Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2017, 08:15 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Mods can I request that you check if there's an IP match between psikeyhacker and Celestial Wonder? Just a hunch.

Unlikely I think mate psiky is a one trick pony, his obsession is the building collapse only and the fact he doesn't believe that the planes could have caused it, he's totally disinterested in anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Could be one of his buddies from a conspiritard website though, that's very possible Imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:18 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 07:00 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  At this point all I would need to do is present the evidence that it would be either possible that the government could silently demolish the world trade centers, or that it was not possible for the planes that hit the world trade centers to bring them down. Or the office fires could not possibly have been the cause to bring down the entirety of WTC 7 as though it were a controlled demolition.

Honestly in all of this WTC 7 is the greatest asset to support a conspiracy happened on 9.11.

No, two times no.

#1 You not only have to "present the evidence that is is possibe that the government..." but that it was most probably the government.
Just showing that something is possible is not strong enough to justify belief that it is most probable.
#2 If you show evidence "that is was not possible for the planes..." then you havent give any other option more credibility, particularly not yours. When evaluating claims, if you rule out one claim it doesnt give any other claim any credibility .

In combination showing that
#1 its possible the government did it
and
#2 the planes alone couldnt bring down the towers
would still not be enough to convince me.


Now bring the evidence that it was
#1 possible for the goverenment (how many conspirators would be needed again?)
#2 impossible for the planes to do "the job"

I am interested particularly in the latter.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
18-01-2017, 08:21 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:18 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 07:00 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  At this point all I would need to do is present the evidence that it would be either possible that the government could silently demolish the world trade centers, or that it was not possible for the planes that hit the world trade centers to bring them down. Or the office fires could not possibly have been the cause to bring down the entirety of WTC 7 as though it were a controlled demolition.

Honestly in all of this WTC 7 is the greatest asset to support a conspiracy happened on 9.11.

No, two times no.

#1 You not only have to "present the evidence that is is possibe that the government..." but that it was most probably the government.
Just showing that something is possible is not strong enough to justify belief that it is most probable.
#2 If you show evidence "that is was not possible for the planes..." then you havent give any other option more credibility, particularly not yours. When evaluating claims, if you rule out one claim it doesnt give any other claim any credibility .

In combination showing that
#1 its possible the government did it
and
#2 the planes alone couldnt bring down the towers
would still not be enough to convince me.


Now bring the evidence that it was
#1 possible for the goverenment (how many conspirators would be needed again?)
#2 impossible for the planes to do "the job"

I am interested particularly in the latter.

Mmm must have missed that bit of cw's post perhaps Morondog is on to something here Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:23 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:10 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Your hypothesis regarding the terrorists being unlikely to want to kill themselves, seems to me to be horribly flawed for two reasons firstly the huge numbers of suicide bombings carried out by Islamists shows conclusively they are more than willing to self terminate themselves for their ideology and 72 virgins in paradise and secondly we all saw the planes hit,these guys could not possibly have done such a thing and expected to live. The entirety of this part of your comment makes no sense and is utterly disproven by virtue of the fact someone had to have flown the planes into the buildings plus we all saw it happen.

Nasa has been controlling satelites/probes remotely millions of miles away from Earth. It is not improbable that the same could be done for three planes on 9.11.

No one at all had to be flying those planes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:18 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  No, two times no.

#1 You not only have to "present the evidence that is is possibe that the government..." but that it was most probably the government.
Just showing that something is possible is not strong enough to justify belief that it is most probable.
#2 If you show evidence "that is was not possible for the planes..." then you havent give any other option more credibility, particularly not yours. When evaluating claims, if you rule out one claim it doesnt give any other claim any credibility .

In combination showing that
#1 its possible the government did it
and
#2 the planes alone couldnt bring down the towers
would still not be enough to convince me.


Now bring the evidence that it was
#1 possible for the goverenment (how many conspirators would be needed again?)
#2 impossible for the planes to do "the job"

I am interested particularly in the latter.

one does not have to prove #2 if they can prove that there is evidence of the use of a thermitic material used on the Twin Towers. In which there is plenty of and if you're not going to take the time to research it yourself, then you clearly do not have a positive interest in it.

And honestly, even then its like you're just looking right past WTC 7.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:18 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  No, two times no.

#1 You not only have to "present the evidence that is is possibe that the government..." but that it was most probably the government.
Just showing that something is possible is not strong enough to justify belief that it is most probable.
#2 If you show evidence "that is was not possible for the planes..." then you havent give any other option more credibility, particularly not yours. When evaluating claims, if you rule out one claim it doesnt give any other claim any credibility .

In combination showing that
#1 its possible the government did it
and
#2 the planes alone couldnt bring down the towers
would still not be enough to convince me.


Now bring the evidence that it was
#1 possible for the goverenment (how many conspirators would be needed again?)
#2 impossible for the planes to do "the job"

I am interested particularly in the latter.

one does not have to prove #2 if they can prove that there is evidence of the use of a thermitic material used on the Twin Towers. In which there is plenty of and if you're not going to take the time to research it yourself, then you clearly do not have a positive interest in it.

And honestly, even then its like you're just looking right past WTC 7.

Again: Thermite having been in the towers doesnt tell you who did put it there. Ruling out who did not put it there, doesnt tell you who put it there.

The fact that we are in general able to remote control planes, doesnt tell you that the planes in question actually were remote controlled. What evidence do you have for that claim?

Oh, and your last part is quite dishonest. After 20 pages of "im not gonna show or tell, because you wont listen", now you came here saying you have evidence, big time evidence, evolution like? Now you tell me to go and look for myself and if i dont i am not interested? Fuck. You.

You made the claim, you bring the evidence. I have enough science education (5 years electronics, 2 semester physics ending with how fucking teapots look like at speeds >c in a "German university rankings, it is usually ranked at the top-tier in view of teaching quality as well as employability of its graduates", plus another 5 years working there as staff, plus 15y working in the industry right now) to evaluate your basic claims and evidence, and when i need to expand on my education, i will do so in order to be able to understand and evaluate your evidence, after you have brought it to the table.

What evidence do you have here was Thermite? So far you havent provided any, not for this claim or any other.

So far...i am patient...still Drinking Beverage

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
18-01-2017, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 09:10 AM by adey67.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Now who sounds like a creationist, that's just totally bonkers I think the airline stewards might have noticed there being no pilots also flight 93 kinda screws the pooch for you there and also the phone calls from the planes by passengers specifically stating hijackers on board. Facepalm
My friend how the hell are we supposed to have any respect for you when you come out with bilge like this ? You might as well be telling me that pixies pulled down the WTC while sprinkling fairy dust in everyone's eyes to blind them. Just because its possible for planes to be piloted remotely is not a compelling argument for this being a cause of the crashes on 9/11, just because the technology makes one thing possible it doesn't make the scenario plausible, I'm honestly speechless believe what you want but if you want to convince others you're gonna have to do a lot better than this.
You also completely failed to counter my argument about terrorists being willing to die for their ideology, sorry but epic epic fail I'm afraid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Wasn't going to get involved in this 9/11 conspiracy argument because, like belief in religion or any dogma, actual facts are discarded when they run counter to one's own biases.

But, just for fun, Popular Mechanics editors debunked the 9/11 conspiracies over a decade ago. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

These facts won't, of course, change the mind of true believer/Alex Jones types, but the evidence is abundantly clear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 09:31 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:58 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  one does not have to prove #2 if they can prove that there is evidence of the use of a thermitic material used on the Twin Towers. In which there is plenty of and if you're not going to take the time to research it yourself, then you clearly do not have a positive interest in it.

And honestly, even then its like you're just looking right past WTC 7.

Again: Thermite having been in the towers doesnt tell you who did put it there. Ruling out who did not put it there, doesnt tell you who put it there.

The fact that we are in general able to remote control planes, doesnt tell you that the planes in question actually were remote controlled. What evidence do you have for that claim?

Oh, and your last part is quite dishonest. After 20 pages of "im not gonna show or tell, because you wont listen", now you came here saying you have evidence, big time evidence, evolution like? Now you tell me to go and look for myself and if i dont i am not interested? Fuck. You.

You made the claim, you bring the evidence. I have enough science education (5 years electronics, 2 semester physics ending with how fucking teapots look like at speeds >c in a "German university rankings, it is usually ranked at the top-tier in view of teaching quality as well as employability of its graduates", plus another 5 years working there as staff, plus 15y working in the industry right now) to evaluate your basic claims and evidence, and when i need to expand on my education, i will do so in order to be able to understand and evaluate your evidence, after you have brought it to the table.

What evidence do you have here was Thermite? So far you havent provided any, not for this claim or any other.

So far...i am patient...still Drinking Beverage

[Image: AVIRIS_09-16-01_09-18-01_09-23-01_comparison.jpg]

The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hot spots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700ÂșCelsius. After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum.

source

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence...fires.html





Eye witness testimony





Video evidence of molten metal which is not aluminum because aluminum does not glow yellow. Steel on the other hand does. And it is molten.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: