Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2017, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 02:36 PM by adey67.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 10:42 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Just to be clear, so we dont have any misunderstandings about the level/niveau of the discussion:

Hot spots in the rubble of the towers = Thermite. Thermite is the most probable conclusion? Is that what you are trying to argue?

It was more than just the rubble Deesse. I can not say that with 100% conviction that it was thermite that was used, but I have been shown that thermite could get the job done. So perhaps it is not thermite but some other material like thermite. Maybe it wasn't just thermite or the a similar material that was used but multiple materials. There are things I don't know. But I do know that molten metal was present preceding, during, and concluding the collapse of the World Trade Centers. Whatever caused all that metal to melt, caused the World Trade Centers to collapse.

(18-01-2017 10:23 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Oh yes this is starting to look very very familiar now, hi there psikey, got a new phone or internet connection perhaps two IP addresses? Changed posting style and language? Or do you conspiracy nutjobs just all sound alike? Who knows but my patience with bullshit and the serious disrespect to the victims and first responders that it represents has just died, CW or who ever you are you deserve all the ridicule you get I'm tired of being Mr reasonable screw this.

Emotions have no place in the realm of thinking critically.
In other words yes and you wouldn't know the realm of critical thinking if it bit you on the ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like adey67's post
18-01-2017, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 04:12 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 12:47 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  So It was thermite or not?! Ok. Something similar to thermite? Ok.
Does "not thermite" include some 60t of kerosene? How much energy do 60t of kerosene have? I am asking because the energy density of thermite is 4MJ/kg, and kerosene is 40MJ/kg. Did you know that?

Kerosene has x10 the energy density of thermite. Do you agree that, if thermite gets the job done, then 60t (sixty fucking tons!) of kerosene with ten times the energy density get the job done too?

Do you know that kerosene burns with higher temperature than thermite?
So, if thermite can melt down WTC, then kerosene can too, would you agree?


Do you have even the slightest clue, what 60.000kg x 40MJ/kg = 2.4TJ of (kerosene) energy is? Do you know what 2.4TJ of energy probably can do (or not)? The Hoover dam produces 2.000MW. So we are talking about shoving 1.000s (15min) long the full power of the Hoover Dam into one WTC tower. I am not even including the "fuel" provided by flammable WTC material.
Alternatively you could have a smaller powerplant with "only" 1MW running for eleven days: 1TJ = 1GW x 1000s = 1MW x 1Ms (1Ms = 11,5 days!).

Would you agree that if CIA/Mossad wanted to fake a fire of 60t Kerosene, that they would use some 600t of Thermite, otherwise poeple like you would find out? Or do you think they were clever enough to plan such a massive plot, but missed the proper calculation of the fire/energy to release? If you think the WTC was fake, and if you think it looks like 60t of kerosene, and if you think they used "something like thermite", then there must have been 600t of that stuff. Who put it where in the WTC and when and how?

How long can kerosene burn in an environment like the WTC? How much stuff does one tower contain that can burn? About how much potential energy to be released in total are we talking? Once heated up inside (by Kerosene for example) the rubble, how long can the heat stay there? In other words, how is the insulation inside of such a rubble?

Most of the jet fuel went up in that big explosion of the initial impact of both planes. Indeed we can assume that the places where the fire spread to as it consumed nearby combustible objects were not areas where there was jet fuel. Certainly there was some amount of Jet Fuel that survived the explosion but this amount is negligible as what fuel the fire (the contents of the offices) is what primarily burned. The Jet Fuel is merely the key part in all of this to try and sell the idea to all of us that it was responsible for the collapse not by melting the steel but by structurally the idea of which is erroneous because we can plainly see that molten steel is present before the collapse of the twin towers and thus whatever caused that must have exceeded temperatures of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Also, you are forgetting WTC 7 again...

As for who put the thermite or something similar to thermite inside the twin towers the most common theory is that responsibility was Mosssad's. The venue's I've looked up talk about a janitorial crew coming towards the world trade centers in the weeks prior to when the towers fell and closing off large sections of the twin towers. They report large amounts of dust from their presence.

Similarly there existed these israeli 'art students' who were witnessed jumping up and down in celebration as they watched the towers fall. They were arrested by suspicious onlookers and made the news. The most supported consensus among the conspiracy theorists is that these 'art students' were not art students but agents of Mossad who helped in the destruction of the towers.

Yes saying 'the government did it' is really an over simplification.





This is probably the best video you can find on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 05:50 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A fault that fails to take into consideration that there may not have been anyone even on board those planes.

Blink

No? Really? You're happy to go with... you're happy to even think that....

No, you aren't seriously entertaining the idea that.. some how... the people recorded as on those planes... weren't.....

Shocking

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  People create fake identities all the time, it would not be hard at all to do with the vast resources of the government. Criminals do it quite often as well, and the CIA and other agencies also do it particularly when they are covering the identity of their spies. The Witness Protection program also does it.

Again, we're not just talking about fake particulars/pass-ports though.

The movements, lives etc of the people who took the planes to their doom is well known/shown/documented etc.


(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Silently as compared to a loud controlled demolition.

Um... no. There's video footage from close enough that you can hear the ineradicable roar as the towers turn themselves into pulverized dust.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Yes, and so we must assume that a plane did indeed hit the World Trade Centers (with the exception of WTC 7) which I believe is where the confusion happens. When people were talking about WTC 7 in the early days of the conspiracy people probably got it confused and thought they were talking about the twin towers.

Yes Oh, okay... though I'm still completely at a loss as to why WTC 7 is... anything?

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The manner in which WTC 7 fell is identical to a controlled demolition. Its descent is caused by structural damage sustained at its base, which any damage which might have caused a collapse would have been showered on it from above. It is therefore highly unlikely that any damage would have been sustained at the bottom of WTC 7 except perhaps some damage from when the Twin Towers collapsed in which if there was enough damage from that it would have collapsed with the Twin Towers and not afterwards.

Uh.. no.

You're making a really big "I think reality works this way.. because feels..."

The towers collapsed straight down (With only slight showering of stuff coming off sideways. The main damaging effect would thence have been the outwards force of high energy wind packed with pulverized material being ejected outwards at ground level that would have SUPER-sand blasted anything nearby.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It is also very peculiar that all three buildings suffered total destruction instead of a partial collapse. A feet even controlled demolitions sometimes have trouble with.

Okay, except I'm pretty sure WTC 7 stayed around for a few more days before finally being taken down by human efforts since it'd been so smashed up. (NOTE* Am sure Yanks can give me better/more exact links and information on this, though)

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  In order for everything to happen as they did regarding the collapses of the three buildings, to happen on a natural occurrence with just the planes would be highly improbable. Especially as the Twin Towers were built with such an event taken into consideration.

Okay, last bit first.

No, the towers were never built to withstand the impact of a fully laden Migrating African Swallow 747. At the time the towers were designed (Not built but planned) the largest machine to hit a building was a B-25 Mitchel (Pretty sure 1940's vintage two engine'd medium bomber) into the Empire-state building. The largest planes flying at the time of planning was the DC 10.

So, no... the energies contained within a fully laden 747 weren't even imagined at the time of the buildings being planned. So, that's wrong.

So, all you're left with is "I don't think you can hit a building with a plane." Except people can and do so in flight sims all the time (With practice, it's hard. Heck, even getting a four engine'd prop flying boat into a good sized building is hard with out practice. Blush Yes.. I was doing that decades ago in the Micro-soft flight sim)

So... what you put forwards as hypothetical conjecture can be refuted.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Therefore it is far more likely that intent was involved. And this isn't getting into the finer details.

No, we can both agree intent was involved. You are positing a HUGE, over reaching, many layered, incredibly convoluted and complex plot.

A 'Goldruberg' version of a plot. Since you have to actually change the reality of people on the planes as a starting example.

That planes hit multiple sites across America we agree on.

My hypothesis is simpler, easier and has the information rendered to us on the day.

Your hypothesis keeps getting more complicated when the information/evidence of the day is introduced to it. (People not being on plane etc as an example. Ignoring kerosene fuel/energy. etc)

Cheers! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
18-01-2017, 05:40 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Hello! Smile

(18-01-2017 09:58 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I will address one issue in that article.

The pancaking mythos.

It is true that you have all the weight of the floors above the collapse descending on the floors below the collapse. The reverse however is also true, that you have all the floors beneath the collapse to counter against the weight of the floors above it.

There should have been a deflection of the weight. The floors above the collapse should have eventually slid off to the side of the twin towers and fallen onto the city below.

However, the process just seems to stop after the initial stage, supporting the conclusion that while the top of the tower is falling it is not meeting any resistance from the floors below the collapse.

Except you are, demonstratable, wrong.

There were no 'Floors' in the towers design.

The floors were bolted to the inner and outer walls of latticed steel.

The twin towers were, in effect, just giant tubes of steel pointing at the sky.

You weaken the sides of those tubes at a point and, like a hollow arrow shaft the load will simply push the two halves together (Yes, had an arrow give way in a bow shot just like that many years ago. Stopped buying that brand)

Your way of thinking about the design of the towers is demonstrably wrong.

Will you change your hypothesis to account for this new information?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
18-01-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Most of the jet fuel went up in that big explosion of the initial impact of both planes. Indeed we can assume that the places where the fire spread to as it consumed nearby combustible objects were not areas where there was jet fuel. Certainly there was some amount of Jet Fuel that survived the explosion but this amount is negligible as what fuel the fire (the contents of the offices) is what primarily burned. The Jet Fuel is merely the key part in all of this to try and sell the idea to all of us that it was responsible for the collapse not by melting the steel but by structurally the idea of which is erroneous because we can plainly see that molten steel is present before the collapse of the twin towers and thus whatever caused that must have exceeded temperatures of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Consider

So... no.

You're not going to adjust the hypothesis when given new and different facts.

Not going to take the information about kerosene energies etc.

Not going to answer the problem of missing people.

So, that's why it's still just a hypothesis.

Good-o, nothing more to see here.

I'll stick with the current, working theory of what happened on the day.

*Salutes the fallen*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
18-01-2017, 07:06 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 07:27 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 05:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A fault that fails to take into consideration that there may not have been anyone even on board those planes.

Blink

No? Really? You're happy to go with... you're happy to even think that....

No, you aren't seriously entertaining the idea that.. some how... the people recorded as on those planes... weren't.....

Shocking

Again, we're not just talking about fake particulars/pass-ports though.

The movements, lives etc of the people who took the planes to their doom is well known/shown/documented etc.

I'd like you to meet a hooker called sandy, I think she would blow your mind.


(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Um... no. There's video footage from close enough that you can hear the ineradicable roar as the towers turn themselves into pulverized dust.

The towers collapsed straight down (With only slight showering of stuff coming off sideways. The main damaging effect would thence have been the outwards force of high energy wind packed with pulverized material being ejected outwards at ground level that would have SUPER-sand blasted anything nearby.

*sigh* and that doesn't evoke the slightest bit of perplexity in you does it?

There are many controlled demolitions in the world done in the metropolitan sections of crowded cities and even they leave less damage to the surrounding structures than the Twin Towers did. If the towers collapsed straight down on themselves why then is there so much damage to the surrounding buildings after the collapse? Unless its collapse was exasperated.

Quote:It is also very peculiar that all three buildings suffered total destruction instead of a partial collapse. A feet even controlled demolitions sometimes have trouble with.

Okay, except I'm pretty sure WTC 7 stayed around for a few more days before finally being taken down by human efforts since it'd been so smashed up. (NOTE* Am sure Yanks can give me better/more exact links and information on this, though)[/quote]

When you say taken down by human efforts, are you referring to a controlled demolition? Also it collapsed the same day the Twin Towers did. Although a few more hours instead of days.

Quote:Okay, last bit first.

No, the towers were never built to withstand the impact of a fully laden Migrating African Swallow 747. At the time the towers were designed (Not built but planned) the largest machine to hit a building was a B-25 Mitchel (Pretty sure 1940's vintage two engine'd medium bomber) into the Empire-state building. The largest planes flying at the time of planning was the DC 10.

So, no... the energies contained within a fully laden 747 weren't even imagined at the time of the buildings being planned. So, that's wrong.

Their disproportions seem to be less extreme than you think, and depending on the type of plane the Dc 10 could actually be bigger than 767 which were the planes that crashed into the twin towers. Not the 747. The error is understandable as previously before comparing the DC 10 to the planes that struck the twin towers I to thought it was the 747.

However having said that the 747 would be a lot bigger than the DC 10, however the 767 match more closely the specs of the DC10 except that it has a slightly larger fuel tank. Again depending on the variety used. The DC 10 interestingly enough does bigger fuselage than the 767 and depending on the DC 10 to the 767 the DC 10 has variants with larger wingspans as well.

In reality though except in terms of fuel capacity, I would say the DC 10 and 767 are almost like brothers.

Having said that, the 747 was produced from 1968 and the construction of the twin towers started in 1968.

It was the 767 that came later in 1981.

That makes two errors on your part, but I'm sure the second error is tied up with the first one if you got the 747 confused with the 767 you would naturally think that it was the one produced in 1981.

Well I suppose four errors if we're counting WTC 7. Which you thought fell days after the Twin Towers did, and which you also seem to have thought that it was a controlled demolition but more clarification will be needed on that from your part.

Having said that it appears that it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Which it did also withstand the impact of the 767, but not the subsequent fires from the fuel at least that would be your argument. But it did withstand the impact.

Quote:So, all you're left with is "I don't think you can hit a building with a plane." Except people can and do so in flight sims all the time (With practice, it's hard. Heck, even getting a four engine'd prop flying boat into a good sized building is hard with out practice. Blush Yes.. I was doing that decades ago in the Micro-soft flight sim)

So... what you put forwards as hypothetical conjecture can be refuted.

There's plenty of planes that have hit buildings, I never said you couldn't. Most of them have been unintentional.

Quote:No, we can both agree intent was involved. You are positing a HUGE, over reaching, many layered, incredibly convoluted and complex plot.

A 'Goldruberg' version of a plot. Since you have to actually change the reality of people on the planes as a starting example.

More complex than the intricacies of the Irish Potato famine? The Holodomor? The Holocaust? I don't think so, those were both prolonged and involved millions of lives, this was just for a day and only involved a few thousand.

Quote:That planes hit multiple sites across America we agree on.

I never said anything about the Pentagon. And I certainly don't think a plane crashed in a cornfield.

But that's would be like going for a snack when you could have a meal.

Quote:My hypothesis is simpler, easier and has the information rendered to us on the day.

Your hypothesis keeps getting more complicated when the information/evidence of the day is introduced to it. (People not being on plane etc as an example. Ignoring kerosene fuel/energy. etc)

Cheers! Thumbsup

I discount the fuel because most of it would have been destroyed in the explosion. That's why the explosion was so big, because there was a lot of fuel used up in it. Having said that, surely the engineers of the 1960's when taking into consideration a potential impact of the 707 also understood that perhaps burning jet fuel might also cause the towers to collapse. If they were designing the towers to withstand the largest of 707's which has almost the same fuel capacity of 24,000 gallons that the 767's had. Then surely the engineers planned the amount of fuel caused by the fires of of an accidental plane crash.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 07:55 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 07:59 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  *sigh* and that doesn't evoke the slightest bit of perplexity in you does it?

No, because I've given the reason/design of the towers. They are steel tubes with the inter-spaced floors bolted(Welded?) to said structures.

No floors.
Steel tubes.
Planes high-jacked and impact buildings
Fire induces weakness in structure about half way in said structure.
Structure gives way.
Top of tube now 'pushed' under gravity down into space below.
Everything at ground level damaged by outwards rushing blast.
WTC 7 closest thing to out rushing forces.. is most damaged and falls over later.

Simple hypothesis, no (Major) conspiracies involved.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There are many controlled demolitions in the world done in the metropolitan sections of crowded cities and even they leave less damage to the surrounding structures than the Twin Towers did. If the towers collapsed straight down on themselves why then is there so much damage to the surrounding buildings after the collapse? Unless its collapse was exasperated.

Okay two different things in that paragraph.

That there are controlled demolitions about the world is accepted. The work, effort and time it takes to do such things is also known.

So... for your hypothesis to work... How was all that time and effort which it normally takes to demolish building in a controlled fashion done?

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It is also very peculiar that all three buildings suffered total destruction instead of a partial collapse. A feet even controlled demolitions sometimes have trouble with.

No No, it is not. Two buildings hit by planes. Third (The closest to the previous two) severely damaged by the destruction of said previous two.

Your point of contention is that all three were 'controlled' in their demolition destruction.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Their disproportions seem to be less extreme than you think, and depending on the type of plane the Dc 10 could actually be bigger than 767 which were the planes that crashed into the twin towers. Not the 747. The error is understandable as previously before comparing the DC 10 to the planes that struck the twin towers I to thought it was the 747.

However having said that the 747 would be a lot bigger than the DC 10, however the 767 match more closely the specs of the DC10 except that it has a slightly larger fuel tank. Again depending on the variety used. The DC 10 interestingly enough does bigger fuselage than the 767 and depending on the DC 10 to the 767 the DC 10 has variants with larger wingspans as well.

In reality though except in terms of fuel capacity, I would say the DC 10 and 767 are almost like brothers.

Having said that, the 747 was produced from 1968 and the construction of the twin towers started in 1968.

It was the 767 that came later in 1981.

That makes two errors on your part, but I'm sure the second error is tied up with the first one if you got the 747 confused with the 767 you would naturally think that it was the one produced in 1981.

Well I suppose four errors if we're counting WTC 7. Which you thought fell days after the Twin Towers did, and which you also seem to have thought that it was a controlled demolition but more clarification will be needed on that from your part.

Having said that it appears that it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Which it did also withstand the impact of the 767, but not the subsequent fires from the fuel at least that would be your argument. But it did withstand the impact.

Okay, so I hit the wrong number when distinguishing between the 767 and the 747.

I'm old, the 747 has had more of an impact on my youth and child-hood.

Still you are again missing, dodging, evading, mistaking a certain key point in the conversation.

"CONSTRUCTION" is not the same as "DESIGNED".

The Towers were designed and planned long before the effort went into building them.

Again, at the time of their DESIGN the biggest machines flying were DC 10's and it was the impact of a low on fuel, arriving after an trans-Atlantic flight impact that was worked into the design.

This is not the events (As my hypothesis works with) that happened on the day. Two planes, laden with un-burnt fuel impacted both towers.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There's plenty of planes that have hit buildings, I never said you couldn't. Most of them have been unintentional.

Yes On these points we're in agreement.

I was pointing out that, since it had happened in the past the event of a plane impacting on tower (Either one) was taken into account. What actually happened is that planes of a larger design than envisaged. With more fuel load on board than was ever imagined. Impacted both towers within a close time frame.

Something that was never foreseen nor thought about during the tower's design.

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  More complex than the intricacies of the Irish Potato famine? The Holodomor? The Holocaust? I don't think so, those were both prolonged and involved millions of lives, this was just for a day and only involved a few thousand.

Yes Actually, yes.

Your hypothesis is incredibly convoluted as people do keep pointing out.

There has to be the pre-production of materials which go into the demolition. There has to be the pre-production of working said materials into the structures before the demolition.
There has to be the pr-production of the planes before the impact (If we're going by your 'Vanishing people idea')
NOTE* The above adding in a completely separate amount of work on top of everything happening with the buildings.

All of which MUST be kept secret.

Do you see how much MORE work is involved in your hypothesis?

As for the events in Ireland and the events in Russia and the events in Germany?

The events have not been kept a secret have they? The events that happened are very well known and documented, aren't they?

You are the one now trying to link known, documents events as a conspiracy.

They weren't. Tragedy? Horrible? Travesty? 'Ken oath they were were all such, but 'conspiracy'? only if you use the word differently to the context of our discussion.

*Plus... lets stay on topic shall we?

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I never said anything about the Pentagon. And I certainly don't think a plane crashed in a cornfield.

But yet another plane did impact on the pentagon and yet another plane did impact into a field.

Your hypothesis must also take these factors into account.

(That your beliefs have anything to do with events, I am nonplussed)

(18-01-2017 08:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I discount the fuel because most of it would have been destroyed in the explosion. That's why the explosion was so big, because there was a lot of fuel used up in it.

You can discount facts as much as you like but that makes your stance and hypothesis weaker.

Another poster has pointed out the error in your hypothesis in regards to the energy contained in thermite and the energy contained in kerosene.

Your hypothesis is now the one that needs to change on account of these facts.

As you (and other readers can see) we post facts (Yes, I have typos. :blushSmile and you evade, ignore, discount such things to stick with your hypothesis.

This is a bad thing.

So, please lets continue with you explaining from your hypothesis the;

1) Loads of work involved before the day's events. (There's a lot to cover in this one actually)

2) The disparity between what you think/believe to have been the substance used to cause the devastation on the day does not match with the known properties of the substances that would seem to have been easily available on the day.

You say thermite, others say Kerosene. The energy densities do not match up and you have to account for such. Was it 600 ton of thermite? Or 60 ton of kerosene?

3)All the other damage in the different places about the country on the day.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
18-01-2017, 08:11 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
They never designed those buildings to withstand a plane used as a weapon. It was outside any possible design parameters. You pulled "it appears it was designed to withstand a 707" is what my wife calls an ass-fact.
flying a plane into a building is quite easy. I did it all the time on sims, crashing into the Hong Kong skyline before 9-11. It was fun!
So, a plane did not crash into a cornfield. What happened there? What did they do with those people that supposedly died that day? This is your fantasy, flesh it out. I'm waiting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:13 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'd like you to meet a hooker called sandy, I think she would blow your mind.

Are you denying the events at Sandy Hook occurred?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:23 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:13 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'd like you to meet a hooker called sandy, I think she would blow your mind.

Are you denying the events at Sandy Hook occurred?

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