Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2017, 10:47 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 07:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

How can I deny evidence that you have not presented? Consider

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
23-01-2017, 10:50 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 09:57 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 08:04 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Laugh out load

ORLY?

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



So, again, we are back to thermite.

Step 1:

Explain how it got there.


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


See above.


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?


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

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.

Didn't you just said you it was time for you to leave? Consider
So, leave already. Thumbsup

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
24-01-2017, 12:32 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 10:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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....

Rolleyes

Yeah but it's not as good as Deadpool, right? Consider

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
24-01-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 10:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Didn't you just said you it was time for you to leave? Consider
So, leave already. Thumbsup

Mate, he's like a bad fart in a crowded elevator.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
24-01-2017, 01:07 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 12:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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....

Rolleyes

Yeah but it's not as good as Deadpool, right? Consider




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 03:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 09:38 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  all irrelevant questions, the core of this conspiracy rests on the negligible effect of the jet fuel and the existence of thermite. Both which you have adequate evidence for.

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

The NIST investigation doesnt claim it was jet fuel alone that weakened the steel, but additional flammable material from inside the biulding plus the aliminium planes. All experts in the field agree that the jet fuel alone was burnt up in 15mins and additional flammable material from within the WTC fed the fires. Thats why i asked you (please scroll back ca. 15 pages) if you think that there was additional flammable material in the WTC, and how much (when i asked you about the jet fuel and impact). Thats why i asked you 2 times even. I build up a straw man for you, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

So the core of your conspiracy theory rests on a straw man. Congratulations.
Evidence for thermite, nope.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
24-01-2017, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2017 05:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 09:06 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 08:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yo dipshit.

Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice. Drinking Beverage

Even judging it by the surface alone, the premise that the Bush White House was incompetent is far more plausible than that they are responsible for the single largest conspiracy in human history. This is the federal government after all, but not only that, a Republican one. These are the fuckers who couldn't keep a few burglars in Watergate under wraps.

You are not special, just stupid. Not even uniquely stupid, your idiocy is quite pedestrian. We have a section of the forum full of tripe identical to yours.

Yo naive

Never assume a retarded person is incapable of murder. Also you're forgetting one god damn thing, Bush doesn't have to be competent in all of this, but the CIA do and while presidential policies change the CIA has been the same since the Cold War. Do you think they're 'incompetent'?

But yeah sure you know, whatever excuse helps you not tremble in despair.

The only thing that keeps me in despair Cosmic_Wankstain, is the knowledge that people as fucking credulous and incompetent as you both have the right to vote, and exercise that right.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 04:16 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 03:13 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 09:38 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  all irrelevant questions, the core of this conspiracy rests on the negligible effect of the jet fuel and the existence of thermite. Both which you have adequate evidence for.

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

The NIST investigation doesnt claim it was jet fuel alone that weakened the steel, but additional flammable material from inside the biulding plus the aliminium planes. All experts in the field agree that the jet fuel alone was burnt up in 15mins and additional flammable material from within the WTC fed the fires. Thats why i asked you (please scroll back ca. 15 pages) if you think that there was additional flammable material in the WTC, and how much (when i asked you about the jet fuel and impact). Thats why i asked you 2 times even. I build up a straw man for you, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

So the core of your conspiracy theory rests on a straw man. Congratulations.
Evidence for thermite, nope.

Given that the north tower burned for several hours in 1975 in a fire that spanned six floors and did not suffer structural failure, it is highly unlikely that a simple office fire contributed much at all to the collapse of either of the three buildings. Nor would it be very likely that the jet fuel would have significantly heated the steal beams. If you looked into the other argument their heat would have been dispersed just as equally to the nitrogen, the oxygen, the concrete and then the steel that was behind the concrete.

The jet fuel was your only trump card, and you have just given up that trump card.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 05:34 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 04:16 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Given that the north tower burned for several hours in 1975 in a fire that spanned six floors and did not suffer structural failure, it is highly unlikely that a simple office fire contributed much at all to the collapse of either of the three buildings. Nor would it be very likely that the jet fuel would have significantly heated the steal beams. If you looked into the other argument their heat would have been dispersed just as equally to the nitrogen, the oxygen, the concrete and then the steel that was behind the concrete.

The jet fuel was your only trump card, and you have just given up that trump card.


Jet fuel is the only trump card?

Motherfucker, a Boeing 767 slammed into the side of the building you stupid cunt... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 05:44 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
This has now devolved into a discussion about the twin towers???

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: