Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 04:00 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:44 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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.

Because that's besides the point. He's a troll. He got is a tizzy about how he was talking about building 7 after I brought up how the impact of the planes would damage concrete, then after Rocket posted his link to the NIST report that concluded that fire alone brought down building 7, Cosmic_Wankstain jumped right back to planes by claiming they'd already been eliminated as a possible cause. He doesn't have a point, the point is the fight, because he's a troll. He'll jump around as needed to keep it going, refusing to ever be pinned down, because that would end the fight; and the extension of the fight is the point.

Which is why I'm done with the stupid cunt, and hope for the swift justice of ye mighty ban-hammer.

[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, 04:03 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 03:44 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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.

Because that's besides the point. He's a troll. He got is a tizzy about how he was talking about building 7 after I brought up how the impact of the planes would damage concrete, then after Rocket posted his link to the NIST report that concluded that fire alone brought down building 7, Cosmic_Wankstain jumped right back to planes by claiming they'd already been eliminated as a possible cause. He doesn't have a point, the point is the fight, because he's a troll. He'll jump around as needed to keep it going, refusing to ever be pinned down, because that would end the fight; and the extension of the fight is the point.

Which is why I'm done with the stupid cunt, and hope for the swift justice of ye mighty ban-hammer.

Level with me here evolution. If someone is accused of murder, do you ask them if they murdered someone?

No.

NIST works for the government, if you ask the government for an explanation you're going to get an explanation because they're covering their asses.

What you're doing is called CONFIRMATION FUCKING BIAS.

Stop it, just stop it.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 04:04 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

You seem to be talking past me C_W.

Again. You simply, out of hand discount the energy contained within 60 ton of kerosene. 5he kerosene in your model effectivly 'does nothing'. You effectivly just hand wave it away.

Again, the thickness of the concrete floors has nothing to do mechanically with holding the building up.

It's the steel tube/walls.

Do you understand what it is that I'm typing/saying?

So, if it is not (A)Plane impact (B)Kerosene fueled fires ©Internal damage due to large intrustion by impacting planes etc.

Then your model MUST account for all the factors involved on the day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
25-01-2017, 04:08 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:04 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Then your model MUST account for all the factors involved on the day.

*pssssttt*

Magical invisible nano-thermite faeries, hired by the Illuminati. There's no evidence for them because they're invisible, and the Illuminati covered it up.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2017, 04:16 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:03 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Level with me here evolution. If someone is accused of murder, do you ask them if they murdered someone?

No.

NIST works for the government, if you ask the government for an explanation you're going to get an explanation because they're covering their asses.

What you're doing is called CONFIRMATION FUCKING BIAS.

Stop it, just stop it.


What's that? I cannot hear you over the sound of your massive anomaly hunting.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 04:16 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 04:04 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Then your model MUST account for all the factors involved on the day.

*pssssttt*

Magical invisible nano-thermite faeries, hired by the Illuminati. There's no evidence for them because they're invisible, and the Illuminati covered it up.

Its easy not to see something that you're not looking for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 04:31 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:04 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

You seem to be talking past me C_W.

Again. You simply, out of hand discount the energy contained within 60 ton of kerosene. 5he kerosene in your model effectivly 'does nothing'. You effectivly just hand wave it away.

Again, the thickness of the concrete floors has nothing to do mechanically with holding the building up.

It's the steel tube/walls.

Do you understand what it is that I'm typing/saying?

So, if it is not (A)Plane impact (B)Kerosene fueled fires ©Internal damage due to large intrustion by impacting planes etc.

Then your model MUST account for all the factors involved on the day.

It's all of the above:

1) Plane impact damages structure, shatters concrete casings on structural beams, and blasts poorly sprayed-on fire/heat protective coatings off those beams.

2) Fuel burns relatively quickly, but is enough in combination with the amount of air now coming into the burning sections (because there are giant holes literally through the building) to ignite the combustibles inside the building, which continue to burn.

3) In the case of Building 7, to the surprise of the investigators, the combustibles inside the building were, in partial combination with the damage sustained and the diesel fires, enough to cause failure of the stressed beams that supported the floors, causing the telescoping collapse seen also in the twin towers. None of those alone would have brought it down... but together, they were enough to cause the collapse, and warned investigators that it could happen in other buildings.

4) The fire of 1975 was not a combination of severe structural damage from the impact of a Boeing 767-200ER aircraft weighing 274,000 pounds moving at 470 to 590 mph upon impact, the rapid heating from the accelerant (jet fuel), AND a long-burning, open-structure materials fire, sufficient to heat the steel to the point of plasticity and failure.

5) The only thing even suggesting thermite is the presence of aluminum oxide at the scene (an odd thing to report, if you're trying to cover up a thermite accelerant), which is accounted for by the burned aircraft aluminum.

The very evidence CW is citing in support of his case is evidence that it was exactly what the NIST says it was, including the falling "molten metal".

[Edit to Add: Oh, and in fairness to CW, I think he's mentioning the floors because the NIST report shows that the failure was in the floors, or more specifically the connections/joists where the floors were held up by the vertical columns, not in the vertical structural columns themselves. Had the vertical columns failed, we would have seen a "tipping" motion, rather than the vertical pancake of floor atop floor that we actually saw.]

"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, 04:29 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 04:16 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 04:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  *pssssttt*

Magical invisible nano-thermite faeries, hired by the Illuminati. There's no evidence for them because they're invisible, and the Illuminati covered it up.

Its easy not to see something that you're not looking for.

It's easy to find what you want to see and ignore everything else that's inconvenient.

So about those invisible nano-thermite fairies and their Illuminati overlords? Do you know if they are unionized? Do they have health insurance and 401K options? Do members of the Illuminati conspiracy get W2 forms? How does a member of the conspiracy account for the hush money on their tax returns?

[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, 06:23 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(24-01-2017 11:37 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 05:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  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?

The sprinklers were working below the level of the fires and in stairwells. Real helpful, that.

Quote: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.

That was in concrete sub-basements and blew holes in floors. It did not damage the support of the building whereas the planes severed support columns.

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

I'm not forgetting WTC7. It was also not a simple office fire. The building had been damaged by debris and the fires went unchecked for hours.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-01-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 03:56 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

More like 1330 lbs. It was a homemade truck bomb. Your statement is illogical - the two have nothing to do with each other.

Quote: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.

And it started raging fires on multiple floors. Facepalm

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

Its effects were not gone in 15 minutes. Facepalm

Quote: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.

This shows your complete misunderstanding of the structure. The floors were not what held up the building.

Quote: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.

You don't have any clue as to how the collapse occurred. You keep bringing in irrelevant crap showing that you do not understand steel, chemistry, fire, mechanics, or pretty much anything important to the issue.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: