Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2017, 08:27 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Are you fucking kidding me?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
18-01-2017, 08:29 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Ok, state your facts or you can fuck right off. The crap you are posting won't stand the light of day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:50 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:23 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:13 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Are you denying the events at Sandy Hook occurred?

Someone got it!
Prove it. I've done enough research to be fairly convinced of it happening. Are you prepared to back that claim up?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 08:52 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:23 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:13 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Are you denying the events at Sandy Hook occurred?

Someone got it!

Yes or no?

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, 08:54 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 07:55 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(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

Do you understand how an explosion works?

(18-01-2017 08:11 PM)skyking Wrote:  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.

Whether a plane is flown intentionally or unintentionally into a building are the results not the same?

As for the cornfield people, what people? As with god You can't prove a negative. No bones and not a single trace of any debris of any kind. If a person can make a fake identity, I suppose a person could do the same for a plane or a car.

But there isn't any plane in that cornfield, no engine (even the pentagon at least had an engine (but no tail section.)

I believe when people talk about a plane not being able to hit a building regarding the 911 conspiracy they are probably referring to the pentagon. It does seem pretty incredibly the trajectory of the plane its velocity (530 mph) at its low altitude. Flying a plane into a tower is easy peesy as you said skyking, flying it into the pentagon? Almost an hour after the first plane crashed into the first tower and forty minutes after the second tower?

That a plane which was known to be hijacked was allowed to hit the pentagon after two other known to be hijacked planes had crashed into the twin towers 40 minutes prior.

That is a stretch of the imagination, and I'm a conspiracy theorist, I have as you know... quite a vast imagination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:00 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2017 09:08 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:50 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:23 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Someone got it!
Prove it. I've done enough research to be fairly convinced of it happening. Are you prepared to back that claim up?

The evidence of 9.11 being a conspiracy is biting you and everyone else in the ass right now and yet you are all just denying it outright. Just like creationists.

I told you people were not men of science.

I warned you all that this would happen, and you did not believe me. So next time I say that you won't believe me, will all of you instead of insisting on something that you're just going to throw out the window anyways. Why won't you at least believe me when I say that you won't believe me and save both of us some time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:24 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
all you have presented is your ideas. Hmm, just like your creationist shot. sound familiar?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:27 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Why won't you at least believe me when I say that you won't believe me and save both of us some time?

Then why won't you shut the fuck up about it?

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, 09:46 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:27 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Why won't you at least believe me when I say that you won't believe me and save both of us some time?

Then why won't you shut the fuck up about it?

I tried but you were the ones persisting that I do...

A classic really, there's many examples similar to my situation they call it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:46 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 09:27 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Then why won't you shut the fuck up about it?

I tried but you were the ones persisting that I do...

A classic really, there's many examples similar to my situation they call it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You didn't try. You kept bringing it up.

You also didn't answer my question about Sandy Hook.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: