Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: If Putin proved 9.11 was an inside job.
(19-01-2017 07:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 07:02 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Why does this need its own thread?

Because hopefully we'll forget about the shit-baggery that was the previous thread. It's akin to forum gish-galloping. Just get everyone focused on the brand new thread, and hope people will forget all of the crazy bullshit packed away in the old one. Never dealing with it, never addressing it, never owning up to it; it's a deflection, a dodge, and a whole new line of bullshit all rolled into one.

I can actually do something about that...

Threads merged


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
[+] 7 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-01-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  My evidence is sound because .......

So far you haven't presented any evidence. A lot of assertions, could be's, maybe's, a complete rejection of Occam's razor, and the insistence that showing something is possible means it's what happened but no.... no evidence. Especially not for your theory as you presented it:

"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."

(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  From temperature, gravity, motion, etc.
There is nothing at all in the realm of physics which acts as evidence that the CIA or any other government agency planned and carried out. You need actual tangible and demonstrable evidence of their involvement to support such an assertion.

(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you want is the math to back it up.
I want actual evidence to back your assertions up, cause that's all you have made so far: assertions. Baldfaced and idiotic assertions. You have provided no evidence that the CIA was involved in any way.

(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I should probably work on that in the future...
Yes....you should work on getting ACTUAL evidence before you try to claim you have evidence as good as that for Evolution.

(19-01-2017 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  might even be able to do a small science experiment but I don't have very much money...
No. Take what little money you have and get a fucking education instead.

(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've made a point in never really taking Whiskey seriously again
Irrelevant to my continued ability to kick your stupid ass. I said before you even presented your case that you were setting up a as many chances as you could to hand wave away any criticism. Once again I'm right.

(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  that and the discussion ended after fatbaldhobbit.
The discussion ends when all parties stop discussing it, not when you declare it so out of fear when you realize your gonna have to roll for anal circumference.

(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can run the well dry telling you how this is how it should be
We didn't ask you for your goddamn opinion on 9/11 we asked you for your evidence you claimed was as good as Evolution.

(19-01-2017 02:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Would that not be more effective than words?
Would actual evidence be better than your stupid assertions? Yes. Yes it would be.Hobo

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2017, 08:52 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 02:43 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
No one is being smug by rejecting your insistence that your assertions are evidence on par with that of evolution. You have failed to demonstrate any evidence for CIA and government involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11.

WE are following evidence, YOU are trying to craft a narrative that fits your conclusion.

There is no smugness involved in rejecting your stupid unfounded assertions.

(19-01-2017 02:43 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How much would you feel like an ass?
Not at all? If someone could come with clear, demonstrable, and testable evidence that the event happened differently then I think it did then I would adjust my views. I can do that because my views are based on the best available evidence and if there was new evidence I'd be fine taking it in.

Don't pretend the reason you failed to prove your assertion is a problem with us and not a problem with you.

(19-01-2017 02:43 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If the opposite were true with me, I'd be utterly flabbergasted.
We know that this is just false though. Almost every single professional structural engineering publication shows you are wrong. Numerous peer-reviewed studies show you are wrong. The confessions of numerous people involved show you are wrong, we have video evidence of people admitting to the attacks. We have reports from multiple intelligence agencies around the world warning us of an impending attack before it happened.

We have a preponderance of evidence that your theory is wrong, and you show just how warped your thinking is when you try to mock us for relying on experts in their field but you think a nonexistent version of fucking Vladimir Putin is a good enough source that it should make us feel stupid.


You are a joke. Good as Evolution my arse.

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I missed this earlier.

Is this dumb motherfucker denying that Flight 93 crashed?

(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.)

Can you provide the transcripts for your interview with Wally Miller?

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
19-01-2017, 12:38 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 09:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I missed this earlier.

Is this dumb motherfucker..

Yes.

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
19-01-2017, 04:09 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 06:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Except that last I checked, you conflated a conspiracy with a conspiracy theory. The two terms are completely different.


I'm fairly sure that most of the posters here would revise their beliefs if presented with sufficient evidence.

What would you do if evidence was presented that disproved your pet theory?


theBorg, yourself and who I wonder...

What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality itself. Therefore to me some are not theories at all but a fact. This you have to understand.

You being convinced does not move it from theory to fact. Only a preponderance of evidence does that.

Quote:The difference is in our opinions of the matter. Its just like many people feel evolution should not be considered a 'theory' any longer because of the insurmountable amount of proof regarding it.

You are conflating two very different meanings of the word 'theory'. A scientific theory such as evolution is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
19-01-2017, 04:22 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 08:23 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:10 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Your hypothesis regarding the terrorists being unlikely to want to kill themselves, seems to me to be horribly flawed for two reasons firstly the huge numbers of suicide bombings carried out by Islamists shows conclusively they are more than willing to self terminate themselves for their ideology and 72 virgins in paradise and secondly we all saw the planes hit,these guys could not possibly have done such a thing and expected to live. The entirety of this part of your comment makes no sense and is utterly disproven by virtue of the fact someone had to have flown the planes into the buildings plus we all saw it happen.

Nasa has been controlling satelites/probes remotely millions of miles away from Earth. It is not improbable that the same could be done for three planes on 9.11.

No one at all had to be flying those planes.

You are a morally bankrupt moron. I actually knew someone on one of those flights, SO FUCK YOU, YOU CRETIN.

Really, fuck off and die.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
19-01-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 03:03 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 02:53 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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.

You and the rest of the 911 idiots are a special kind of stupid.

You think fire didn't collapse WTC7?

Read this and watch the video.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 11:54 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  You and the rest of the 911 idiots are a special kind of stupid.

He's dense alright, but here we run into the paradox that explaining to him how stupid he is doesn't work because he's too stupid to see how fucking stupid he is.

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
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
20-01-2017, 12:05 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(19-01-2017 04:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 08:23 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Nasa has been controlling satelites/probes remotely millions of miles away from Earth. It is not improbable that the same could be done for three planes on 9.11.

No one at all had to be flying those planes.

You are a morally bankrupt moron. I actually knew someone on one of those flights, SO FUCK YOU, YOU CRETIN.

Really, fuck off and die.

If I knew someone who was murdered and their death helped capitulate two states to go to war. I'd be very concerned if someone said that their murderer was the man who cast the blame on the accused.

I certainly would not use them as a weapon to use on an internet forum in order to drum up sympathetic support for my argument.

And you call me morally bankrupt...

(19-01-2017 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

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.

You and the rest of the 911 idiots are a special kind of stupid.

You think fire didn't collapse WTC7?

Read this and watch the video.

No one said that fire could not cause a building to collapse.

One of the many grievances that we conspiracy theorists have is the manner in which the building fell. Which if you will note, is much different to how this building in Tehran fell. Like an apple to an orange, they are easily distinguishable.

But I highly doubt you're taking that into consideration, I don't like calling others liars. But the likelihood of you actually knowing one of the victims aboard one of the four flights is minute. And if you're fully prepared to lie to try and strengthen your argument by garnering emotional support.

For all that I am, I do not have the capabilities to reverse that way of thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: