Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2017, 01:43 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 01:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  An Aussie wastes his time. Is then told so by another Aussie.

Mate seriously, WTF? You give this fuckwit way too much of your time.

I guarantee PB won't be offended.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 01:49 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 01:43 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 01:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  An Aussie wastes his time. Is then told so by another Aussie.

Mate seriously, WTF? You give this fuckwit way too much of your time.

I guarantee PB won't be offended.

Laugh out load

I'm pretty sure the Yanks don't really understand the Aussie vernacular Banjo, you funny b@stard.

Nah, I'm just naturally 'Nice'. Smile

Until, that is, it's time to not be nice.

But, so far, I think we're still in the 'Nice' phase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
23-01-2017, 02:28 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 01:49 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Nah, I'm just naturally 'Nice'. Smile

Yeah, I met him. PB's a bastard. Smile

Wink

Wanker. Tongue

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 04:46 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 02:17 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Fine, what then is the information to take this 'small step'?

That it's obviously the result of thermite. The molten slag at ground zero, the molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel), the lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it). There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.

First, you continue to confuse aluminum oxide (a salt) with metallic aluminum. This is rookie error.

Second, there is no evidence of "molten metal dripping from the twin towers". If you have evidence of it, provide it.

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
23-01-2017, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2017 07:28 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  That it's obviously the result of thermite. The molten slag at ground zero, the molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel), the lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it). There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.

First, you continue to confuse aluminum oxide (a salt) with metallic aluminum. This is rookie error.

Second, there is no evidence of "molten metal dripping from the twin towers". If you have evidence of it, provide it.

[Image: a7e.jpg]





When you start denying physical evidence it is then time that I leave.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 08:04 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  When you start denying physical evidence it is then time that I leave.

Laugh out load

ORLY?

Hmmm... my reply post seems to not be registering with C_W ... Consider


(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  That it's obviously the result of thermite.

So, again, we are back to thermite.

Step 1:

Explain how it got there.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten slag at ground zero,

There was much falling, collapsing, fires, burning and other destruction. Something being heated to melting is not weird/strange.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel),

See above.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it).

You are the only one, so far, who does not accept the energy density of kerosene Vs thermite.

As in, as stated, it takes less kerosene to create the energy to meet the failure point of steel then it does thermite to destroy (That's what the thermite has to do.

Thermite, in contact with the steel structure of the buildings. At specific junctures. At a specific timing. Also, the thermite has to survive the impact of the planes into the buildings.

Do you see how your proposition just keeps adding problems?

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.

No, you are the one presenting the alternative.

I am accepting that, on the day in question, a plane impacted each of the towers (Plus two other events) and that those aircraft's impacts and other energy introduced into the structure was enough to eventually (As in not immediately upon impact) lead to the collapse of said structure.

So far. When ever you have proposed your alternative there then follows a whole land-slide of other things that you then have to additionally accounted for.

Also
(23-01-2017 10:01 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Did you decide where all the passengers on the planes went?
Did you figure out how the "thermite" got into the towers? 600 lbs wasn't it?
Did you uncover where the human remains they recovered from the Flight 93 crash site came from?

Since these are all information that must also be accounted for in your hypothesis C_W.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
23-01-2017, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2017 10:02 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 08:04 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  When you start denying physical evidence it is then time that I leave.

Laugh out load

ORLY?

Hmmm... my reply post seems to not be registering with C_W ... Consider


(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  That it's obviously the result of thermite.

So, again, we are back to thermite.

Step 1:

Explain how it got there.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten slag at ground zero,

There was much falling, collapsing, fires, burning and other destruction. Something being heated to melting is not weird/strange.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel),

See above.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it).

You are the only one, so far, who does not accept the energy density of kerosene Vs thermite.

As in, as stated, it takes less kerosene to create the energy to meet the failure point of steel then it does thermite to destroy (That's what the thermite has to do.

Thermite, in contact with the steel structure of the buildings. At specific junctures. At a specific timing. Also, the thermite has to survive the impact of the planes into the buildings.

Do you see how your proposition just keeps adding problems?

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.

No, you are the one presenting the alternative.

I am accepting that, on the day in question, a plane impacted each of the towers (Plus two other events) and that those aircraft's impacts and other energy introduced into the structure was enough to eventually (As in not immediately upon impact) lead to the collapse of said structure.

So far. When ever you have proposed your alternative there then follows a whole land-slide of other things that you then have to additionally accounted for.

Also
(23-01-2017 10:01 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Did you decide where all the passengers on the planes went?
Did you figure out how the "thermite" got into the towers? 600 lbs wasn't it?
Did you uncover where the human remains they recovered from the Flight 93 crash site came from?

Since these are all information that must also be accounted for in your hypothesis C_W.

With all due respect peebothuhul you're chopping the tree down at the wrong end. You and fatbaldhobbit are asking questions that make you lose focus, there's only a few questions that need to be asked and answered and I have done that part as well as shared them with all of you. You and the others need to focus on the core, if you continue to muddy the water it will never be clear to you or anyone here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 10:11 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 09:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  With all due respect peebothuhul you're chopping the tree down at the wrong end. You and fatbaldhobbit are asking questions that make you lose focus, there's only a few questions that need to be asked and answered and I have done that part as well as shared them with all of you. You and the others need to focus on the core, if you continue to muddy the water it will never be clear to you or anyone here.

See, that's the only way that a conspiracy theory can hold itself together. If you focus on one or two details and ignore the big picture. It helps even more when you add ignorance and misunderstanding.

You claimed you had proof that equaled the body of evidence we have for evolution.

Yet all you can do is misunderstand and misrepresent one aspect.

If you cannot answer all of our questions then you have no right to expect us to believe your bullshit.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-01-2017, 10:13 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Bwahaha is this still happening?

Failure to understand basic chemistry, then telling others that they're the ones who are confused.

Absolute, utter failure to recognize some basic physical properties of how atoms and substances behave, even when pointed out.

When confronted by unequivocal proofs that nothing he has said is congruent with anything we know about physics or chemistry, tries to place the blame on the skeptics and suggests that it is they, despite their expertise, who are the ones who are confused.

Why? Because the story is just too good, too hard to let go of.

We see it in Creationists, ad nauseam.

I find it a bit like watching a car wreck in slow motion, with the car flipping through the air off the edge of a cliff, slinging bits of bodywork and chassis as it falls, with the driver madly clutching the wheel and mashing the accelerator and screaming, "I'm the fastest race car driver ever! Look, I'm practically flying!!"

Rolleyes

"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
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-01-2017, 10:36 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 09:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  With all due respect peebothuhul you're chopping the tree down at the wrong end. You and fatbaldhobbit are asking questions that make you lose focus, there's only a few questions that need to be asked and answered and I have done that part as well as shared them with all of you. You and the others need to focus on the core, if you continue to muddy the water it will never be clear to you or anyone here.

Oh, I'm sorry, please would you mind reposing your questions and answers?

That way we can clear away the clutter, as it were.

Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: