Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2017, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2017 07:06 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 06:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 02:12 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Chas has already admitted his own error RocketSurgeon

He has said and I quote An aluminum can in a fire burns completely to ash - there is nothing but ash left. No molten aluminum, no aluminum powder. Ash is not molten aluminum which is clearly the substance we're talking about.

It is not my fault you two can not distinguish the two. Your degrees don't prevent you from making errors or being wrong.

I made no mistake. You are the only one claiming there was any molten aluminum.

In a hot fire, aluminum burns, it does not sit around in a molten state. Facepalm


Note that I have also taken several university chemistry courses - I was a chem. major for one year.

The slag is a pretty good indicator that some serious shit went down. Also I'm not claiming that the molten metal that was dripping from the twin towers was aluminum, I still think its molten steel. Whiskey is the one who thinks its aluminum.

(22-01-2017 02:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm utterly baffled that this guy has the cojones to say that we can't tell the difference between burning and melting metal (utterly different chemical processes, only one of which is a chemical reaction), to pretend that Chas had "admitted to being wrong" only two posts under Chas's post ripping him a new one, and in the face of a person who just told him he specifically studied chemistry.

Like, honestly, this guy blows my mind.

Does he walk up to a mechanic who's telling him what's wrong with his car engine and say, "No, that's just what Detroit's Big Manufacturing wants you to say. Here's what's really going on with my engine..."?

I never said Chas admitted his error intentionally. And you guys were talking about burning aluminum in which case there wouldn't be any molten metal dripping from the sides of the north tower.

The difference is like melting ice and evaporating water.

Tripped me up a little bit I will admit but you are the ones who chose to pursue their own ignorance on a subject and were proven demonstrably wrong by their own admission none the less.







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 08:53 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Are you insane?

Has your mom had you tested?

[Image: tumblr_lvl222f4KU1qkafjfo1_400.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2017 09:22 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 08:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you insane?

Has your mom had you tested?

[Image: tumblr_lvl222f4KU1qkafjfo1_400.jpg]

I've proven you all wrong, Deesse, You, Chas, Whiskey (still laughing at how much of a fuck up that was), and peebothuhul. You guys don't even double check your shit before posting it, you just crap out whatever you think makes sense.

Except for you Deesse, its easy to make mathematical mistakes if we aren't careful, and you are forgiven for that. But you should still double check, maybe even triple check. I know my first time cross checking your equation was wrong, (I only got 606 cubic meters) which didn't sound at all right so I checked again.

And whiskey the moment you said it could be aluminum oxide you forever turned the argument against your favor. If it is aluminum oxide (highly unlikely given its texture and form) what makes you think that its from the plane (a proven impossibility) against being from a thermitic reaction? A rhetorical question, don't bother answering that because I'm not going to respond to it. Or you. I only did it that one time because of how big of a fuck up that was.

And Chas and Rocket, you two really fucked up when you decided to back his incredulous behavior with a poor understanding of physics.

The best thing about being right, is that you never have to worry about being wrong.

Anyways seeing as how you guys have run out of options to taint science with I am just going to claim complete victory here.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
*Sigh*

You're shown that I can't type.

Chas, Deesse, Whiskey and RocketSurgeon76 can answer for themselves which they have and I'm not seeing you rebutt said comments.

There's also still a very lack of actual EVIDENCE from any of your posts C_W.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 09:18 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 08:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you insane?

Has your mom had you tested?

[Image: tumblr_lvl222f4KU1qkafjfo1_400.jpg]

I've proven you all wrong, Deesse, You, Chas, Whiskey (still laughing at how much of a fuck up that was), and peebothuhul. You guys don't even double check your shit before posting it, you just crap out whatever you think makes sense.

Except for you Deesse, its easy to make mathematical mistakes if we aren't careful, and you are forgiven for that. But you should still double check, maybe even triple check. I know my first time cross checking your equation was wrong, (I only got 606 cubic meters) which didn't sound at all right so I checked again.

And whiskey the moment you said it could be aluminum oxide you forever turned the argument against your favor. If it is aluminum oxide (highly unlikely given its texture and form) what makes you think that its from the plane (a proven impossibility) against being from a thermitic reaction? A rhetorical question, don't bother answering that because I'm not going to respond to it. Or you. I only did it that one time because of how big of a fuck up that was.

And Chas and Rocket, you two really fucked up when you decided to back his incredulous behavior with a poor understanding of physics.

The best thing about being right, is that you never have to worry about being wrong.

Anyways seeing as how you guys have run out of options to taint science with I am just going to claim complete victory here.




It is truly amazing that you think you are right or that you have 'won'. Facepalm
You are our new poster child for Dunning-Kruger. Drinking Beverage

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
22-01-2017, 09:37 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 09:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Sigh*

You're shown that I can't type.

Chas, Deesse, Whiskey and RocketSurgeon76 can answer for themselves which they have and I'm not seeing you rebutt said comments.

There's also still a very lack of actual EVIDENCE from any of your posts C_W.

Drinking Beverage

I got the maths for the jet fuel and Whiskey sealed his own tomb with his post about the aluminum oxide and the slag (I mean even at that point if I'm wrong about the molten steel then I'm right about the thermite)

Rocket and Chas have been unable to replicate this behavior of aluminum and not aluminum oxide.

I'd say I've done more than enough to accumulate the evidence that matters. I mean Deesse and Whiskey did all the heavy lifting, I just proved them wrong.

(22-01-2017 09:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 09:18 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've proven you all wrong, Deesse, You, Chas, Whiskey (still laughing at how much of a fuck up that was), and peebothuhul. You guys don't even double check your shit before posting it, you just crap out whatever you think makes sense.

Except for you Deesse, its easy to make mathematical mistakes if we aren't careful, and you are forgiven for that. But you should still double check, maybe even triple check. I know my first time cross checking your equation was wrong, (I only got 606 cubic meters) which didn't sound at all right so I checked again.

And whiskey the moment you said it could be aluminum oxide you forever turned the argument against your favor. If it is aluminum oxide (highly unlikely given its texture and form) what makes you think that its from the plane (a proven impossibility) against being from a thermitic reaction? A rhetorical question, don't bother answering that because I'm not going to respond to it. Or you. I only did it that one time because of how big of a fuck up that was.

And Chas and Rocket, you two really fucked up when you decided to back his incredulous behavior with a poor understanding of physics.

The best thing about being right, is that you never have to worry about being wrong.

Anyways seeing as how you guys have run out of options to taint science with I am just going to claim complete victory here.




It is truly amazing that you think you are right or that you have 'won'. Facepalm
You are our new poster child for Dunning-Kruger. Drinking Beverage

I've got victory songs for days.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:44 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 09:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Sigh*

You're shown that I can't type.

Chas, Deesse, Whiskey and RocketSurgeon76 can answer for themselves which they have and I'm not seeing you rebutt said comments.

There's also still a very lack of actual EVIDENCE from any of your posts C_W.

Drinking Beverage

(22-01-2017 09:37 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I got the maths for the jet fuel and Whiskey sealed his own tomb with his post about the aluminum oxide and the slag (I mean even at that point if I'm wrong about the molten steel then I'm right about the thermite)

Rocket and Chas have been unable to replicate this behavior of aluminum and not aluminum oxide.

I'd say I've done more than enough to accumulate the evidence that matters. I mean Deesse and Whiskey did all the heavy lifting, I just proved them wrong.

You pointed out a digit error in the kerosene stuff (Still haven't shown how even the corrected figures of kerosene can vanish)

You haven't shown that you understand the reaction of aluminum to oxidation.

You still haven't shown how ".....then I'm right about the thermite." the 'How' of the thermite being placed occurred.

So, still waiting for your 'Evidence'.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:55 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 09:44 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 09:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Sigh*

You're shown that I can't type.

Chas, Deesse, Whiskey and RocketSurgeon76 can answer for themselves which they have and I'm not seeing you rebutt said comments.

There's also still a very lack of actual EVIDENCE from any of your posts C_W.

Drinking Beverage

(22-01-2017 09:37 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I got the maths for the jet fuel and Whiskey sealed his own tomb with his post about the aluminum oxide and the slag (I mean even at that point if I'm wrong about the molten steel then I'm right about the thermite)

Rocket and Chas have been unable to replicate this behavior of aluminum and not aluminum oxide.

I'd say I've done more than enough to accumulate the evidence that matters. I mean Deesse and Whiskey did all the heavy lifting, I just proved them wrong.

You pointed out a digit error in the kerosene stuff (Still haven't shown how even the corrected figures of kerosene can vanish)

You haven't shown that you understand the reaction of aluminum to oxidation.

You still haven't shown how ".....then I'm right about the thermite." the 'How' of the thermite being placed occurred.

So, still waiting for your 'Evidence'.

Drinking Beverage

You haven't figured out how an explosion works yet sooo...

If you're still on about that then there's not much I can do for ya.

The going about how the thermite is placed is an unnecessary route so long as you can prove that jet fuel couldn't bring down the towers, that the molten steel or aluminum oxide isn't from the plane itself (which we have) so its obviously from a thermitic reaction.

So its not 'how it got there.' it is 'why is it there?'

Same way with the oxidation of aluminum, if melting aluminum made aluminum oxide... well you understand the fallacy behind that. If you melt aluminum you get molten aluminum, if you burn aluminum well you might get aluminum oxide (probably not) but then its not going to be 'molten' aluminum.





The incredulous will continue being incredulous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 10:58 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Anyone here still think that C_W got a raw deal or was otherwise being treated unfairly?

I didn't think so...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-01-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 10:58 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Anyone here still think that C_W got a raw deal or was otherwise being treated unfairly?

I didn't think so...

Force a fox out of its hole don't cry if you get bitten.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: