Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2017, 08:45 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:38 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:15 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Having just proven Dessee's errors you now attempt to look past that and claim these things which you aren't even sure of.

You have done NOTHING to dispute the official, accepted version.

You ignore my question about the victims.
You ignore my question about the cell phone calls.

You saying "it didn't happen" doesn't mean shit.


(20-01-2017 08:15 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And for the cornfield there is a huge disturbing lack of evidence for the physical remains of a plane crash.

The experts say otherwise.

Since you couldn't even be bothered to contact the public officials involved, you have no legitimate right to contradict their reports, do you?

(20-01-2017 08:15 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But then again you guys can't even math properly how should I expect you to do something like evaluating evidence.

You have shown nothing.
You have done no research.

The only thing you have proven is the depth of your own delusions.

And you're ignoring my post proving the most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. You expect me to trade a salmon for a fish egg? I think not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 08:49 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 06:07 AM)julep Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 12:05 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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...


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.

"But the likelihood of you actually knowing one of the victims aboard one of the four flights is minute. "

No, it's not minute at all, given that there were hundreds of people on those flights. A lot of people who live in Massachusetts or have ties here knew at least one of the victims--just like we know people who were at the Boston Marathon bombings (can't wait to hear your conspiracy theory on that). I'm only one step removed from four of the 9/11 plane victims; that is, I know one of their friends or family members. One of the victims was the coworker of a longtime friend of mine. (I sat next to that friend on September 12, 2001.)

I'm also a one-step removed from a Sandy Hook parent, having a mutual friend there, too.

Go ahead: call me a liar.

Knowing someone who knows someone. Classic
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
You are correct!

I accidentally used the formula for area and not volume. I made a mistake, and i admit to it. No need to deflect or misdirect. Indredible, eh? See what happens when you apply reason and science to a problem and behave in an intellectually honest way? You can actually check data. You get data, results, more than just YT vids and (unfounded opinions) Incredible isnt it? Now why again did you say you arent motivated to do this?

Now please go ahead, using this proven road to truth, and keep calculating, and show us how all the 60t of kerosene were not only possibly, but probably
#1 completely vaporized
#2 completely oxidized
#3 how thermite and not kerosene produced the fires and their effects (in case you cant make clear statements on #1 and/or #2)
#4 how planes can go through boarding and preflight check and then takeoff and hit the towers remote controlled.

Keep up the good work! Thumbsup

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:50 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are correct!

I accidentally used the formula for area and not volume. I made a mistake, and i admit to it. No need to deflect or misdirect. Indredible, eh? See what happens when you apply reason and science to a problem and behave in an intellectually honest way? You can actually check data. You get data, results, more than just YT vids and (unfounded opinions) Incredible isnt it? Now why again did you say you arent motivated to do this?

Now please go ahead, using this proven road to truth, and keep calculating, and show us how all the 60t of kerosene were not only possibly, but probably
#1 completely vaporized
#2 completely oxidized
#3 how thermite and not kerosene produced the fires and their effects (in case you cant make clear statements on #1 and/or #2)
#4 how planes can go through boarding and preflight check and then takeoff and hit the towers remote controlled.

Keep up the good work! Thumbsup

Not motivated because even if I win I lose, no one is going to change their mind, they're just going to bring up different subjects, just like fatbaldhobbit, answering a rhetorical question, just like skyking.

#1 and #2 are impossible to prove, there would be at least some residual fuel left over from the explosion. But most of it would have been used up during the explosion as the vast majority of the fuel was carried out the other side of the building with the inertia from both the impact and the expansion of the explosion. #3 is well impractical, I'm not saying thermite was the cause of the fires, jut the cause (or something else) for the structural failure of the twin towers.

And #4 well if we're going to go the route and assume these were real planes and not planes with fake identities. There there are a few ways. Gas is used on the plane killing everyone while the ability to control the plane remotely is also set up and they can take over the plane after everyone is dead. I suppose that is probably the more logical way. After all if they use actual flights from the airlines that will reduce the amount of questions raised.

But then again, if they made fake identities for the planes they would probably make it appear on the companies records for those planes so when they come to collect insurance it wouldn't raise suspicion.

I just always assumed the 'no people' option one was the most likely. Less people, less chances for things to go wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:41 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Why do posters continue to engage CW? He/she has offered nothing of substance; it's all Alex Jones-type material.

He also comes across as a thoroughly despicable person.

Quote:Next up... chemtrails and that the House of Windsor is actually a family of lizard aliens.

Well, chemtrails is nonsense but something is odd about the royals....
Cool

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
20-01-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 09:13 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:41 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Why do posters continue to engage CW? He/she has offered nothing of substance; it's all Alex Jones-type material.

He also comes across as a thoroughly despicable person.

Quote:Next up... chemtrails and that the House of Windsor is actually a family of lizard aliens.

Well, chemtrails is nonsense but something is odd about the royals....
Cool

You're just intimidated by my biggus dickus.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 10:19 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 09:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Not motivated because even if I win I lose, no one is going to change their mind, ...

... including you. You have your mind made up to at least as great an extent as anyone else here. The difference is that they have evidence to support their arguments and you don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 10:29 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:26 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I wasn't aware ALL of us were doing the math for this, more deflection, besides I'll wait till Deese gets back to us unlike you if he did get it wrong he's honest and I'm willing to bet would admit an error. Even if the equation was wrong it doesn't make your theory correct especially not the distasteful parts, denying human deaths.

The error is there for you to see, all you have to do is punch in 700,000 cubic meters into an online converter to see how many cubic kilometers that would be. It actually does make my theory correct if you know how explosions work and how to measure them.

The size of an explosion is always (unless there is special circumstances) relegated to how much fuel it has. If the explosion is bigger it is because it has more fuel for the fire.

I knew you guys would start denying mathematics too. See Deesse this is why I don't have any motivation.

Bollocks I'm not attempting to deny maths stop being a cock I said even if Deese is wrong it doesn't prove your crackpot theory correct stop strawmanning and deliberately misquoting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2017 09:52 PM by Chas.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 12:05 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(19-01-2017 04:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  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:  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.

Two people on one of those flights were from my home town.
You saying there weren't even people on the planes is ignorant and offensive. Fuck off and die.

Quote:For all that I am, I do not have the capabilities to reverse that way of thinking.

You have no real rational thinking capabilities at all.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-01-2017, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2017 10:50 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Yeah, I'm not even gonna bother to catch up on this thread. I just caught a glimpse of something about jet fuel and skyscrapers and figured "Welp, that's it for this thread. Good riddance I say."




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: