landings were real, but the existence of remote control machinery is a step too far?
Absolutely - who controlled it? Someone from earth? Talk me through how that worked in 1968. In fact, talk me through how that would work in 2014 - allowing for the time delay of transmitting instructions from earth to the remote control camera would be quite a challenge even now.
I think putting a spaceship into space and then putting it on the moon is a lot more complicated than putting a couple of motors on a camera tripod and attaching a radio reciever. Now, remember radio waves travel at the speed of light. I'm not an expert but I don't think it would take very long at all for something travelling at the speed of light to hit the moon from earth and for whoevers remotely controlling the camera to anticipate the minute delay as the spaceship flies off.
it's not that easy though is it? Look at the images from the moon and the verbal communication - not very clear is it. I just find that one piece of film disturbing.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
it is pretty easy to do, you could quite easily put it together in your shed if you had the tools. Certainly for NASA scientists it wouldn't be very difficult at all.
So why weren't the images and verbal communication HD quality then?
What? Because hd broadcasts didn't happen until the 21st century? HD cameras didn't even exist until the 1990s.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
All i know is: - official story defies the laws of physics
Really - and what laws of physics are you relating to?
Well not really a law (little exaggeration sorry), but kerosene (or anything else present in planes or buildings) burning/exploding does not reach temperatures required to damage the metal construction of the buildings sufficiently.
And smashing a plane into the building wouldn't damage metal construction either?
Funnily enough - very little. Don't forget the aircraft were made of aluminium.
What's aluminium got to do with the price of fish? I don't know anything about physics but I do know that mass and velocity would be important factors in any calculation. They could have been made of feathers if the weight and speed had been the same. Perhaps they weren't planes but giant bald eagles or Thai fighting kites in mortal combat.
You certainly don't.
Try and look up the difference between 'weight' and 'mass', then move onto the definitiions of 'force', 'momentum' and 'terminal velocity'.
Finally have a look at Newtons 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws of motion
Then come back to this thread and we can chat about how the fires effected the building structure after the initial impacts.
All i know is: - official story defies the laws of physics
Really - and what laws of physics are you relating to?
Well not really a law (little exaggeration sorry), but kerosene (or anything else present in planes or buildings) burning/exploding does not reach temperatures required to damage the metal construction of the buildings sufficiently.
And smashing a plane into the building wouldn't damage metal construction either?
Funnily enough - very little. Don't forget the aircraft were made of aluminium.
What's aluminium got to do with the price of fish? I don't know anything about physics but I do know that mass and velocity would be important factors in any calculation. They could have been made of feathers if the weight and speed had been the same. Perhaps they weren't planes but giant bald eagles or Thai fighting kites in mortal combat.
You certainly don't.
Try and look up the difference between 'weight' and 'mass', then move onto the definitiions of 'force', 'momentum' and 'terminal velocity'.
Finally have a look at Newtons 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws of motion
Then come back to this thread and we can chat about how the fires effected the building structure after the initial impacts.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Because they threw ridiculous amounts of money at it.
No government would be prepared to do this now. Just trying to get the CEOs of Boeing, Northrop and MacDonald Douglas into the same room would be miraculous.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Even though KentAddick has just answered your question?
Obama is a politican not a rocket scientist so his guess is just that.
What we have had is the space station with people living in space for months.
If there were an econmic reason to get people on the moon it could be done again.
In 1960 the US was in a cold war withe USSR. The Soviets had just beaten the Yanks to get the first object in space and would soon (or just had) put the first man in space. There was a political element to the space race.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
you are probably right because the real story isn't good enough. You want to believe that there is a bigger story with dark forces manipulating behind the scenes. Great fro a Hollywood movie, but rubbish for real life. You have already bought into the conspiracy so it is difficult to budge your view. You have been given rational explanations to answer your question and each time you move the question. How can a camera be operated? then why isn't it in HD? now, why would it take so long to gear up for another mission?
To answer the last point, actually the Americans were working on projects from the late forties and fifties, so overall there was more than 20 years of development. it was a vanity project for Kennedy who wanted to beat the Russians. It was hugely expensive then and even more so now. my guess is that you will now ignore this and go on to another question.
You are very welcome to believe the nonsense in the moon landing hoax stories but you are 100% wrong.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
you are probably right because the real story isn't good enough. You want to believe that there is a bigger story with dark forces manipulating behind the scenes. Great fro a Hollywood movie, but rubbish for real life. You have already bought into the conspiracy so it is difficult to budge your view. You have been given rational explanations to answer your question and each time you move the question. How can a camera be operated? then why isn't it in HD? now, why would it take so long to gear up for another mission?
To answer the last point, actually the Americans were working on projects from the late forties and fifties, so overall there was more than 20 years of development. it was a vanity project for Kennedy who wanted to beat the Russians. It was hugely expensive then and even more so now. my guess is that you will now ignore this and go on to another question.
You are very welcome to believe the nonsense in the moon landing hoax stories but you are 100% wrong.
The "HD" question was not a new question - it was to do with the reliability of communications. The point is, if they could've made the communications clear they would have. The fact is that they did not have the technology to do that and with communications that "grainy" would you really be able to control a camera on the moon with pretty much split second timing? Rockets are not slow you know.
Obama may not be a rocket scientist but he would not have made that comment off the cuff - he's not John Prescott - he would have been advised before he said anything.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
NASA has had it's funding slashed to the very bare bones where it doesn't really exist as anything other than maintaining current missions (voyager etc). The NASA of the 60's had a lot of funding chucked at it. Think of it akin to asking why can't Nottingham Forest win the champions league in the next 2 years? They did it before, but today there's a lot more money in football, so why can't they do it? The space race was effectively another proxy war between the west and the soviets. If you look at the kind of money the states spend on defence it's not hard to accept that the reason they put a man on the moon is the same as the reason they developed the atom bomb from just a theoretical possibility in the 1930s to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Now was the nuclear bomb real? You haven't seen it happen. You haven't seen them exist with your own two eyes, just grainy footage from old films of nuclear tests. Yet you don't seem to question their existence? Surely nuclear weapons would be a better conspiracy theory, since they are used for fear and give the US and Russia a lot of clout in world affairs. Wouldn't it be crazy if it was just an illusion?
... and, and we're not starting from the point we were at in the 60s - we've already been there and we are much more advanced - as someone said, we have people spending months at the space station.
... and, and we're not starting from the point we were at in the 60s - we've already been there and we are much more advanced - as someone said, we have people spending months at the space station.
I know i edited my comment i think after you replied so i'll copy and paste it:
Think of it akin to asking why can't Nottingham Forest win the champions league in the next 2 years? They did it before, but today there's a lot more money in football, so why can't they do it now?
Infrastructure, as I said, NASA has had it's funding cut right down to barely enough to survive. The moon and the space station are a huge, huge distance from each other and it's far more complicated landing on a foreign object with no atmosphere and no landing docks than it is landing on a space station just outside the earth's atmosphere.
Comments
So you are saying George Bush and the new world order sunk the Titanic? You've convinced me. Maybe I'll write a book about it and make some money.
Reminds me of the anti-racist joke
Jewish man is walking down the shirt when a fascist comes up and knocks the Jewish man to the ground.
"What was that for?" the Jewish man asked.
"That was for the Titanic!"
"The Titanic? That was an iceberg."
"Iceberg, Goldberg, you are all the same."
Take 9/11, if the week before a film was released with a story line that aircraft were to be taken over by a group of extremised armed with stanley knifes and then crash them into buildings, most would think that would be stretching a story line a bit too far even for a Bruce Willis film. But thats what happened and it still isnt a big enough event for some.
The issue for insurers was whether this was one event or two. By claiming it as one event the policy would only pay out to the equivalent of one tower (the policy limit) and not for both if they were deemed to seperate events.
Most Insurers work on a maximum possible loss basis to work out there capacity for a risk.
I bet if Bin Laden had known that he would have called the attack off
He said he was convinced it was all faked but I should watch it first as he wanted me to make my own decision.
He is prone to saying things like "I never believe the official stories given, I always like to check them out for myself etc etc"
I did watch the programme. It was hogwash.
I am old enough to remember the live TV coverage. Those involved like Patrick Moore, whose mapping knowledge of the moon had been used by NASA. Moore was a world authority on the Moon. These people described and interpreted grainy black & white pictures of Armstrong and Aldren, walking on the moon and some nutter in his shed in Hicksville California, for presumably fame and fortune or other nefarious reasons, wants to tell me that somehow it was all covered up? Such noble, pioneering, human endeavour being undermined by a few nutters who use smoke glass and mirrors to try and make us believe that we've been lied to is pretty low in my eyes. The Internet gives these theories much more legs than they should be given. Of course the TV channel that made the programme has achieved what it wanted. To create a doubt where the huge weight of evidence, logic and experience says there isn't one.
Bing, I am really with you on this - as a boy it was my dream to be an astronaut (before I hit puberty and wanted to be a rock star, of course). So, the last thing I want is for there to be any doubt that man did go to the moon.
EFFECT is not (for the sake of this point) a verb - look at the effect this hay fever has on me in August.
Chances are you will use AFFECT more than EFFECT so if in doubt just start it with an A.
For information, remote cameras were developed in 1942 in Germany to monitor V2 rocket launches. Remote cameras have been commercially available for CCTV, etc. since mid 50s. For the Apollo missions a remote camera system was developed and attached to the Lunar Rover which was left behind. The Rover was fitted with an high frequency S-Band dish which transmitted live shots from the moon and allowed NASA to control the camera. There is no mystery to it. Does that allay your worries?
As others have said, the simplest story is probably the true one.
Try and look up the difference between 'weight' and 'mass', then move onto the definitiions of 'force', 'momentum' and 'terminal velocity'.
Finally have a look at Newtons 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws of motion
Then come back to this thread and we can chat about how the fires effected the building structure after the initial impacts.
No government would be prepared to do this now. Just trying to get the CEOs of Boeing, Northrop and MacDonald Douglas into the same room would be miraculous.
Obama is a politican not a rocket scientist so his guess is just that.
What we have had is the space station with people living in space for months.
If there were an econmic reason to get people on the moon it could be done again.
In 1960 the US was in a cold war withe USSR. The Soviets had just beaten the Yanks to get the first object in space and would soon (or just had) put the first man in space. There was a political element to the space race.
To answer the last point, actually the Americans were working on projects from the late forties and fifties, so overall there was more than 20 years of development. it was a vanity project for Kennedy who wanted to beat the Russians. It was hugely expensive then and even more so now. my guess is that you will now ignore this and go on to another question.
You are very welcome to believe the nonsense in the moon landing hoax stories but you are 100% wrong.
Obama may not be a rocket scientist but he would not have made that comment off the cuff - he's not John Prescott - he would have been advised before he said anything.
Think of it akin to asking why can't Nottingham Forest win the champions league in the next 2 years? They did it before, but today there's a lot more money in football, so why can't they do it now?
Infrastructure, as I said, NASA has had it's funding cut right down to barely enough to survive. The moon and the space station are a huge, huge distance from each other and it's far more complicated landing on a foreign object with no atmosphere and no landing docks than it is landing on a space station just outside the earth's atmosphere.