Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2017, 09:04 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 05:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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

mhmm... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it? No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete, then the steel beams. So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour. In which the North Tower obviously was resilient to a regular old office fire that burned much longer and more intensely than it did on 9/11. Thanks to. The sprinkler system they had conveniently installed after the 1975 fire.

[Image: Where-Is-Your-God-Now_o_101029.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 10:42 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Okay... third time is a charm...... 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.

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it?

Well... it certainly didn't tickle them pink, either.

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete,

As to the underline: So... you're saying the energy imparted by 60 ton of kerosene would be 'negligible? Consider

Even though there's enough energy in such a quantity of liquid to push an airplane across an ocean?

As to the BOLD: Wait? What concrete? Why now are you picking on concrete? Consider

The structure of the towers were effectively two steel tubes as the main load bearing members. What for 'concrete'? Consider

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour.

Which, as has been shown to you, is enough to cause a building to collapse. R.E. the recent fire in Arabia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
24-01-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 10:42 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... third time is a charm...... 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.

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it?

Well... it certainly didn't tickle them pink, either.

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete,

As to the underline: So... you're saying the energy imparted by 60 ton of kerosene would be 'negligible? Consider

Even though there's enough energy in such a quantity of liquid to push an airplane across an ocean?

As to the BOLD: Wait? What concrete? Why now are you picking on concrete? Consider

The structure of the towers were effectively two steel tubes as the main load bearing members. What for 'concrete'? Consider

(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour.

Which, as has been shown to you, is enough to cause a building to collapse. R.E. the recent fire in Arabia.

Energy from 60 tons of jetfuel that mostly dissipated upon impact, the rest burnt up within the next 15 minutes (probably within the next 5)

I'm not answering the other questions again, I'm not going to run circles with you and I'm not going to lose focus.

What for the concrete? the to get to the steel the fire first had to get through the concrete first, which would have further dissipated the heat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm not answering the other questions again, I'm not going to run circles with you and I'm not going to lose focus.

Again would imply that you answered them the first time.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-01-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm not answering the other questions again, I'm not going to run circles with you and I'm not going to lose focus.

Again would imply that you answered them the first time.

Perhaps he did not think the answers were sufficient enough, that does seem to be a recurring theme around this neck of the woods. Just because you can print knowledge onto the pages of a book doesn't mean you can print it on someone's mind.

I am beginning to realize my error, what can a few moments of chaos do to affect a lifetime of indoctrination? Both religions and the government indoctrinate their youth. You've only thrown off half off your inhibitions morondog. You have yet to throw off the other half because you believe it to be 'improper'.

In terms of being a critical thinker, you are not part of the nudist beach for you still cover yourself with your swimming trunks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 11:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Again would imply that you answered them the first time.

Perhaps he did not think the answers were sufficient enough, that does seem to be a recurring theme around this neck of the woods. Just because you can print knowledge onto the pages of a book doesn't mean you can print it on someone's mind.

I am beginning to realize my error, what can a few moments of chaos do to affect a lifetime of indoctrination? Both religions and the government indoctrinate their youth. You've only thrown off half off your inhibitions morondog. You have yet to throw off the other half because you believe it to be 'improper'.

In terms of being a critical thinker, you are not part of the nudist beach for you still cover yourself with your swimming trunks.

You know, you're absolutely right. It's almost like you can read my mind. Did you read the part where I think you're an imbecile? 'Cos that's usually front and centre when I interact with you.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-01-2017, 01:41 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 05:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Jet fuel is the only trump card?

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

mhmm... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it? No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete, then the steel beams. So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour. In which the North Tower obviously was resilient to a regular old office fire that burned much longer and more intensely than it did on 9/11. Thanks to. The sprinkler system they had conveniently installed after the 1975 fire.

[Image: Where-Is-Your-God-Now_o_101029.jpg]


You are the stupid cunt who tried to make a comparison to an office fire, without the structural stress and damage caused by having a airliner crash into the building, and then claim the 9-11 fires weren't sufficient to cause the collapse on their own. No shit Sherlock, having a plane crash into a building causes a lot of damage in and of itself. The force of the impact, the destruction of structural support from said impact, the extra mass of the plane itself, the fuel that helped to stoke the fire. Your analogy, and flaccid dismissal, is invalid bullshit.

So how about you do us all a favor, print out your memes, and go gag on them. Preferably somewhere else, far away from here. Hell, go check over to Breitbart or InfoWars, I'm sure those dipshits will fan your ego and lap up this tripe for you.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 01:41 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  mhmm... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it? No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete, then the steel beams. So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour. In which the North Tower obviously was resilient to a regular old office fire that burned much longer and more intensely than it did on 9/11. Thanks to. The sprinkler system they had conveniently installed after the 1975 fire.

[Image: Where-Is-Your-God-Now_o_101029.jpg]


You are the stupid cunt who tried to make a comparison to an office fire, without the structural stress and damage caused by having a airliner crash into the building, and then claim the 9-11 fires weren't sufficient to cause the collapse on their own. No shit Sherlock, having a plane crash into a building causes a lot of damage in and of itself. The force of the impact, the destruction of structural support from said impact, the extra mass of the plane itself, the fuel that helped to stoke the fire. Your analogy, and flaccid dismissal, is invalid bullshit.

So how about you do us all a favor, print out your memes, and go gag on them. Preferably somewhere else, far away from here. Hell, go check over to Breitbart or InfoWars, I'm sure those dipshits will fan your ego and lap up this tripe for you.

... or we can all stop responding to him, and eventually he'll get bored with talking to himself, and go away.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
24-01-2017, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2017 03:36 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 01:41 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  mhmm... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it? No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete, then the steel beams. So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour. In which the North Tower obviously was resilient to a regular old office fire that burned much longer and more intensely than it did on 9/11. Thanks to. The sprinkler system they had conveniently installed after the 1975 fire.

[Image: Where-Is-Your-God-Now_o_101029.jpg]


You are the stupid cunt who tried to make a comparison to an office fire, without the structural stress and damage caused by having a airliner crash into the building, and then claim the 9-11 fires weren't sufficient to cause the collapse on their own. No shit Sherlock, having a plane crash into a building causes a lot of damage in and of itself. The force of the impact, the destruction of structural support from said impact, the extra mass of the plane itself, the fuel that helped to stoke the fire. Your analogy, and flaccid dismissal, is invalid bullshit.

So how about you do us all a favor, print out your memes, and go gag on them. Preferably somewhere else, far away from here. Hell, go check over to Breitbart or InfoWars, I'm sure those dipshits will fan your ego and lap up this tripe for you.

As we've already established, the North Tower survived a fire much fiercer than the one experienced on 911. If the building was to collapse due to the plane it would have done so upon impact. The strength of the beams that were left over after the impact would still be as resilient as they were in 1975, and as for the extra weight by the plane, it would have been minimal considering the debris that went flying out of the tower and most of the jet fuel that burned upon impact.

Your conclusion that the buildings fell due to the impact and the fire combined fail to take into account past experiences with the world trade center. The 1975 fire combined with the 1993 world trade center bomb. Give us very clear indicators at the structural integrity of the tower itself it is much stronger than you give it credit for.

You also give far to much importance to the amount of damage sustained by the impact itself. The plane travelling at 500 miles per hour when it struck the building the wings would have been shredded after hitting the outer beams, and the fuselage of the plane would have made more of a dent than the wings were as it was the primary mass of the plane as is essentially a giant aluminum tube, its area of damage is going to be limited to its own size and will be meeting all of the matter in its way as it tries to reach the other side of the building.

Clearly the force of the impact didn't cause the towers to fall as it still stood for roughly 45 minutes after the impact. Sure the jet fuel may have heated up the place for a little while, we can see clearly that people emerged at the hole in the twin towers.

And I mean if you really really want to continue saying hey its because of the planes crashing into them. Then all I've got to say is you're forgetting

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

No planes, and no jet fuel, just a regular old office fire causing complete structural collapse which mirrors identically a controlled demolition.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 05:56 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 09:04 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  mhmm... and that didn't really do much to destroy the towers now did it? No it was the ensuing fires that are blamed for the structural failure of the twin towers of which if the jet fuel only lasted for 15 minutes (probably a lot less than that) but even then their effect would have been negligible heating up the air, then the concrete, then the steel beams. So all we're left with is a regular old office fire for the next half an hour. In which the North Tower obviously was resilient to a regular old office fire that burned much longer and more intensely than it did on 9/11. Thanks to. The sprinkler system they had conveniently installed after the 1975 fire.

It was never a "regular old office fire" and the sprinkler system was inoperative because the buildings were structurally compromised by large airliners slamming into them at high speed.

You are incredibly stupid. Facepalm

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: