Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2017, 03:04 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
(19-01-2017 02:56 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... dial up Putin and let him ride on over with the information. Thumbsup




Wrong song. Here I'll put the right one up.





... So majestic...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 03:16 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
Consider

And.. where's the other information from Putin?

Not a lot of riding going on....

Just saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 03:19 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
(19-01-2017 03:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

And.. where's the other information from Putin?

Not a lot of riding going on....

Just saying.

We're still trying to find a suitable bear for Comrade Putin, but all we've got are female bears and they keep trying to breed with him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 03:03 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If it was thermite in the first place, many theorists like to say nano-thermite which has better evidence than regular old thermite.

Lots of people want to say 'Some made up substance' which is the only way they can get their weird ideas to seem to have any traction' I think you mean.

So.. now you have to show that there actually is such a substance as 'Nano-thermite'.

Then explain how it was placed in the structures etc, etc.

It'll be an interesting read. Thumbsup

(19-01-2017 03:03 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Nope. You saying the kerosene some how vanished. Or all its chemical properties were neutralized or what ever will not forward your other idea.

Heck, you are the one wanting 600 odd passengers (No, am too busy to Google up the exact passenger list atm) to vanish as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
19-01-2017, 03:22 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
Ta-boom-TISH
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 03:32 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
(19-01-2017 02:43 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

I wouldn't feel like an ass at all, shithead. If I make judgements from available evidence, that's fine. If you actually get evidence that it was an inside job, then I'll change my mind. That's how honest people work. When all you've got are masturbatory fantasies about Putin, you can safely be ignored as a source of reliable information.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
19-01-2017, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2017 03:38 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I think that burden of evidence is less than you seem to think it is.

Clearly. Too bad you're both wrong and a idiot.


(19-01-2017 02:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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?

Fuck you asshole, you do not get to misrepresnt what I said. So let me repeat for your fucking benefit.

"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. "

Replace engineers with biologists, and the Twin Towers with natural selection. If you are going to overturn the consensus of the vast majority of professionals, experts, and the organizations that represent them, then you have a mountain of work ahead of you. It's possible, but you've yet to show fuck all for it.

The experts that disagree? Well, if they cannot convince their colleges, those in the best position to evaluate their claims, arguments, and evidence, why should you or I take them seriously?


Much like algebra homework, you get no credit if you don't show your work.


(19-01-2017 02:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No I have a better question. A better question that deserves a thread.

Too bad you're as thick as a brick.

[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, 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2017 04:05 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(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.

You clearly have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are completely ignorant of the most basic physics knowledge. You dont bother to engage in a honest and scientific discussion. Thats why i am already done with you. Nothing being even remotley well founded as evolution do you have. in fact, you have nothing but YT vids and your "opinion". But before i close here are my last remarks to your incredible ignorant presentation of your case.

You arent engaging honestly because:
#1 You asked me to look up the evidence you said you had availiable
#2 when i gave you some numbers to crunch and asked some very basic questions, you didnt even bother adressing them (energy density of kerosene and thermite, etc.)
#3 instead you try to keep deflecting (WTC7, each time)
#4 When i asked you questions, when i replied to the topics you brought up (burning pile of rubble), you suddenly dont bother to defend your claim and "evidence" anymore and keep deflecting and pointing to new issues. Shotgun approach and gish galopp, apologetic style.

Thats not how an intellectual honest being engages in a discussion with someone. You should feel ashamed.
You are ignorant of chemistry, basic mechanical engineering and architecture, and a few other things. I doubt you even understood the numbers i tried to prepare and present to you so you can digest them better.

Your utter ignorance of basic chemistry was finally demonstrated by you claiming that all the jet fuel went off in the initial explosion.
That is like a creationist explaining the big flood with heavy rain. Literally the same! Because whilke rain is possible, just like a consumption of jet fuel during an explosion, you obvisously have not the slightest clue what orders of magnitide we are talking about. Knowing orders of magnitue is imperative to know to handle, because before you even begin with any in depth scientific investigation you want to be sure you didnt just invoke "magic" (like magic heavy rain for the flood which would have heated up the atmosphere to the point of boiling, case closed). Watch some Bill Nye vids or rebuttals to Ken Hams lunacy and you know what i am talking about.

In my last post i told you that the 767ER (extended range = more fuel) had 60t or 90.000l fuel on board. You just claimed that in an explosion that lasted just a few seconds (and a chaotic one i may add, not some planned deflagration setup like in a combustion engine or the most powerful non-nuclear weapons, blast bombs) most if not all of 90.000l of fuel was consumed.
Again i ask: do you have the faintest clue what you are talking about here?
90.000l of fuel with 40MJ/kg (remember!) that results in ca. 2,4TJ of energy released if properly oxidized (thats what burning is)...how much oxygen do you tihnk is needed? How many liters, kilograms, mols? You have have any clue that for that fuel to "properly" be burned during or shortly after impact, it would have NEEDED to be vaporized like perfume? Do you have a clue what the maximum speed is at which kerosene can burn of conflagrate? Did you ever bother to look that up to make sure your "assumptions" arent even within the realm of physics rather than in the realm of magic? You really think you take 90.000l of liquid fuel in the tanks of a plane, light a match, and BOOM it all burns away in a few seconds? If so, you are eithe rincredibly naive, incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest, or a combination of two of those.

You were talking again about what you assume. I take that as unfounded assertions (and you know what we do with those) unless and until you give me some EXPLANATION, and that explanation better had some scientific background rather than more wild ass guesses that voilate all known physics.

But back to your statements. This here is incredibly ignorant, particularly in view of the fact that i basically gave you information in my previous post, that should have made you question your own agenda. It looks like either you didnt bother to read or didn tunderstand properly:
Quote: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.
I dont know what that stuff was that seemed to drip off the walls of the WTC, maybe molten metal or not. In my previous post i told you that kerosene can burn at 2200C that is 4000F, which is WAY in excess what you claim is needed to melt steel (ca. 1200C). So Kerosene is absolutely fuckingly possibly able to
#2 heat up steel to 700C and weaken it sufficiently and make WTC collapse
#3 or melt some steel that can then drip off somehwhere

Quote:The venue's I've looked up talk about a janitorial crew
And that crew brough tca. 600 TONS of thermite with them? How? How big has a "janitorial crew" to be in order to be able to haul up 600t of that stuff?
You "looked up" venues? Nice. Did you critically think about them, particularly with a few raw numbers in the back of your head, like i did?

Quote: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.
I am not interested in what the consensus amongst conspiracy theorist cirlces is, as i am not interested what the consensus amongst fundamentalist bible scholars is about the flood, as i am not interested in what the consensus amongst the patients in the asylum is about "Napoleons" real identity. I am interested how they can convince ME with FACTS and EVIDENCE and SCIENCE. You have absolutely nothing, and the way you are presenting this tells me that you do not have the most basic scientific backgroud to even be able to evaluate the events around 9/11 for yourself, let alone convince others.

My assumption is, and please feel free to comment on this or not (i am not going to force you to give away personal information), that in your personal, real life and job, you have nothing to do with science, math or engineering. Conspiracies are a hobby to you (as i said earlier), it makes you feel "sciency", because you have some interest in those topics, but in real life, you have absolutely nothing to do with these things, and you never had. You seem to have no grasp what it takes to be able to properly do even the most basic things in the realm of engineering and science.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Deesse23's post
19-01-2017, 04:04 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...
Sorry, but no, you have violated the most simple physics with your theroy, and, like any good apologist, you are trying to rehabilitate this by bringing up more stuff you thinks id good evidence, but in fact it just confirms your ignorance.

You have, again, claimed that most fuel was used up during the initial impact/explosion. Please provide some basic calculations, which can be done in less than an hour of research if you have some scientifc know how on how 90.000l of kerosene can be burned in an instant.
Please be advised, and i am sure you are ignorant of this as well: Kerosene is similar to diesel fuel and unlike gasoline it is burning much more slowly.

Ill wait. Drinking Beverage

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
19-01-2017, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2017 04:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 04:04 AM)Deesse23 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...
Sorry, but no, you have violated the most simple physics with your theroy, and, like any good apologist, you are trying to rehabilitate this by bringing up more stuff you thinks id good evidence, but in fact it just confirms your ignorance.

You have, again, claimed that most fuel was used up during the initial impact/explosion. Please provide some basic calculations, which can be done in less than an hour of research if you have some scientifc know how on how 90.000l of kerosene can be burned in an instant.
Please be advised, and i am sure you are ignorant of this as well: Kerosene is similar to diesel fuel and unlike gasoline it is burning much more slowly.

Ill wait. Drinking Beverage


Just for a point of reference, here is a Fuel-Air Bomb (a type of thermobaric weapon), one of the most powerful nonnuclear munitions available to a modern military.

This is a Vietnam era BLU-96/B, a 2000lb fuel air bomb.







This is by no means the largest such weapon of this type devised. The United States also built, tested but never deployed, the GBU-43/B MOAB. This weapon has a mass of 8.2 tonnes, and generates an explosion equivalent to 22 tons of TNT. The blast radius stretches a mile in each direction.






For reference 90,000 liters of Kerosene converts to about 73.5 tonnes (for substance with a density of 817.15 kg/m³).


So yeah, had all that fuel instantly ignited (ignoring for a moment just how you could have aerosolized it all at once), it would have leveled both buildings, and a good chunk of everything around them, for miles.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: