Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I think he's a sock (specifically, a sock of Heywood Jablohme), but I have no evidence for that other than a similarity in posting style and quality of arguments.

But hey -- that fits right into this thread, where he has been making assertions all along with no evidence other than his "feels".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 04:30 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 04:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The standards for banning someone and the decision to ban someone are entirely your choice. Drinking Beverage

You missed the part where I'm reading through this posts. Duh.

Hug

We know you're watching. We just want to think we're helping you out. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
20-01-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
this is a good example of the benefit of a gimp tank. Toss em in the gimp tank, and they can post whatever drivel they want. it won't come up as a new post so if you choose to go down to that sub-level of the forum it's on you. If they somehow show signs of being human, they can come back out of the tank.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 06:04 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 10:32 AM)Chas 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.

Two peopl 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.

Did you personally know them Chas?

(20-01-2017 12:35 PM)adey67 Wrote:  I know its irrational but I just have this feeling that I can't shake that all of this don't add up.

Careful, that's how you become a conspiracy theorist.

(20-01-2017 10:39 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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."




Not even going to ask why he bothered to heat it up to 1800 degrees instead of 1500? Not going to ask how long it took to heat the steal up until it was 1800 degrees? Not going to ask how long a minimal amount of jet fuel could burn for? The other question is, why didn't he bother using jet fuel?

To put into perspective why he doesn't use jet fuel. Because jet fuel burns up way to quickly.

For comparison this gallon of gasoline burns itself out after just 1 minute and thirty seconds from its ignition.









Some kerosene as well if you wish to see how fast it burns itself out.

You see this really doesn't matter of course steel is going to bend once it reaches a certain level of heat. The fact of the matter is that there isn't 60 tons of jet fuel burning in the world trade center of the 24,000 gallons how much do you think is left after the explosion? 1,000? 500? 100? . Combine this with the fact that there is clear undeniable evidence that molten steel was present BEFORE the towers collapsed. Not bendy steel, molten steel. Which is a impossible feet for jet fuel.

Perhaps this is what Deesse meant when he said if it was thermite that caused the fires. Should have worded it better to say if it was thermite that melted the steel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 06:09 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

Previous post/reply got et.

So, again, how was pre-detonation preparation carried out?

Since we're again back to such things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hot spots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700ºCelsius. After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum.

Someone doesn't know what a corrosion reaction is, or how hydrogen used to be manufactured industrially. By having iron (which is 98% of structural steel) react with steam you cause an exothermic reaction, one which happens very fast above 400C that creates, among other things, hydrogen and thus a heck of a good amount of heat. This exact thing happened during the Three Mile island accident and created a hydrogen bubble that could have been catastrophic.

It was the spraying with water that kept it hot for so long and the reason that there were hotter spots than others is because of localized chemical reactions.

(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Eye witness testimony...
For starters, the witness in that video is not a foundry worker and secondly, the map you used showed it hot enough to melt aluminum but not steel so it's likely to be aluminum that they saw not steel. But how could they mistake molten steel for molten aluminum seeing as how.....


(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Video evidence of molten metal which is not aluminum because aluminum does not glow yellow. Steel on the other hand does. And it is molten.
PURE aluminum with no additives in a foundry does not glow yellow but WTC was not a foundry and we are not dealing with pure aluminum. The additives that would be found present in the WTC, including aluminum oxide which appears orange at the melting pint for aluminum, would without a question of a doubt make melted aluminum glow orange. The fact it's coming out of the hole a giant aluminum craft just made should also be a big give away....

You are trying to argue that aluminum should look like it does in foundry conditions in a non-foundry setting. I trust even you can understand why that is foolish?


(18-01-2017 09:58 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  .....supporting the conclusion that while the top of the tower is falling it is not meeting any resistance from the floors below the collapse.

Other than you know....gravity. If the tower falling encountered no resistance it would be falling at free fall speed which it wasn't. In every photo and video of the collapse we see columns falling faster than the building and falling faster than the debris cloud which as ALSO falling faster than the building. There are videos out there showing as many as 40 floors still left standing by the time free fall speed is reached.

They WERE meeting that resistance but due to the towers construction the resistance was minimal at best, in the realm of a 100th of a second per floor.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can not say that with 100% conviction that it was thermite that was used....
But that is exactly what you have claimed as "evidence" in support of government involvement.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  but I have been shown that thermite could get the job done.
By whom? Where? When? Can you show it? What actual evidence do you have to support this, at this time, unsupported assertion which defies Occam's Razor?

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So perhaps ....... Maybe it ....... I don't know.
Maybe's and I dunno's are not evidence. These sad attempts at plugging plot holes in your narrative are not evidence, nor do they work as hand waves for legitimate problems your position has.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But I do know that molten metal was present preceding, during, and concluding the collapse of the World Trade Centers.
It doesn't take thermite to get to molten metal. Your "evidence" from earlier has not only been debunked by numerous reports, credible experts in related fields, and basic fucking chemistry but it's been debunked for years and takes a single google search to find the evidence debunking it.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Whatever caused all that metal to melt, caused the World Trade Centers to collapse.
Prove it. This is just another non-sequitur with no supporting evidence. The fact that there was molten metal does not justify the conclusion that it was the cause of the collapse. Correlation is not causation, and you are trying to present your opinion as fact.


(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
No, it is not present and you would know that if you did ANY goddamn research into the event that wasn't designed to fit neatly into your narrative. The scientific method requires you to look for evidence that DISPROVES your hypothesis. That evidence is known and freely available. You are, as I showed above, only able to claim it is melted steel because you fundamentally don't understand the difference between pure aluminum in a foundry and real world conditions.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also, you are forgetting WTC 7 again...
Already debunked by me to which you have no counter argument. Can't use already disproven claims and expect to be taken serious.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
This is not a theory as a theory requires facts and there are no facts that show thermite or anything similar was used in the collapse nor are there any facts that place undercover Mossad agents at the scene. You are building a narrative to connect disparate ideas which is the exact hallmark of Conspiracy Theorist nonsense thinking.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
And the evidence for this is.....where exactly?

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
The consensus of conspiracy theorists is not evidence nor does it interest me in the slightest. There is not an ounce of evidence that they worked for Mossad in the slightest. More goddamn storytelling, more disparate ideas being collected and woven into a narrative and NO MOTHERFUCKING EVIDENCE.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This is probably the best video you can find on the subject.
I absolutely believe that is the best video you can find on the subject, where a narrator JAQ's off about possible ties to Mossad and then proceeded to give no evidence to justify such an accusation, then ending with a quote taken out of context which has nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes, I ABSOLUTELY believe that's the best you can do. Drinking Beverage

(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  In reality though except in terms of fuel capacity, I would say the DC 10 and 767 are almost like brothers.
No not even in their fuel were they brothers. Not that it matters because the Empire State Building and the WTC were NOT brothers. From Rationalwiki:

"Although smaller than the towers were, The Empire State Building is a much heavier building. The Empire State Building is a steel-framed structure with movement-resisting bolted or riveted connections: this means that every joint resists bending moments and wind forces and the load from any failed/ damaged columns can be redistributed, whereas the WTC's steel framed-tube configuration allowed only the exterior wall to resist bending moments due to wind. The Empire State Building's structure can redistribute loads from failed/damaged columns, but the core steel columns of the Twin Towers only supported downward loads.

The B-25 was a twin-engine World War II bomber. It was much smaller and far slower than the Boeing 767 airliners which crashed into the Twin Towers. The B-25 is estimated at 9,750 kg flying 320 kph, versus a Boeing 767-223ER (AA 11) or 767-222 (UA 175) with a mass of at least 90,000 kg flying at 750 kph (or 950 kph) respectively. This would have given the B-25 40 megajoules of kinetic energy on impact, while the AA 11 and UA 175 would have delivered 2 gigajoules and 3 gigajoules respectively, resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on impact.[29] Furthermore, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft, which meant that it was powered by high-octane gasoline instead of a jet fuel, and the B-25 carried way less fuel than does a modern airliner, which incidentally can carry about one twentieth the energy of a Hiroshima bomb (yes, that is pretty incredible).[30]"


(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But it did withstand the impact.
No, it did not. The fact that it didn't fall down the instant an airliner made impact with it does not mean it "withstood the impact". This might have escaped your notice but the first tower collapsed less than an hour later. The Titanic took just shy of 3 hours to sink after it impacted an iceberg (notorious for how little jet fuel they carry) and it sure as shit didn't "withstand the impact"......unless you believe "the jews" planted thermite on the Titanic.Drinking Beverage


(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I don't think so, those were both prolonged and involved millions of lives, this was just for a day and only involved a few thousand.
Your personal opinion is not evidence.

(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......
This is just fucking stupid.
Flight 93 Remains Returned

"Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone.[92] Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total.[93] The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[94] Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24.[95][96] They identified another by September 29.[97] Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27.[98] All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented that investigators could not determine whether any victims were dead before the plane crashed."


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  and not a single trace of any debris of any kind.
Even more fucking stupidity. We have photographic evidence of them pulling the mangled remains of a jet engine out of the ground.

"They located the flight data recorder on September 13 and the cockpit voice recorder the following day.[103][104] The voice recorder was found buried 25 feet (8 m) below the crater. The FBI initially refused to release the voice recording, rejecting requests by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher and family members of those on board.[105] The FBI subsequently allowed the relatives of the Flight 93 victims to listen to the recording in a closed session on April 18, 2002.[106] Jurors for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial heard the tape as part of the proceedings and the transcript was publicly released on April 12, 2006.[107]"


We even have State Police Maj. Lyle Szupinka stating that searchers found what appears to be a " whole engine", that there was debris for miles and most of it was no bigger than a "briefcase."

So now your little government conspiracy involves a County Coroner, the State Police, and every single rescue worker there that day. This is just fucking stupid at this point.


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If a person can make a fake identity, I suppose a person could do the same for a plane or a car.
1.) Could doesn't mean did, you actually have to show evidence that it was a fake, made up, airplane.
2.) WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY FAKE AN AIRPLANE? This conspiracy of yours involves the government using NASA tech (in an environment it's not intended for btw) to fly two commercial airliners into the WTC. So why in the hell would they just decide to be lazy and not use an actual plane for United 93? This plot from multiple governments around the world (that apparently involves local corners and the state police) that was so well planned it has had no leaks for the last 15 years, that involved MONTHS of set up time in New York and they decided to be lazy and just say "aww fuck it we will just fake a plane and hope no one notices,"?

Are you fucking kidding me?

(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But there isn't any plane in that cornfield, no engine (even the pentagon at least had an engine (but no tail section.)
You are a fucking idiot.

(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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....
No, it's not if you actually understood anything about USAF regulations prior to 9/11, as the USAF did not have armed fighters stationed in the continental US at the time as the UAF was only interested in airspace outside the US. At the time it was up to the FAA and the FBI to watch the skies within America's borders and neither of them have fighters they can scramble at short notice...or like...at all.

The fighter jets that were dispatched to United 93 for example left the tarmac without any armaments for this exact reason.

From the time the hijacking started (the earliest they could have known) to the time it crashed was slightly over 30 minutes. Even if they told the military at the exact second they knew that's a not a lot of time to get a fighter fueled, armed, in the air, and exactly where it needed to be.

Except that the military didn't have 30 minutes notice. They had 3 minutes.

"In one frantic exchange at 9:01 a.m., after the first plane had hit the Twin Towers, an FAA manager in New York tells FAA headquarters in Virginia, "We have several situations going, going on here, it is escalating big, big time, and we need to get the military involved with us." The man in Virginia responds, "Why? What's going on?" The tapes also reveal that the FAA waited a half hour to tell the military that Flight 77 had gone offline — leaving just three minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon."


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  and I'm a conspiracy theorist, I have as you know... quite a vast imagination.

And that is all you are doing with your brain power... fucking imagining things.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The evidence of 9.11 being a conspiracy is biting you and everyone else in the ass right now and yet you are all just denying it outright. Just like creationists.
Your personal opinion, your "could be" and "maybe" and "perhaps", your ability to take disparate ideas and weave an (unconvincing) narrative with no connecting facts is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, evidence.

You have presented NO evidence of any kind, just supposition and assertions.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I told you people were not men of science.
Go fuck your own face.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I warned you all that this would happen, and you did not believe me.
You warned us that you have evidence as good as that for Evolution. That is LAUGHABLY not the case at all. You don't even have evidence as good as that for a flat earth.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
20-01-2017, 08:14 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 06:09 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Previous post/reply got et.

So, again, how was pre-detonation preparation carried out?

Since we're again back to such things.

I don't know use your imagination.

(20-01-2017 06:11 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hot spots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700ºCelsius. After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum.

Someone doesn't know what a corrosion reaction is, or how hydrogen used to be manufactured industrially. By having iron (which is 98% of structural steel) react with steam you cause an exothermic reaction, one which happens very fast above 400C that creates, among other things, hydrogen and thus a heck of a good amount of heat. This exact thing happened during the Three Mile island accident and created a hydrogen bubble that could have been catastrophic.

It was the spraying with water that kept it hot for so long and the reason that there were hotter spots than others is because of localized chemical reactions.

(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Eye witness testimony...
For starters, the witness in that video is not a foundry worker and secondly, the map you used showed it hot enough to melt aluminum but not steel so it's likely to be aluminum that they saw not steel. But how could they mistake molten steel for molten aluminum seeing as how.....


(18-01-2017 09:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Video evidence of molten metal which is not aluminum because aluminum does not glow yellow. Steel on the other hand does. And it is molten.
PURE aluminum with no additives in a foundry does not glow yellow but WTC was not a foundry and we are not dealing with pure aluminum. The additives that would be found present in the WTC, including aluminum oxide which appears orange at the melting pint for aluminum, would without a question of a doubt make melted aluminum glow orange. The fact it's coming out of the hole a giant aluminum craft just made should also be a big give away....

You are trying to argue that aluminum should look like it does in foundry conditions in a non-foundry setting. I trust even you can understand why that is foolish?


(18-01-2017 09:58 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  .....supporting the conclusion that while the top of the tower is falling it is not meeting any resistance from the floors below the collapse.

Other than you know....gravity. If the tower falling encountered no resistance it would be falling at free fall speed which it wasn't. In every photo and video of the collapse we see columns falling faster than the building and falling faster than the debris cloud which as ALSO falling faster than the building. There are videos out there showing as many as 40 floors still left standing by the time free fall speed is reached.

They WERE meeting that resistance but due to the towers construction the resistance was minimal at best, in the realm of a 100th of a second per floor.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can not say that with 100% conviction that it was thermite that was used....
But that is exactly what you have claimed as "evidence" in support of government involvement.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  but I have been shown that thermite could get the job done.
By whom? Where? When? Can you show it? What actual evidence do you have to support this, at this time, unsupported assertion which defies Occam's Razor?

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So perhaps ....... Maybe it ....... I don't know.
Maybe's and I dunno's are not evidence. These sad attempts at plugging plot holes in your narrative are not evidence, nor do they work as hand waves for legitimate problems your position has.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But I do know that molten metal was present preceding, during, and concluding the collapse of the World Trade Centers.
It doesn't take thermite to get to molten metal. Your "evidence" from earlier has not only been debunked by numerous reports, credible experts in related fields, and basic fucking chemistry but it's been debunked for years and takes a single google search to find the evidence debunking it.

(18-01-2017 11:46 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Whatever caused all that metal to melt, caused the World Trade Centers to collapse.
Prove it. This is just another non-sequitur with no supporting evidence. The fact that there was molten metal does not justify the conclusion that it was the cause of the collapse. Correlation is not causation, and you are trying to present your opinion as fact.


(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
No, it is not present and you would know that if you did ANY goddamn research into the event that wasn't designed to fit neatly into your narrative. The scientific method requires you to look for evidence that DISPROVES your hypothesis. That evidence is known and freely available. You are, as I showed above, only able to claim it is melted steel because you fundamentally don't understand the difference between pure aluminum in a foundry and real world conditions.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also, you are forgetting WTC 7 again...
Already debunked by me to which you have no counter argument. Can't use already disproven claims and expect to be taken serious.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
This is not a theory as a theory requires facts and there are no facts that show thermite or anything similar was used in the collapse nor are there any facts that place undercover Mossad agents at the scene. You are building a narrative to connect disparate ideas which is the exact hallmark of Conspiracy Theorist nonsense thinking.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
And the evidence for this is.....where exactly?

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
The consensus of conspiracy theorists is not evidence nor does it interest me in the slightest. There is not an ounce of evidence that they worked for Mossad in the slightest. More goddamn storytelling, more disparate ideas being collected and woven into a narrative and NO MOTHERFUCKING EVIDENCE.

(18-01-2017 03:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This is probably the best video you can find on the subject.
I absolutely believe that is the best video you can find on the subject, where a narrator JAQ's off about possible ties to Mossad and then proceeded to give no evidence to justify such an accusation, then ending with a quote taken out of context which has nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes, I ABSOLUTELY believe that's the best you can do. Drinking Beverage

(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  In reality though except in terms of fuel capacity, I would say the DC 10 and 767 are almost like brothers.
No not even in their fuel were they brothers. Not that it matters because the Empire State Building and the WTC were NOT brothers. From Rationalwiki:

"Although smaller than the towers were, The Empire State Building is a much heavier building. The Empire State Building is a steel-framed structure with movement-resisting bolted or riveted connections: this means that every joint resists bending moments and wind forces and the load from any failed/ damaged columns can be redistributed, whereas the WTC's steel framed-tube configuration allowed only the exterior wall to resist bending moments due to wind. The Empire State Building's structure can redistribute loads from failed/damaged columns, but the core steel columns of the Twin Towers only supported downward loads.

The B-25 was a twin-engine World War II bomber. It was much smaller and far slower than the Boeing 767 airliners which crashed into the Twin Towers. The B-25 is estimated at 9,750 kg flying 320 kph, versus a Boeing 767-223ER (AA 11) or 767-222 (UA 175) with a mass of at least 90,000 kg flying at 750 kph (or 950 kph) respectively. This would have given the B-25 40 megajoules of kinetic energy on impact, while the AA 11 and UA 175 would have delivered 2 gigajoules and 3 gigajoules respectively, resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on impact.[29] Furthermore, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft, which meant that it was powered by high-octane gasoline instead of a jet fuel, and the B-25 carried way less fuel than does a modern airliner, which incidentally can carry about one twentieth the energy of a Hiroshima bomb (yes, that is pretty incredible).[30]"


(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But it did withstand the impact.
No, it did not. The fact that it didn't fall down the instant an airliner made impact with it does not mean it "withstood the impact". This might have escaped your notice but the first tower collapsed less than an hour later. The Titanic took just shy of 3 hours to sink after it impacted an iceberg (notorious for how little jet fuel they carry) and it sure as shit didn't "withstand the impact"......unless you believe "the jews" planted thermite on the Titanic.Drinking Beverage


(18-01-2017 07:06 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I don't think so, those were both prolonged and involved millions of lives, this was just for a day and only involved a few thousand.
Your personal opinion is not evidence.

(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......
This is just fucking stupid.
Flight 93 Remains Returned

"Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone.[92] Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total.[93] The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[94] Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24.[95][96] They identified another by September 29.[97] Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27.[98] All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented that investigators could not determine whether any victims were dead before the plane crashed."


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  and not a single trace of any debris of any kind.
Even more fucking stupidity. We have photographic evidence of them pulling the mangled remains of a jet engine out of the ground.

"They located the flight data recorder on September 13 and the cockpit voice recorder the following day.[103][104] The voice recorder was found buried 25 feet (8 m) below the crater. The FBI initially refused to release the voice recording, rejecting requests by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher and family members of those on board.[105] The FBI subsequently allowed the relatives of the Flight 93 victims to listen to the recording in a closed session on April 18, 2002.[106] Jurors for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial heard the tape as part of the proceedings and the transcript was publicly released on April 12, 2006.[107]"


We even have State Police Maj. Lyle Szupinka stating that searchers found what appears to be a " whole engine", that there was debris for miles and most of it was no bigger than a "briefcase."

So now your little government conspiracy involves a County Coroner, the State Police, and every single rescue worker there that day. This is just fucking stupid at this point.


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If a person can make a fake identity, I suppose a person could do the same for a plane or a car.
1.) Could doesn't mean did, you actually have to show evidence that it was a fake, made up, airplane.
2.) WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY FAKE AN AIRPLANE? This conspiracy of yours involves the government using NASA tech (in an environment it's not intended for btw) to fly two commercial airliners into the WTC. So why in the hell would they just decide to be lazy and not use an actual plane for United 93? This plot from multiple governments around the world (that apparently involves local corners and the state police) that was so well planned it has had no leaks for the last 15 years, that involved MONTHS of set up time in New York and they decided to be lazy and just say "aww fuck it we will just fake a plane and hope no one notices,"?

Are you fucking kidding me?

(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But there isn't any plane in that cornfield, no engine (even the pentagon at least had an engine (but no tail section.)
You are a fucking idiot.

(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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....
No, it's not if you actually understood anything about USAF regulations prior to 9/11, as the USAF did not have armed fighters stationed in the continental US at the time as the UAF was only interested in airspace outside the US. At the time it was up to the FAA and the FBI to watch the skies within America's borders and neither of them have fighters they can scramble at short notice...or like...at all.

The fighter jets that were dispatched to United 93 for example left the tarmac without any armaments for this exact reason.

From the time the hijacking started (the earliest they could have known) to the time it crashed was slightly over 30 minutes. Even if they told the military at the exact second they knew that's a not a lot of time to get a fighter fueled, armed, in the air, and exactly where it needed to be.

Except that the military didn't have 30 minutes notice. They had 3 minutes.

"In one frantic exchange at 9:01 a.m., after the first plane had hit the Twin Towers, an FAA manager in New York tells FAA headquarters in Virginia, "We have several situations going, going on here, it is escalating big, big time, and we need to get the military involved with us." The man in Virginia responds, "Why? What's going on?" The tapes also reveal that the FAA waited a half hour to tell the military that Flight 77 had gone offline — leaving just three minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon."


(18-01-2017 08:54 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  and I'm a conspiracy theorist, I have as you know... quite a vast imagination.

And that is all you are doing with your brain power... fucking imagining things.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The evidence of 9.11 being a conspiracy is biting you and everyone else in the ass right now and yet you are all just denying it outright. Just like creationists.
Your personal opinion, your "could be" and "maybe" and "perhaps", your ability to take disparate ideas and weave an (unconvincing) narrative with no connecting facts is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, evidence.

You have presented NO evidence of any kind, just supposition and assertions.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I told you people were not men of science.
Go fuck your own face.

(18-01-2017 09:00 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I warned you all that this would happen, and you did not believe me.
You warned us that you have evidence as good as that for Evolution. That is LAUGHABLY not the case at all. You don't even have evidence as good as that for a flat earth.

If that is what you choose to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Quote:I don't know use your imagination.
That's never how it works. It is your story, flesh it out. If you won't buy the accepted version of history it is on you to provide the alternate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
20-01-2017, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2017 08:40 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...

Yes, I call you morally bankrupt. And delusional. And a liar.

Your statement that there weren't even people on those planes shows you to be a self-obsessed, delusional ignoramus without compassion, without any thought of others.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
20-01-2017, 08:59 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:20 PM)skyking Wrote:  
Quote:I don't know use your imagination.
That's never how it works. It is your story, flesh it out. If you won't buy the accepted version of history it is on you to provide the alternate.

Skyking there is one very important part you understand about conspiracies theorists, we don't claim to have all the answers, I certainly there are things that happened on that day that we will probably never know.

Why conspiracy theories are so volatile is not in their ability to prove their version is correct, but to prove that the official version is incorrect. I have done that and having done that if you and others simply refuse to accept it. Then that is your choice and your choice is not my responsibility.

Take whiskeydebates for example, the molten metal that is seen coming out of the world trade centers before their collapse. He doesn't know its substance, he doesn't know if its aluminum. But he has been told that it is aluminum. Yet despite not knowing what exactly that substance is. He continues to not even entertain the idea, the possibility that it could molten steel/iron, no to him it must be aluminum.

Yet I have not been able to find anything that matches its glow so closely as molten steel. And yes I have looked for evidence of 'dirty' aluminum but what glow most of them produce is the result of the temperature of the container.

Regardless the fact that it was molten steel discovered in the debris following the wake of collapse gives us a very good impression that it was not molten aluminum. That there should be so much molten steel in the debris... the evidence is all there to suggest that it is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum. Yet despite this and not even being able to replicate the manner of this aluminum glowing just like steel glows. He has two options. It is either molten steel or molten aluminum but he weighs them with extreme bias, he will not even consider that it is molten steel.

This is what it means to be closed minded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: