Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2017, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2017 09:12 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work

Oh.... so still no actuall evidence?

We've read lots of posts which add up to ideas, maybe's and/or 'feels' but no evidence.

All the best C_W.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2017 09:12 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:34 PM)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...

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.

I'm not the one who lied about knowing them. Being from 'your hometown' and 'knowing' them are two very different things. Don't get pissy at me because I called you out on your lie. A liar need not be delusional but someone who is delusional needs to be a liar. Remember that one as well dear Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2017 10:11 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

No Nope, that's not how it works C_W.

Still no actuall evidence which you said you had.

Just lots of thoughts.

Looks like your hypothesis stays at that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:21 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
you haven't done shit to prove a single thing. No proof, just some fanciful conjecture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2017, 09:49 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 08:14 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If that is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe the clear and demonstrable evidence. You should try it some time, not that I think you even read my post. Probably got about 3 points in before you realized you couldn't counter anything I said.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Let me punch that into Google translate and convert it from lying asshole: " I can't provide evidence to support my assertion so fuck you think of soemthign yourself."

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
You have failed to do either.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have done that and having done that if you and others simply refuse to accept it.
Every single one of your points from molten "steel" to the idea there was no United 93 crash has been systematically and incontrovertibly been disproven. We refuse to accept your belief because it is as a matter of fact demonstrably wrong.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Then that is your choice and your choice is not my responsibility.
No, your responsibility was to provide "evidence as good as that of Evolution" to support your theory that "the CIA working with Mossad caused 9/11". You have failed to support your theory with ANY actual evidence let alone of the quality you claimed to have.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
I'm not saying it is aluminum I'm just debunking your assertion that it can't be aluminum. You're trying to point out I have a closed mind because I won't entertain that it could be something other than aluminum....yet you claimed as a fact it CAN'T be aluminium. I'm not the close minded one lol.

But I'll tell you why I won't entertain it as molten steel. because the only explanation you have for molten steel is "jews did it". Your explanation requires multiple intelligence agencies, from multiple countries, working together to smuggles tons of explosives, with no leaks, planting explosives right where the knew an airliner hit (which would have had to survive the impact completely unharmed) without anyone noticing, and this theory ignores all the facts that we had advanced warning from multiple countries that a terrorist attack was about to happen.
Whereas mine requires a source of aluminum and enough heat to oxidize some of it and then melt it. Both on site once a plane crashed into the building.

Mine requires materials that are known to be onsite, and temperatures sufficient to melt aluminum which we also had. Yours requires a global conspiracy for which there is no evidence.

Occam's Razor bitch.


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Did you now? Cause here is a company that specializes in aluminum oxide which includes melting it down.



What colour is that molten aluminum?

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Nope!
"There is no documented evidence of the presence of actually-melted steel at ground zero. The molten material noted in the 9/11 Commission report was "slag," not a molten metal. Most of the reports of "molten steel" found at ground zero were merely references to obviously red-hot solid steel. Even if they actually found "molten" metal, aluminum (which the planes were made out of) melts well under the temperature of jet fuel (pure aluminum melts at 660° C, jet fuel burns around 980° C[23] going up to +2,000 °C[24]). In addition, the mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. may burn hot enough to melt aluminum. (This can be demonstrated by placing an empty aluminum soda can on top of an ordinary campfire.)

Additionally, the melting point of steel is within the range of 1425-1540° C,[25] well outside the temperatures recorded at Ground Zero in the weeks following the attacks. What conspiracy theorists fail to note is that steel thermally expands while it remains strong and thus fire rapidly destroys uninsulated steel structures, and steel begins to lose its structural integrity (and red hot steel itself burns in air or in the presence of steam) at well below its melting point, or 700-820° C, well within temperatures recorded at ground zero in the weeks following the attacks). Meanwhile, molten steel is not typically found at the site of buildings that have actually been demolished using "explosives" to sever columns. Also, the first law of thermodynamics prevents even the super hot molten product of thermite charges from remaining molten long after thermite ignition. Therefore, whatever molten materials were observed at ground zero in the weeks following the collapses, that molten material was not originally present and molten at the time of the collapses (it began to melt after the collapses, not before the collapses). "


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Yet despite this and not even being able to replicate the manner of this aluminum glowing just like steel glows.
Took me less than 50 seconds to find a youtube video doing just that. Amature.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  He has two options. It is either molten steel or molten aluminum....
One of which doesn't require bending Occam's razor over and fucking it to death..


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  but he weighs them with extreme bias, he will not even consider that it is molten steel.
You are the asshole that said flat out it could not be aluminum. You suck at covering your ass.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This is what it means to be closed minded.
Projecting again.

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
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
20-01-2017, 10:12 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 09:01 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I'm not the one who lied about knowing them. Being from 'your hometown' and 'knowing' them are two very different things. Don't get pissy at me because I called you out on your lie. A liar need not be delusional but someone who is delusional needs to be a liar. Remember that one as well dear Chas.

I am not lying, you noxious little troll. Your opinion is of no consequence to me, but facts don't seem to intrude into your little fantasy world.
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
21-01-2017, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2017 12:46 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 09:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:14 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If that is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe the clear and demonstrable evidence. You should try it some time, not that I think you even read my post. Probably got about 3 points in before you realized you couldn't counter anything I said.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Let me punch that into Google translate and convert it from lying asshole: " I can't provide evidence to support my assertion so fuck you think of soemthign yourself."

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
You have failed to do either.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have done that and having done that if you and others simply refuse to accept it.
Every single one of your points from molten "steel" to the idea there was no United 93 crash has been systematically and incontrovertibly been disproven. We refuse to accept your belief because it is as a matter of fact demonstrably wrong.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Then that is your choice and your choice is not my responsibility.
No, your responsibility was to provide "evidence as good as that of Evolution" to support your theory that "the CIA working with Mossad caused 9/11". You have failed to support your theory with ANY actual evidence let alone of the quality you claimed to have.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
I'm not saying it is aluminum I'm just debunking your assertion that it can't be aluminum. You're trying to point out I have a closed mind because I won't entertain that it could be something other than aluminum....yet you claimed as a fact it CAN'T be aluminium. I'm not the close minded one lol.

But I'll tell you why I won't entertain it as molten steel. because the only explanation you have for molten steel is "jews did it". Your explanation requires multiple intelligence agencies, from multiple countries, working together to smuggles tons of explosives, with no leaks, planting explosives right where the knew an airliner hit (which would have had to survive the impact completely unharmed) without anyone noticing, and this theory ignores all the facts that we had advanced warning from multiple countries that a terrorist attack was about to happen.
Whereas mine requires a source of aluminum and enough heat to oxidize some of it and then melt it. Both on site once a plane crashed into the building.

Mine requires materials that are known to be onsite, and temperatures sufficient to melt aluminum which we also had. Yours requires a global conspiracy for which there is no evidence.

Occam's Razor bitch.


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Did you now? Cause here is a company that specializes in aluminum oxide which includes melting it down.



What colour is that molten aluminum?

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Nope!
"There is no documented evidence of the presence of actually-melted steel at ground zero. The molten material noted in the 9/11 Commission report was "slag," not a molten metal. Most of the reports of "molten steel" found at ground zero were merely references to obviously red-hot solid steel. Even if they actually found "molten" metal, aluminum (which the planes were made out of) melts well under the temperature of jet fuel (pure aluminum melts at 660° C, jet fuel burns around 980° C[23] going up to +2,000 °C[24]). In addition, the mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. may burn hot enough to melt aluminum. (This can be demonstrated by placing an empty aluminum soda can on top of an ordinary campfire.)

Additionally, the melting point of steel is within the range of 1425-1540° C,[25] well outside the temperatures recorded at Ground Zero in the weeks following the attacks. What conspiracy theorists fail to note is that steel thermally expands while it remains strong and thus fire rapidly destroys uninsulated steel structures, and steel begins to lose its structural integrity (and red hot steel itself burns in air or in the presence of steam) at well below its melting point, or 700-820° C, well within temperatures recorded at ground zero in the weeks following the attacks). Meanwhile, molten steel is not typically found at the site of buildings that have actually been demolished using "explosives" to sever columns. Also, the first law of thermodynamics prevents even the super hot molten product of thermite charges from remaining molten long after thermite ignition. Therefore, whatever molten materials were observed at ground zero in the weeks following the collapses, that molten material was not originally present and molten at the time of the collapses (it began to melt after the collapses, not before the collapses). "


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Yet despite this and not even being able to replicate the manner of this aluminum glowing just like steel glows.
Took me less than 50 seconds to find a youtube video doing just that. Amature.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  He has two options. It is either molten steel or molten aluminum....
One of which doesn't require bending Occam's razor over and fucking it to death..


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  but he weighs them with extreme bias, he will not even consider that it is molten steel.
You are the asshole that said flat out it could not be aluminum. You suck at covering your ass.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This is what it means to be closed minded.
Projecting again.

Aluminum Oxide is a byproduct of thermite you dumb fuck. Its not what they use to build jet planes.

from Wikipedia.

In the following example, elemental aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, in this common example iron oxide, because aluminium forms stronger, more stable, bonds with oxygen than iron:
Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3
The products are aluminium oxide, elemental iron,[3] and a large amount of heat


So if it IS the type of aluminum YOU'RE talking about its thermite!

Also slag is also a byproduct of thermite.

When it burns it produces aluminum oxide (slag) and pure iron.

http://gingerafro.tripod.com/siferonline/id8.html

2 scientific errors now for whiskey, 2 mathematical errors for deesse and 4 errors for peebothuhul.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(20-01-2017 09:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-01-2017 08:14 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If that is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe the clear and demonstrable evidence. You should try it some time, not that I think you even read my post. Probably got about 3 points in before you realized you couldn't counter anything I said.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Let me punch that into Google translate and convert it from lying asshole: " I can't provide evidence to support my assertion so fuck you think of soemthign yourself."

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
You have failed to do either.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have done that and having done that if you and others simply refuse to accept it.
Every single one of your points from molten "steel" to the idea there was no United 93 crash has been systematically and incontrovertibly been disproven. We refuse to accept your belief because it is as a matter of fact demonstrably wrong.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Then that is your choice and your choice is not my responsibility.
No, your responsibility was to provide "evidence as good as that of Evolution" to support your theory that "the CIA working with Mossad caused 9/11". You have failed to support your theory with ANY actual evidence let alone of the quality you claimed to have.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
I'm not saying it is aluminum I'm just debunking your assertion that it can't be aluminum. You're trying to point out I have a closed mind because I won't entertain that it could be something other than aluminum....yet you claimed as a fact it CAN'T be aluminium. I'm not the close minded one lol.

But I'll tell you why I won't entertain it as molten steel. because the only explanation you have for molten steel is "jews did it". Your explanation requires multiple intelligence agencies, from multiple countries, working together to smuggles tons of explosives, with no leaks, planting explosives right where the knew an airliner hit (which would have had to survive the impact completely unharmed) without anyone noticing, and this theory ignores all the facts that we had advanced warning from multiple countries that a terrorist attack was about to happen.
Whereas mine requires a source of aluminum and enough heat to oxidize some of it and then melt it. Both on site once a plane crashed into the building.

Mine requires materials that are known to be onsite, and temperatures sufficient to melt aluminum which we also had. Yours requires a global conspiracy for which there is no evidence.

Occam's Razor bitch.


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Did you now? Cause here is a company that specializes in aluminum oxide which includes melting it down.



What colour is that molten aluminum?

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.
Nope!
"There is no documented evidence of the presence of actually-melted steel at ground zero. The molten material noted in the 9/11 Commission report was "slag," not a molten metal. Most of the reports of "molten steel" found at ground zero were merely references to obviously red-hot solid steel. Even if they actually found "molten" metal, aluminum (which the planes were made out of) melts well under the temperature of jet fuel (pure aluminum melts at 660° C, jet fuel burns around 980° C[23] going up to +2,000 °C[24]). In addition, the mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. may burn hot enough to melt aluminum. (This can be demonstrated by placing an empty aluminum soda can on top of an ordinary campfire.)

Additionally, the melting point of steel is within the range of 1425-1540° C,[25] well outside the temperatures recorded at Ground Zero in the weeks following the attacks. What conspiracy theorists fail to note is that steel thermally expands while it remains strong and thus fire rapidly destroys uninsulated steel structures, and steel begins to lose its structural integrity (and red hot steel itself burns in air or in the presence of steam) at well below its melting point, or 700-820° C, well within temperatures recorded at ground zero in the weeks following the attacks). Meanwhile, molten steel is not typically found at the site of buildings that have actually been demolished using "explosives" to sever columns. Also, the first law of thermodynamics prevents even the super hot molten product of thermite charges from remaining molten long after thermite ignition. Therefore, whatever molten materials were observed at ground zero in the weeks following the collapses, that molten material was not originally present and molten at the time of the collapses (it began to melt after the collapses, not before the collapses). "


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Yet despite this and not even being able to replicate the manner of this aluminum glowing just like steel glows.
Took me less than 50 seconds to find a youtube video doing just that. Amature.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  He has two options. It is either molten steel or molten aluminum....
One of which doesn't require bending Occam's razor over and fucking it to death..


(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  but he weighs them with extreme bias, he will not even consider that it is molten steel.
You are the asshole that said flat out it could not be aluminum. You suck at covering your ass.

(20-01-2017 08:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This is what it means to be closed minded.
Projecting again.

Whisky, dude you are on fire. I'm loving it. So many food comprehensive replies! Learning a lot from you. Thanks bud.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
21-01-2017, 12:38 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Also, Celestial, you have yet to actually respond to any of my posts that were directed at you concerning 9/11 or Sandy Hook. Would like to know your opinion.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2017, 12:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 12:24 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Aluminum Oxide is a byproduct of thermite you dumb fuck. Its not what they use to build jet planes.

Aluminum oxide is a product of the combustion of any aluminum, you dumb fuck.

What are airliners made of? A lot of aluminum, you dumb fuck.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: