Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2017, 02:30 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:27 AM)morondog 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...

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.

Better than crop circles I suppose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:31 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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?

Your words mean less than nothing, any cache you might have once had has already been spent and wasted. Professionals commenting about their field of expertise should generally be trusted and given the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a really good reason to doubt them. But because they are professionals, the bar of reasonable doubt is much higher. If you want to challenge every professional engineer association and the findings of each and every investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers, than the burden of evidence you place upon yourself is immense.

And no, passive-aggressive deflection about the mathematical competence of grade-schoolers doesn't fucking cut it, you credulous dipshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:40 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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?

Your words mean less than nothing, any cache you might have once had has already been spent and wasted. Professionals commenting about their field of expertise should generally be trusted and given the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a really good reason to doubt them. But because they are professionals, the bar of reasonable doubt is much higher. If you want to challenge every professional engineer association and the findings of each and every investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers, than the burden of evidence you place upon yourself is immense.

And no, passive-aggressive deflection about the mathematical competence of grade-schoolers doesn't fucking cut it, you credulous dipshit.

I think that burden of evidence is less than you seem to think it is. You seem to hold the word of professionals as though they were immutable gods. In which case, what about all the professionals who say otherwise?

No I have a better question. A better question that deserves a thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:43 AM
If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
What if by some miracle Putin came charging out of Russia riding on a bear and shirtless sporting an ushanka with the sickle and the hammer while the soviet national anthem played in the background as he held multiple pieces of paper and a vhs with all the evidence (including video) and audio (in the form of a record) of everything that led up to 911 proving that it was an inside job. Lets go one step further and just say that this paper was also signed by God, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, The Jade Emperor, Buddha, and Khrishna.

I want to know how you would feel about yourself regarding your previous beliefs that you were so smugly sure that 9.11 was not an inside job.


Basically the question is.

How much would you feel like an ass?

If the opposite were true with me, I'd be utterly flabbergasted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:44 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you understand how an explosion works?

Yes Yes, I do.

So... you're going to focus on the 'Thermite' aspect? Thumbsup

How do you explain no one noticing 600 tons of extra material being specifically, carefully and expertly placed about both buildings? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:46 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:44 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you understand how an explosion works?

Yes Yes, I do.

So... you're going to focus on the 'Thermite' aspect? Thumbsup

How do you explain no one noticing 600 tons of extra material being specifically, carefully and expertly placed about both buildings? Consider

No.

I'm going to focus on the jet fuel aspect, you may not hear about how this progresses for a few years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:53 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 02:44 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Yes Yes, I do.

So... you're going to focus on the 'Thermite' aspect? Thumbsup

How do you explain no one noticing 600 tons of extra material being specifically, carefully and expertly placed about both buildings? Consider

No.

I'm going to focus on the jet fuel aspect, you may not hear about how this progresses for a few years.

Consider

Oh, so you're going to... accept that 60 ton of kerosene has the same energy as 600 ton of thermite?

Or.. you're going to some how prove that 60 ton of kerosene some how vanishes/evaporates/instantly burns off... leaving 600 tons of thermite as the 'Only' explanation?

Which circles us back around to the problem of how they got 600 tons of thermite into the building etc, etc...

Consider

Well.. best of luck putting those words down. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 02:55 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
Fuck off cunt. Save your mental masturbation for people who care.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-01-2017, 02:56 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
Okay... dial up Putin and let him ride on over with the information. Thumbsup



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 03:03 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:53 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 02:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No.

I'm going to focus on the jet fuel aspect, you may not hear about how this progresses for a few years.

Consider

Oh, so you're going to... accept that 60 ton of kerosene has the same energy as 600 ton of thermite?

Or.. you're going to some how prove that 60 ton of kerosene some how vanishes/evaporates/instantly burns off... leaving 600 tons of thermite as the 'Only' explanation?

Which circles us back around to the problem of how they got 600 tons of thermite into the building etc, etc...

Consider

Well.. best of luck putting those words down. Thumbsup

If it was thermite in the first place, many theorists like to say nano-thermite which has better evidence than regular old thermite.

But either way, if I can just disprove the jet fuel, it'll lead to no other alternative than an inside job. I'm not saying it all instantly vaporizes, there will definitely be some residual jet fuel. but this would be better solved in a tested experiment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: