Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2017, 06:02 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
When did CW turn into psikey? [Image: 65j2MlF.gif?zoom=2]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
24-01-2017, 06:09 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 06:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Toss up between Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman, with Portman hedging ever so slightly ahead because I'm less convinced she could scissor kick me to death.

Nice choices... Smile

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
24-01-2017, 06:18 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
fellas, you have given over 58 pages to this twit. He's much worse than a theist troll, he won't show you his crazy book. let him go off into his fantasy land.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
24-01-2017, 07:41 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Energy from 60 tons of jetfuel that mostly dissipated upon impact,

What? Wait?

Aren't you conflating two things?

The mass of the jet fuel?

Y'know, liquids can't be compressed but I'd thinking they'd spread really well all through the area the rest of the plane was pushing through

The Twin Towers, human equivalent of a cheese grater.

So.. when you say 'Dissipate on impact'...? You mean 'Spread its volume of liquid all through said space as it was catching on fire, right?


(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.

Sorry, the reason I keep asking is that I am still trying to resolve points about which I am still unclear in the conversation.

(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Blink
The underlined bit.
Blink

What?

"Get through the concrete first" ?

What "Get through the concrete first" ?

No, really, I am completely lost/befuddled by this statement.

What does it mean?

Unless... you're confusing the flame retardant material that had been sprayed on the steel structure of the towers to help said frame resist fires?

Which wasn't concrete. Which hadn't been applied all that well as an after market add on. Which again had not been even thought of for stopping 60 ton of kerosene spraying through the place.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
24-01-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 07:41 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Energy from 60 tons of jetfuel that mostly dissipated upon impact,

What? Wait?

Aren't you conflating two things?

The mass of the jet fuel?

Y'know, liquids can't be compressed but I'd thinking they'd spread really well all through the area the rest of the plane was pushing through

The Twin Towers, human equivalent of a cheese grater.

So.. when you say 'Dissipate on impact'...? You mean 'Spread its volume of liquid all through said space as it was catching on fire, right?


(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.

Sorry, the reason I keep asking is that I am still trying to resolve points about which I am still unclear in the conversation.

(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

Blink
The underlined bit.
Blink

What?

"Get through the concrete first" ?

What "Get through the concrete first" ?

No, really, I am completely lost/befuddled by this statement.

What does it mean?

Unless... you're confusing the flame retardant material that had been sprayed on the steel structure of the towers to help said frame resist fires?

Which wasn't concrete. Which hadn't been applied all that well as an after market add on. Which again had not been even thought of for stopping 60 ton of kerosene spraying through the place.

Consider

Pretty much everything this guy 'knows' is simply wrong. It's all stuff that can be easily found anywhere except loony conspiracy sites.

Hence, it is the case that all he looks at are loony conspiracy sites.

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
24-01-2017, 11:37 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 05:56 PM)Chas 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.

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

So Stanley and I went back to the stairs on the 81st floor, and we began down. The first five floors were difficult, because in certain areas dry wall had been blown off the wall and was lying propped up against the railing. We had to move it, shove it to the side. The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways. It was dark

Obviously the sprinkler system was working. And the buildings weren't structurally compromised, what point of my god it stood for another 45 minutes don't you get?

You all make it sound as though these buildings were fragile as fuck, they were built out of concrete and steel, survived a 1500 pound bomb and a huge fire all before. A fire that might I add lasted for over seven hours.

And even then you're still forgetting world trade center 7.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 11:52 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 07:41 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 11:39 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Energy from 60 tons of jetfuel that mostly dissipated upon impact,

What? Wait?

Aren't you conflating two things?

The mass of the jet fuel?

Y'know, liquids can't be compressed but I'd thinking they'd spread really well all through the area the rest of the plane was pushing through

The Twin Towers, human equivalent of a cheese grater.

So.. when you say 'Dissipate on impact'...? You mean 'Spread its volume of liquid all through said space as it was catching on fire, right?

I mean fuel a huge explosion roughly the size of a cubic football field. We went over this one already.

I want you to consider that the jet fuel is travelling at the same speed as the jet itself. 560 miles per hour. Now I want you to consider that it only has a space of 200 feet of which to traverse. At 560 miles per hour.

Quote:Blink
The underlined bit.
Blink

What?

"Get through the concrete first" ?

What "Get through the concrete first" ?

No, really, I am completely lost/befuddled by this statement.

What does it mean?

Unless... you're confusing the flame retardant material that had been sprayed on the steel structure of the towers to help said frame resist fires?

Which wasn't concrete. Which hadn't been applied all that well as an after market add on. Which again had not been even thought of for stopping 60 ton of kerosene spraying through the place.

Consider

At 9:55 you see the construction crew laying down concrete on the floors of the twin towers. Something that the fire would have had to contend with.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 12:19 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:52 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  At 9:55 you see the construction crew laying down concrete on the floors of the twin towers. Something that the fire would have had to contend with.

Since when was concrete impervious to impact? I seem to recall there being a rather large impact that started the whole fiasco in the first place.

[Image: hermc1.jpg]

Oh right, that impact! No, I can't imagine that did anything to damage the integrity of the concrete, allowing for more of the steel superstructure to be exposed, outside of the ones that weren't outright destroyed by the initial impact itself. Plus the added mass of an entire airliner, combined with the destroyed supports and the weakening of enough of the remaining supports through heat exposure and impact (being bent out of place, reducing their structural integrity). All you need is enough to make a single floor collapse, and it's mass combined with the acceleration of gravity adds enough force to cause the floor below (also weakened by the impact and the conflagration) it to collapse, and now you have two floors and their combined mass slamming down. Not only that, but now there's not enough left to support the weight of the floors above the impact, and their mass contributes to the failure at the impact site. Now you have a runaway chain reaction resulting in the destruction of the entire building.

Unless, of course, concrete is impervious to impact damage.

Remind me again, how do construction workers break up old concrete?

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

Right. Pneumatic impact tools, colloquially known as jackhammers.

Maybe they used super impact-impervious concrete that could only be destroyed with nano-thermite placed there in secret by the Illuminati? Gasp

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 12:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 11:52 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  At 9:55 you see the construction crew laying down concrete on the floors of the twin towers. Something that the fire would have had to contend with.

Since when was concrete impervious to impact? I seem to recall there being a rather large impact that started the whole fiasco in the first place.

[Image: hermc1.jpg]

Oh right, that impact! No, I can't imagine that did anything to damage the integrity of the concrete, allowing for more of the steel superstructure to be exposed, outside of the ones that weren't outright destroyed by the initial impact itself. Plus the added mass of an entire airliner, combined with the destroyed supports and the weakening of enough of the remaining supports through heat exposure and impact (being bent out of place, reducing their structural integrity). All you need is enough to make a single floor collapse, and it's mass combined with the acceleration of gravity adds enough force to cause the floor below (also weakened by the impact and the conflagration) it to collapse, and now you have two floors and their combined mass slamming down. Not only that, but now there's not enough left to support the weight of the floors above the impact, and their mass contributes to the failure at the impact site. Now you have a runaway chain reaction resulting in the destruction of the entire building.

Unless, of course, concrete is impervious to impact damage.

Remind me again, how do construction workers break up old concrete?

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

Right. Pneumatic impact tools, colloquially known as jackhammers.

Maybe they used super impact-impervious concrete that could only be destroyed with nano-thermite placed there in secret by the Illuminati? Gasp

Just went right around World Trade Center 7 didn't you? :T Just going to ignore it then? Seems to be what you're good at.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 12:54 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 12:33 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Just went right around World Trade Center 7 didn't you? :T Just going to ignore it then? Seems to be what you're good at.

You shovel so much vacuous drivel, spending so many words with nothing to show for it, that anybody would be hard pressed to keep up with what exact piece of bullshit you're peddling at any given moment.

But how about that undetectable Illuminati nano-thermite, right bud?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: