Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2017, 10:06 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
[Image: troll.jpg]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
18-01-2017, 10:55 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:50 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You also didn't answer my question about Sandy Hook.

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

You don't need my input especially on something that was already so obviously answered before you asked the question. What you are looking for is confirmation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 12:30 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 07:55 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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?


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)


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.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt...fS9eJRdgEK

Can you watch this playlist? It's a comprehensive response to 9/11 truthers, and as far as I know, it hasn't been adequately explained away by theorists. Could you give it a go?

[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
19-01-2017, 12:34 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Oh CW, you pathetic scumbag. No wonder you tried so hard to prep the ground before you pulled out your masterwork. What a load of shit Thumbsup

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-01-2017, 01:30 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 06:31 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If you want the theory its the theory that 9.11 was orchestrated by the CIA in collaboration with Mossad to frame Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
So here is, in part, your theory as you stated it. Now perusing through the rest of your responses shows the following:

NO demonstrable evidence of CIA involvement.
NO demonstrable evidence of Mossad involvment.
NO demonstrbale evidence to support a frame job of Osama Bin Laden.

So what support do you offer for your theory? Let's have a look.

"....might and resources available to an organization like the CIA, Mossad, Mi6, KGB who already have a record of clandestine operations. It is then far more probable that one of these institutions were behind the attacks."

1.)the CIA did it is because only they have the resources to buy box cutters and take flight school classes.
2.)the CIA and Mossad are responsible because they have done clandestine operations in the past. A spy agency. A spy agency has done spy things so therefore..... they did 9/11.
3.) "far more probable" is an assertion pulled from your ass based on the faulty logic of your previous two arguments. It has no basis in mathematical calculation.
It's also just stupid as hell to think that multiple intelligence agencies, including one as bumble fuckingly incompetent as the CIA, worked in collusion with each other, as well as multiple other branches of government and civilian organizations, to commit the largest act of terrorism in US history with absolute precision and no leaks or fuck ups is MORE likely than that trained terrorists with a history of terrorist attacks committed an act of terrorism.

"It would not benefit the Russians at all so we can count them out."

Is just plain stupid. Considering that one of the single greatest contributing factors to the Soviet Unions collapse was the hugely expensive war in Afganistan. So ya Russian getting the US involved in a hugely expensive and largely unwinnable land war in Afganistan is HUGELY beneficial to Russian interests. Not that that means they had anything to do with it, just that you are an idiot who doesn't understand geopolitics.

".....the individual theory that this was actually orchestrated by terrorists all they had to look forward to was their death which makes it even more unlikely that they'd be candidates given the innate instinct in everyone to survive and pass down their genes."

That suicide bombers make poor terrorists because everyone wants to survive, is among the stupidest things I've ever heard. Someone tell the Tamil Tigers, Japanese Kamikaze Pilots of WW2, or the oh I don't know 652 Suicide attacks in 2015 alone. Twat.


"....it would then make a lot more sense if one of the world superpowers invented a reason to invade and dominate these smaller and weaker countries."


A collection of countries working together to start a war in one of the most inhospitable and resource sucking parts of the world makes more sense than a bunch of professional terrorists, with a history of terrorist attacks on American interests, conducting a terrorist attacks on America?

Do you have any idea how much the wars have cost? Just to America alone? Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes calculated out a total cost in 2013 of between 4 and 6 TRILLION dollars. To control an area responsible for 12% of American oil imports 8% of which comes from a country that was friendly at the time.

This is EXACTLY what Osama Bin laden did to the USSR, pulled them into Afganistan and bleed them dry.

".....If a child goes missing in a neighborhood where a known sex offender is living, who do the police question first? The History of the CIA and the KGB work against them in the same manner."

You know who the police question first in a terrorist attack? Not the CIA. You keep talking about the history of the CIA but ignoring the history of Al-Qaeda a history that includes attacking American interests for over a decade beforehand, who was known to be actively looking to carry out an attack on American soil, and has direct evidence tying it to the attacks, who has had numerous family members admit they knew either before or shortly after it happened that Bin Laden was behind it, and oh ya we had numerous reports from agencies all over the world that a major attack was coming (Odd seeing as how they are all in on the conspiracy)
You have to ignore all these facts to maintain your position. You are trying to weave a narrative and not demonstrate a theory. These are not the same.


(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.

Your little "theory" now grows to expand government demolitions and a bunch of other very stupid things and again your "evidence" is nowhere to be found.

NO demonstrable evidence that a demolition took place.
NO demonstrable evidence that if one took place the government did it.
NO demonstrable evidence that the planes could not bring down the towers.

How do you support these assertions? Let's have an other look.

"....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"

No, it is not enough to prove something could possibly happen to declare that it did happen. Assertions that something is possible aren't enough to even say that it is probable let alone that it is what actually happened. You have to provide actual evidence for the event, not just assertions.


"...A fault that fails to take into consideration that there may not have been anyone even on board those planes."


You have no actual evidence that this is true, likely or even plausible. This is an assertion with no basis in evidence, it's nothing but an attempt to fabricate an explanation after the fact to explain a plot hole in your narrative.

"....People create fake identities all the time, it would not be hard at all to do with the vast resources of the government."

That people can create fake identification does not mean fake identification was used here. You actually have to provide some actual evidence that that is actually the case. This is more lazy and contrived plot hole filling in your narrative.
For fuck sake your own logic shows how stupid your arguments are: there have been dozens and dozens of aircraft hijackings going back as far as the 1920's that don't require the resources of multiple governments working together. Most Hijackings involves very few people, some as few as 2 people.

"....Silently as compared to a loud controlled demolition."


So it was a controlled demolition that was silent compared to a controlled demolition? Facepalm

"Yes, and so we must assume that a plane did indeed hit the World Trade Centers..."

We don't have to assume anything we KNOW that they did, we watched the second one live on TV and we have footage of the first plane hitting the tower as well. We don't have to assume anything, it's a fucking fact.


"The manner in which WTC 7 fell is identical to a controlled demolition."


No, actually it's not.




The fact that something fell down, in the manner it was designed to fall down in, is not evidence of a controlled demolition. This is not taking into account the fact you would have to spend weeks smuggling in explosives and other demo equipment, past security guards and bomb-sniffing dogs, and do heavy construction work in an area that thousands of people work in and visit every day, without a single person noticing. Across multiple buildings. For fucking weeks!

There have been numerous peer-reviewed publications explaining how the towers, including 7, collapsed. It's the view of every major structural engineering publication in the world. The fact YOU personally think it looks like a controlled demolition is NOT evidence that it was.


"It is therefore highly unlikely that any damage would have been sustained at the bottom of WTC 7...."
The WTC 7 collapse was not caused by damage caused by debris alone but rather by the fires ragign unchecked on multiple floors. This has been well known for ages. It most definitely was not caused by explosives as there is no evidence of such a thing. For fuck sake there isn't even the sound of the smallest possible explosion necessary to take out a single critical column in any eyewitness account, audio or video of WTC 7 at or near the time it collapsed.

The first of the critical columns collapses a full 8 seconds before the rest of the building which is ....you know... not how a controlled demo works.


"....which if there was enough damage from that it would have collapsed with the Twin Towers and not afterward."
This is just a baseless assertion so let me ask a simple question to show how stupid this is: which tower should it have collapsed with? The other WTC didn't fall at the same time so why would this one? The second tower to fall was nearly 30 minutes after the first, so why the hell would a building not hit by an aircraft fall at the same time. This is just ....idiotic.

"It is also very peculiar that all three buildings suffered total destruction instead of a partial collapse. "
The fact you find something peculiar is not evidence.

"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."
Again how did you determine probability, or are you pulling this assertion out of your ass? You have no qualifications to even speck on the probability of anything related to structural engineering. Improbable things happen on a daily basis and this "improbable" thing has seen multiple peer-reviewed publications that explained how it happened.

"Therefore it is far more likely that intent was involved."
Intent was involved. By the hijackers.

Lets take a break here and look at your evidence.

None. You have not provided a single bit of actual evidence. "Argument" is not another word for "evidence". You have stated the CIA was involved and your support for that is "well they have been kinda sneaky in the past". No videotape, no documents, no recordings, nothing from the scene just... "spy agencies do spy stuff so therefore 9/11 was done by them".

Your evidence that was as good as the evidence for Evolution is unsupported assertions, and your own personal opinion, and some amateurish story telling.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2017, 01:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
[Image: 8bce00e2853c6e2114fa905d9e8feaba2ba1bc07...b337a5.jpg]

Boy howdy, do I ever feel vindicated.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:08 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 01:30 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 06:31 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If you want the theory its the theory that 9.11 was orchestrated by the CIA in collaboration with Mossad to frame Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
So here is, in part, your theory as you stated it. Now perusing through the rest of your responses shows the following:

NO demonstrable evidence of CIA involvement.
NO demonstrable evidence of Mossad involvment.
NO demonstrbale evidence to support a frame job of Osama Bin Laden.

So what support do you offer for your theory? Let's have a look.

"....might and resources available to an organization like the CIA, Mossad, Mi6, KGB who already have a record of clandestine operations. It is then far more probable that one of these institutions were behind the attacks."

1.)the CIA did it is because only they have the resources to buy box cutters and take flight school classes.
2.)the CIA and Mossad are responsible because they have done clandestine operations in the past. A spy agency. A spy agency has done spy things so therefore..... they did 9/11.
3.) "far more probable" is an assertion pulled from your ass based on the faulty logic of your previous two arguments. It has no basis in mathematical calculation.
It's also just stupid as hell to think that multiple intelligence agencies, including one as bumble fuckingly incompetent as the CIA, worked in collusion with each other, as well as multiple other branches of government and civilian organizations, to commit the largest act of terrorism in US history with absolute precision and no leaks or fuck ups is MORE likely than that trained terrorists with a history of terrorist attacks committed an act of terrorism.

"It would not benefit the Russians at all so we can count them out."

Is just plain stupid. Considering that one of the single greatest contributing factors to the Soviet Unions collapse was the hugely expensive war in Afganistan. So ya Russian getting the US involved in a hugely expensive and largely unwinnable land war in Afganistan is HUGELY beneficial to Russian interests. Not that that means they had anything to do with it, just that you are an idiot who doesn't understand geopolitics.

".....the individual theory that this was actually orchestrated by terrorists all they had to look forward to was their death which makes it even more unlikely that they'd be candidates given the innate instinct in everyone to survive and pass down their genes."

That suicide bombers make poor terrorists because everyone wants to survive, is among the stupidest things I've ever heard. Someone tell the Tamil Tigers, Japanese Kamikaze Pilots of WW2, or the oh I don't know 652 Suicide attacks in 2015 alone. Twat.


"....it would then make a lot more sense if one of the world superpowers invented a reason to invade and dominate these smaller and weaker countries."


A collection of countries working together to start a war in one of the most inhospitable and resource sucking parts of the world makes more sense than a bunch of professional terrorists, with a history of terrorist attacks on American interests, conducting a terrorist attacks on America?

Do you have any idea how much the wars have cost? Just to America alone? Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes calculated out a total cost in 2013 of between 4 and 6 TRILLION dollars. To control an area responsible for 12% of American oil imports 8% of which comes from a country that was friendly at the time.

This is EXACTLY what Osama Bin laden did to the USSR, pulled them into Afganistan and bleed them dry.

".....If a child goes missing in a neighborhood where a known sex offender is living, who do the police question first? The History of the CIA and the KGB work against them in the same manner."

You know who the police question first in a terrorist attack? Not the CIA. You keep talking about the history of the CIA but ignoring the history of Al-Qaeda a history that includes attacking American interests for over a decade beforehand, who was known to be actively looking to carry out an attack on American soil, and has direct evidence tying it to the attacks, who has had numerous family members admit they knew either before or shortly after it happened that Bin Laden was behind it, and oh ya we had numerous reports from agencies all over the world that a major attack was coming (Odd seeing as how they are all in on the conspiracy)
You have to ignore all these facts to maintain your position. You are trying to weave a narrative and not demonstrate a theory. These are not the same.


(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.

Your little "theory" now grows to expand government demolitions and a bunch of other very stupid things and again your "evidence" is nowhere to be found.

NO demonstrable evidence that a demolition took place.
NO demonstrable evidence that if one took place the government did it.
NO demonstrable evidence that the planes could not bring down the towers.

How do you support these assertions? Let's have an other look.

"....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"

No, it is not enough to prove something could possibly happen to declare that it did happen. Assertions that something is possible aren't enough to even say that it is probable let alone that it is what actually happened. You have to provide actual evidence for the event, not just assertions.


"...A fault that fails to take into consideration that there may not have been anyone even on board those planes."


You have no actual evidence that this is true, likely or even plausible. This is an assertion with no basis in evidence, it's nothing but an attempt to fabricate an explanation after the fact to explain a plot hole in your narrative.

"....People create fake identities all the time, it would not be hard at all to do with the vast resources of the government."

That people can create fake identification does not mean fake identification was used here. You actually have to provide some actual evidence that that is actually the case. This is more lazy and contrived plot hole filling in your narrative.
For fuck sake your own logic shows how stupid your arguments are: there have been dozens and dozens of aircraft hijackings going back as far as the 1920's that don't require the resources of multiple governments working together. Most Hijackings involves very few people, some as few as 2 people.

"....Silently as compared to a loud controlled demolition."


So it was a controlled demolition that was silent compared to a controlled demolition? Facepalm

"Yes, and so we must assume that a plane did indeed hit the World Trade Centers..."

We don't have to assume anything we KNOW that they did, we watched the second one live on TV and we have footage of the first plane hitting the tower as well. We don't have to assume anything, it's a fucking fact.


"The manner in which WTC 7 fell is identical to a controlled demolition."


No, actually it's not.




The fact that something fell down, in the manner it was designed to fall down in, is not evidence of a controlled demolition. This is not taking into account the fact you would have to spend weeks smuggling in explosives and other demo equipment, past security guards and bomb-sniffing dogs, and do heavy construction work in an area that thousands of people work in and visit every day, without a single person noticing. Across multiple buildings. For fucking weeks!

There have been numerous peer-reviewed publications explaining how the towers, including 7, collapsed. It's the view of every major structural engineering publication in the world. The fact YOU personally think it looks like a controlled demolition is NOT evidence that it was.


"It is therefore highly unlikely that any damage would have been sustained at the bottom of WTC 7...."
The WTC 7 collapse was not caused by damage caused by debris alone but rather by the fires ragign unchecked on multiple floors. This has been well known for ages. It most definitely was not caused by explosives as there is no evidence of such a thing. For fuck sake there isn't even the sound of the smallest possible explosion necessary to take out a single critical column in any eyewitness account, audio or video of WTC 7 at or near the time it collapsed.

The first of the critical columns collapses a full 8 seconds before the rest of the building which is ....you know... not how a controlled demo works.


"....which if there was enough damage from that it would have collapsed with the Twin Towers and not afterward."
This is just a baseless assertion so let me ask a simple question to show how stupid this is: which tower should it have collapsed with? The other WTC didn't fall at the same time so why would this one? The second tower to fall was nearly 30 minutes after the first, so why the hell would a building not hit by an aircraft fall at the same time. This is just ....idiotic.

"It is also very peculiar that all three buildings suffered total destruction instead of a partial collapse. "
The fact you find something peculiar is not evidence.

"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."
Again how did you determine probability, or are you pulling this assertion out of your ass? You have no qualifications to even speck on the probability of anything related to structural engineering. Improbable things happen on a daily basis and this "improbable" thing has seen multiple peer-reviewed publications that explained how it happened.

"Therefore it is far more likely that intent was involved."
Intent was involved. By the hijackers.

Lets take a break here and look at your evidence.

None. You have not provided a single bit of actual evidence. "Argument" is not another word for "evidence". You have stated the CIA was involved and your support for that is "well they have been kinda sneaky in the past". No videotape, no documents, no recordings, nothing from the scene just... "spy agencies do spy stuff so therefore 9/11 was done by them".

Your evidence that was as good as the evidence for Evolution is unsupported assertions, and your own personal opinion, and some amateurish story telling.

My evidence is sound because it involves simple physics that a gradeschooler could understand. From temperature, gravity, motion, etc. What you want is the math to back it up. I should probably work on that in the future... might even be able to do a small science experiment but I don't have very much money...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  My evidence is sound because it involves simple physics that a gradeschooler could understand. From temperature, gravity, motion, etc. What you want is the math to back it up. I should probably work on that in the future... might even be able to do a small science experiment but I don't have very much money...

So simple in fact that it contradicts the professional opinions of professional engineers and their associations. Excuse me while the rest of us take their word over that of an ignorant child.

And you.

Plus, could you deflect any harder? We all know you're full of shit and have nothing to show for it, why so you make such a show of flapping about like a fish stuck on dry land?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-01-2017, 02:24 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  My evidence is sound because it involves simple physics that a gradeschooler could understand. From temperature, gravity, motion, etc. What you want is the math to back it up. I should probably work on that in the future... might even be able to do a small science experiment but I don't have very much money...

So simple in fact that it contradicts the professional opinions of professional engineers and their associations. Excuse me while the rest of us take their word over that of an ignorant child.

And you.

Plus, could you deflect any harder? We all know you're full of shit and have nothing to show for it, why so you make such a show of flapping about like a fish stuck on dry land?

I've made a point in never really taking Whiskey seriously again that and the discussion ended after fatbaldhobbit. I can run the well dry telling you how this is how it should be, but if I could show it to you back myself up with experiments and math and settle once for all if jet fuel could actually cause structural failure or not. Would that not be more effective than words?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:27 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  My evidence is sound because it involves simple physics that a gradeschooler could understand. From temperature, gravity, motion, etc. What you want is the math to back it up. I should probably work on that in the future... might even be able to do a small science experiment but I don't have very much money...

Sure, psikey, sure, your shit-for-brains "science" beats everything that Whiskey just put together in great detail, because you said so. You fucking troll. You couldn't do maths if I sent you to the best university courses in the world and punished you for failing by beating you with an iron bar. Some people are just that fucking stupid, and you are one of them. Learn from this fact and develop coping strategies to handle this strange world that you find yourself in.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: