100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Twoofer Madness | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Nice cloaca  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 10/24/12 12:17 PM
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. BS! And you know nothing of my background or scientific knowledge! 1st Engineers 1st Marine div... it's what we did....build things and blow things up! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. BS! And you know nothing of my background or scientific knowledge! 1st Engineers 1st Marine div... it's what we did....build things and blow things up! Your posts give all the information about your scientific knowledge one needs to know. Please explain why explosives could not have been used in the 9/11 attack. This will give you the opportunity to "show your stuff". Please do not use or quote any "opinion". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 10/24/12 01:06 PM
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. BS! And you know nothing of my background or scientific knowledge! 1st Engineers 1st Marine div... it's what we did....build things and blow things up! Your posts give all the information about your scientific knowledge one needs to know. Please explain why explosives could not have been used in the 9/11 attack. This will give you the opportunity to "show your stuff". Please do not use or quote any "opinion". My knowledge and experience say explosives were used...thermate in particular... as the only explaination.... but I can't prove it without facts, so I don't try, or call uniformed disbelievers names for not believing the obvious. One point I can prove....fire does NOT create "molten steel", even when aided by jet fuel which burns off instantly.... and the basis for much of my personal belief! Molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises several days, even weeks, after 9/11. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. It doesn't take an expert to question the official story when science is irrefutable in this regard.... but.... It is pointless to try, futile to attempt, and senseless to argue unproven points for or against.... that is my point! One of our duties in Nam was making "foo-gas"... I know how jetfuel works and it's effects when ignited. Even when mixed with Napalm, it sucks the oxygen out of the air, and can actually be used (as explosives are in oil fires) to extinguish flames...foo-gas had a whole other purpose...but it wouldn't melt even the razor wire.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Wed 10/24/12 01:33 PM
|
|
Thermate? Thermite? Nano-Thermite? All disproved.
 Molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises several days, even weeks, after 9/11. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. It doesn't take an expert to question the official story when science is irrefutable in this regard.... This 'assumes' that these 'pools' were the result of the fires that cause the collapse, yet they have been attributed to the rescue and cleanup operations. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html These are mere examples. There are many papers available produced by engineers and firefighters that discount this irrational theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. A most cogent point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this was a dentistry thread..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 10/24/12 01:37 PM
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong....
Some are happy with a simple explaination, or one expert opinion, others will seek the advice of another Dr Call people lunatic if it inflats your ego, but there are no facts available....only assumptions... You prove my point well hotrod |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong.... Incorrect. The Greeks and the Romans were aware of the Earth being a sphere. Columbus never set out to prove the Earth was round-that is just a myth. He set out to find an alternative route to China for the Turkish invasion of Constantinople in 1453 had closed the Silk Road to the west. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong.... Some are happy with a simple explaination, or one expert opinion, others will seek the advice of another Dr Call people lunatic if it inflats your ego, but there are no facts available....only assumptions... You prove my point well hotrod You have no point apart from ad hominem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong.... Incorrect. The Greeks and the Romans were aware of the Earth being a sphere. Columbus never set out to prove the Earth was round-that is just a myth. He set out to find an alternative route to China for the Turkish invasion of Constantinople in 1453 had closed the Silk Road to the west. And there you have it....some believe, some don't...until it is proven |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Wed 10/24/12 01:42 PM
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong.... Incorrect. The Greeks and the Romans were aware of the Earth being a sphere. Columbus never set out to prove the Earth was round-that is just a myth. He set out to find an alternative route to China for the Turkish invasion of Constantinople in 1453 had closed the Silk Road to the west. And there you have it....some believe, some don't...until it is proven Are you an historian? No. Care to prove otherwise? There are many myths in history, deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thermate? Thermite? Nano-Thermite? All disproved. Molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises several days, even weeks, after 9/11. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. It doesn't take an expert to question the official story when science is irrefutable in this regard.... This 'assumes' that these 'pools' were the result of the fires that cause the collapse, yet they have been attributed to the rescue and cleanup operations. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html These are mere examples. There are many papers available produced by engineers and firefighters that discount this irrational theory. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. BS! And you know nothing of my background or scientific knowledge! 1st Engineers 1st Marine div... it's what we did....build things and blow things up! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole unprovable argument for or against one theory or another, name calling and opinion bashing.... It's like 2 monkeys arguing over a banana under a tree full of them! POINTLESS! If you dropped a brick on your toe and I explained to you the laws of gravity, the physics of falling objects, and the calculated force of a five pound brick moving at ten feet per second on your foot and someone else told you an alien force beam pushed the brick at your foot, would you give each explanation equal merit? That is what you are doing now. Do you believe in miracles or do things just happen for the better at times? Can you prove a miracle? Can you prove it isn't? I question 9/11 because it doesn't add up for me, others might think I'm crazy for having a belief or understanding different from theirs, but without facts (all veiled under gov't security shams) 9/11 can never be argued rationally by either set of beliefs... therefore, any belief is equally valid, or equally invalid, and to argue a point without fact..... is indeed pointless! Name calling and opinion bashing from either side is senseless, devisive and futile...except to grow ones own ego.... and homey don't play that! It depends what you are debating. If you say the towers couldn't have fallen without explosives then it can be proved scientifically that you are wrong. If you are saying the attacks were real, we had Intel, but didn't prevent them then I can't argue against that with science. Arguement and heresy are not facts, only beliefs, and as shown, science is not at fault, only the interpretation of it and both have reasonable arguments...., so again, the points for and against are moot The facts are that you don't understand the science so you write it off as opinion to elevate your opinion to an equal status. You actually have to understand some science to realize that the facts and math presented to debunk are real. Physics is not opinion. BS! And you know nothing of my background or scientific knowledge! 1st Engineers 1st Marine div... it's what we did....build things and blow things up! Your posts give all the information about your scientific knowledge one needs to know. Please explain why explosives could not have been used in the 9/11 attack. This will give you the opportunity to "show your stuff". Please do not use or quote any "opinion". My knowledge and experience say explosives were used...thermate in particular... as the only explaination.... but I can't prove it without facts, so I don't try, or call uniformed disbelievers names for not believing the obvious. One point I can prove....fire does NOT create "molten steel", even when aided by jet fuel which burns off instantly.... and the basis for much of my personal belief! Molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises several days, even weeks, after 9/11. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. It doesn't take an expert to question the official story when science is irrefutable in this regard.... but.... It is pointless to try, futile to attempt, and senseless to argue unproven points for or against.... that is my point! One of our duties in Nam was making "foo-gas"... I know how jetfuel works and it's effects when ignited. Even when mixed with Napalm, it sucks the oxygen out of the air, and can actually be used (as explosives are in oil fires) to extinguish flames...foo-gas had a whole other purpose...but it wouldn't melt even the razor wire.... OK, we are making a little progress. You state that, for a fact, you know how explosives work. As the consulting design engineer for Dresser Industries, I designed their down hole explosives testing facility, so I have some direct experience with it too. If you have any actual experience with explosives, you know they have to go "boom". They use a property called bristance to cut metal with high pressure. Thermite burns with intense heat to cut with heat. The intense heat produces light. Normal explosives produce both heat and light. There were many cameras of all types on the twin towers after the first plane hit. That is a fact. Both the noise of bristance and the light of any explosive would have shown in the video, and it did not. This is also a fact. Please give us your knowledge of the noiseless, lightless explosive that had to have been used. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Wed 10/24/12 03:26 PM
|
|
Thermate? Thermite? Nano-Thermite? All disproved. Molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises several days, even weeks, after 9/11. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. It doesn't take an expert to question the official story when science is irrefutable in this regard.... This 'assumes' that these 'pools' were the result of the fires that cause the collapse, yet they have been attributed to the rescue and cleanup operations. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html http://11-settembre.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html These are mere examples. There are many papers available produced by engineers and firefighters that discount this irrational theory. The search and rescue efforts required much cutting of steel to gain access to survivors. This accounts for the 'pools of molten metal' seen by witnesses days after the collapse. It is also assumed by many that the molten metal found in the basements and elevator shafts is steel when the building was full of aluminium and other low melt alloys. The answers are simple when one doesn't jump to hysterical conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world was flat according to experts until Columbus proved them wrong.... Incorrect. The Greeks and the Romans were aware of the Earth being a sphere. Columbus never set out to prove the Earth was round-that is just a myth. He set out to find an alternative route to China for the Turkish invasion of Constantinople in 1453 had closed the Silk Road to the west. And there you have it....some believe, some don't...until it is proven How did Christopher Columbus prove that the Earth was round? He didn't. Educated people in Europe had believed that the world was round-a sphere, spherical-for more than 1,500 years before Columbus was born. Columbus set out to prove that a ship could reach Asia by sailing west from Europe. He believed that the world was only about 12,000 miles (19,300 km) around at the equator when most people believed, correctly, that it was about 24,000 miles (38,600 km) around at the equator. In 1488, four years before Columbus' (in)famous first voyage to the New World, some Portugese explorers had found some islands relatively far out in the Atlantic and he might've thought that they sounded like they were Asian for some reason. Spain wanted to destroy all its neighbors, so when some guy came up to them and said, "I can get you all sorts of money for guns by sailing west to India as long as I get a cut," they thought, "Eh, worst that'll happen is this guy'll get eaten by his crew before they start eating each other and the last one alive dies of starvation instead of horrible, horrible, zombie murder and we'll be out a couple boats." When Columbus hit the Bahamas, he thought he was in India. That's why the aboriginal people of the Americas are wrongly called Indians. Note that even if most people at the time thought that the world was flat and you'd fall off if you sailed to far, Columbus' journey woulndn't've disproved that unless he was actually in India. By the time of his death in 1506, people had already figured out that he wasn't in any known region of the world. If they thought the world was flat, all that Columbus would've proved to them is that there were another continent on their flat world. The idea of Columbus "proving" that the world is round doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Another guy, named Magellan, later sailed all the way around the world going only west, thereby strongly suggesting that the world was round, but this still wouldn't prove the world was a sphere. It could be a half-sphere or a cylinder or anything. There's a lot of geometry and astronomy that goes into proving that the earth is spherical, both of which the ancient Greeks were good enough at in the 3rd century BCE to prove that the earth was a sphere and estimate its equatorial circumference within a few hundred miles. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Christopher_Columbus_prove_that_the_Earth_was_round I've given you a populist quote so the historiography isn't too in depth. If you wish for original sources, just ask. |
|
|
|
|
