Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 01:13 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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?

https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

Not exactly as undetectable as you might think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 01:53 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

Not exactly as undetectable as you might think.

Okay dipshit, lets assume for the sake of argument (ignoring that massive hole that is 'have you eliminated all other possibilities besides thermite to explain the supposed anomalies'?) that termite was indeed present.

Who planted it? When? How? To what end? Who gave the orders? How was this orchestrated, and by whom? Who knew? Who signed off on it?

Until you have evidence of an actual conspiracy, you will remain a crank conspiracy theorist. Much like with biological diversity, saying 'god did it' is not a sufficient answer.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2017, 03:06 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.


[Image: 54cfbbb69918b_-_wtc-nist-lg.jpg]

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...4/4278874/

(Bold emphasis my own.)

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-01-2017, 03:12 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.


[Image: 54cfbbb69918b_-_wtc-nist-lg.jpg]

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...4/4278874/

(Bold emphasis my own.)


But what about the Illuminati nano-thermite!? Gasp

Clearly the NIST is a tool of the conspiracy. No mention of nano-thermite!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2017, 03:15 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 03:25 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

Not exactly as undetectable as you might think.

Okay dipshit, lets assume for the sake of argument (ignoring that massive hole that is 'have you eliminated all other possibilities besides thermite to explain the supposed anomalies'?) that termite was indeed present.

Who planted it? When? How? To what end? Who gave the orders? How was this orchestrated, and by whom? Who knew? Who signed off on it?

Until you have evidence of an actual conspiracy, you will remain a crank conspiracy theorist. Much like with biological diversity, saying 'god did it' is not a sufficient answer.

Then saying that 'terrorists did it' is also not a sufficient answer.

Really though Evolution what I've done is called the process of elimination. We have eliminated the possibility that it was the plane which caused the towers to fall, and have even given evidence for thermite.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

(25-01-2017 03:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.


[Image: 54cfbbb69918b_-_wtc-nist-lg.jpg]

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...4/4278874/

(Bold emphasis my own.)

So the North Tower can withstand a several hour long fire but WTC 7 can't? So WTC 7 can withstand the force of a collapsing building and share in the debris from an airliner and not collapse but the Twin Towers couldn't? So the Diesel tanks all piled up in one area can't burn long enough or hot enough to assist in the collapse of a building but a thin amount of jet fuel spread eagle on the floor can?

There are so many holes in this NIST theory my dear watson.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 03:18 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:15 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Really though Evolution what I've done is called the process of elimination. We have eliminated the possibility that it was the plane which caused the towers to fall, and have even given evidence for thermite.

No you have not, you stupid cunt. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2017, 03:29 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 03:15 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Really though Evolution what I've done is called the process of elimination. We have eliminated the possibility that it was the plane which caused the towers to fall, and have even given evidence for thermite.

No you have not, you stupid cunt. Facepalm





Well evolution, I tried for you, I really did, but I'm afraid your indoctrination into the faith simply can not be undone by reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 03:38 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 03:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No you have not, you stupid cunt. Facepalm
Well evolution, I tried for you, I really did, but I'm afraid your indoctrination into the faith simply can not be undone by reason.

Tried? You tried? I'm sorry, since when has flailing around like a fish out of water constituted 'trying'?

The only thing you have tried to be is a troll, and in that at least you succeeded. Congrats, I guess. *golf clap*

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 03:44 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 03:50 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

Still confused by the 'concrete' thing.

The concrete shown isn't what's holding up the building.

It's the interior and exterior steel walls.

As for the "I don't have to explain the thermite. I just have to hypothesis about it plus it's just a better contender to do the job."

Well, yes yes you do have to explain your version. It's only 'If' your version explains things better that will have people nodding and agreeing with you.

Your model ignores or discounts 60 ton of kerosene.

Your model doesn't seem to account for the amount of thermite proposed/needed.

Your comments keep coming across to other readers along the lines of (And I use my words etc to frame the point):

"I don't understand how what saw/witnessed happened. Therefore I'll accept pretty much anything."

What I find interesting is that you seem both impervious to having your facts corrected as well as being unable to exress your ideas, thoughts and concepts succinctly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
25-01-2017, 03:56 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 04:01 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:44 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Still confused by the 'concrete' thing.

The concrete shown isn't what's holding up the building.

It's the interior and exterior steel walls.

As for the "I don't have to explai the thermite. It's just a better item to do the job."

Well, yes yes you do have to explain your version. It's only 'If' your version explains things better that will gave people niddi g and agreeing with you.

Your model ignores or discounts 60 ton of kerosene.

Your model doesn't seem to account for the amount of thermite proposed/needed.

Your comments keep coming across to other readers along the lines of (And I use my words etc to frame the point)

"I don't understand how what saw/witnessed happened. Therefore I'll accept pretty much anything."


Seeing as how in 1993 a 1,500 pound bomb was used I don't see how hard it would be to get access to 600 pounds of thermite.

My model ignores 60 tons of kerosene because we've already established 1. It burned up at least within 15 minutes after the explosion. (compliments of deesse) 2. most of it fueled the explosion.

So that 60 tons of jet fuel was gone after just 15 minutes.

As for the concrete on the floor, I'm saying that the fire would have had to heat up the concrete to get at the metal in the floor. Now if you want to do the exterior walls that's even easier for me as heat from a fire goes up sure there will be some heat around the fire itself but the main body of the heat rises to the ceiling not outward to the exterior columns. And then there's the interior columns which were MASSIVE. Also if you look at any photo from the old twin towers you will notice that the steel beams at least had a veneer of concrete. So again the heat from the fires, (which aren't as effective going sideways) would have had to heat up that part of it as well.

Quote:What I find interesting is that you seem both impervious to having your facts corrected as well as being unable to exress your ideas, thoughts and concepts succinctly.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: