Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 06:50 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  This shows your complete misunderstanding of the structure. The floors were not what held up the building.

Psikeys favourite hobby horse was also the idea that somehow the floors were holding up the building. Coincidence?

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
25-01-2017, 06:53 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 06:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  This shows your complete misunderstanding of the structure. The floors were not what held up the building.

Psikeys favourite hobby horse was also the idea that somehow the floors were holding up the building. Coincidence?

Oh I hope we get another dowel rod, metal washers, and paper extravaganza. I'm always up for a good laugh.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 06:59 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 06:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  Psikeys favourite hobby horse was also the idea that somehow the floors were holding up the building. Coincidence?

I think not.

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
25-01-2017, 07:26 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Rocket surgeon is the only one who understands here that the metal columns and such were not bare, I was hoping to infer that by explaining to you that the floor was also made out of concrete. While he claims that the impact would blasted off the concrete and the explosion took care of the fire resistant varnish protecting the steel beams. I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the aluminum shredding upon impact would have had a seriousl effect outside of the scope of the fuselage's vector. (the explosion on the other hand is a different story) I would be more inclined given the evidence of the amount of damaged caused by the 1993 bomb that the explosion had a greater effect on the structural integrity of the tower than the plane itself. At least in regards of removing the concrete surrounding the steal beams. However, having said that. Such an explosion would also strip any fuel from around the steal beams as well. So we can conclude it wasn't that kind of an explosion. Because as we can see the fire clearly wasn't going to put itself out any time soon.

Anyways, more about the tipping aspect of the towers. We do see this tipping occur, and then it just stops. All three towers have complete structural failure instead of a partial collapse which is also another cause for concern about the validity of the claims of the government.

And Evolution. IF you were actually looking for thermite. Maybe it wouldn't be so invisible to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 07:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I've stayed out of this because I have zero time for conspiracy theories based on, well, nothing.

But here's a salient quote which pretty much sums it all up:

(25-01-2017 07:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  IF you were actually looking for thermite. Maybe it wouldn't be so invisible to you.

So there you have it. The conclusion is made before the evidence is examined.

I won't engage you, C_W, as you've already proven yourself to be pretty loose with the facts, so have the last word if your tremulous (go look it up) ego really needs it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
25-01-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 07:39 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I've stayed out of this because I have zero time for conspiracy theories based on, well, nothing.

But here's a salient quote which pretty much sums it all up:

(25-01-2017 07:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  IF you were actually looking for thermite. Maybe it wouldn't be so invisible to you.

So there you have it. The conclusion is made before the evidence is examined.

I won't engage you, C_W, as you've already proven yourself to be pretty loose with the facts, so have the last word if your tremulous (go look it up) ego really needs it.

With all due respect Tierney if you find someone laying on the ground and there's a witness near by who says he has been shot, do you not look for the bullet wound? As for me, I've already examined the evidence and came to a conclusion a long long time ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 08:23 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 07:26 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Rocket surgeon is the only one who understands here that the metal columns and such were not bare, I was hoping to infer that by explaining to you that the floor was also made out of concrete. While he claims that the impact would blasted off the concrete and the explosion took care of the fire resistant varnish protecting the steel beams. I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the aluminum shredding upon impact would have had a seriousl effect outside of the scope of the fuselage's vector. (the explosion on the other hand is a different story) I would be more inclined given the evidence of the amount of damaged caused by the 1993 bomb that the explosion had a greater effect on the structural integrity of the tower than the plane itself. At least in regards of removing the concrete surrounding the steal beams. However, having said that. Such an explosion would also strip any fuel from around the steal beams as well. So we can conclude it wasn't that kind of an explosion. Because as we can see the fire clearly wasn't going to put itself out any time soon.

Anyways, more about the tipping aspect of the towers. We do see this tipping occur, and then it just stops. All three towers have complete structural failure instead of a partial collapse which is also another cause for concern about the validity of the claims of the government.

And Evolution. IF you were actually looking for thermite. Maybe it wouldn't be so invisible to you.

Yeah whatever, psikey and if I was looking for god maybe he wouldn't be so invisible either that doesn't make him real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 08:27 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 06:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 06:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  Psikeys favourite hobby horse was also the idea that somehow the floors were holding up the building. Coincidence?

Oh I hope we get another dowel rod, metal washers, and paper extravaganza. I'm always up for a good laugh.

Morondog Chas and myself have been mentioning the possibility for a few pages now, no denial or even a response to those posts, I'm suspicious especially bearing in mind that a different ip address does not preclude the possibility of sockishness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 08:38 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Please explain to us the unique design elements of the twin towers. Features not found in other tall structures. How were they different? If you have studied it so much, you have that answer ready.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

(25-01-2017 07:53 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  With all due respect Tierney if you find someone laying on the ground and there's a witness near by who says he has been shot, do you not look for the bullet wound? As for me, I've already examined the evidence and came to a conclusion a long long time ago.

No, I would hope you follow good first aid procedure and look for danger in and around the area of the prone person first.

The witness might be completely wrong and the poor victim of adversity might've been electrocuted.

As for your examining of the evidence? People have pointed out the issues and problems there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: