PolyNewbie Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 white doors:Not true - you made that up That was wrt to a pancake collapse and is true. One mass hitting another on the way down would slow things down. Glad you could help me out here blackascoal. There are too many of these neoliberal sychophant fascists out there. Blackascoal: do you need any help with physics on this thread or are you OK on your own ? I have a degree in engineering and can see Riverwind just has no idea what he is talking about in physics and writes down what he imagines as fact. I'm wondering if its that obvious to you as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Blackascoal: do you need any help with physics on this thread or are you OK on your own ? I have a degree in engineering and can see Riverwind just has no idea what he is talking about in physics and writes down what he imagines as fact. I'm wondering if its that obvious to you as well. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Glad you could help me out here blackascoal. There are too many of these neoliberal sychophant fascists out there. I believe the only one on here who is a fascist is yourself, since alot of your claim's sound like the same ones the NAZI's made against the Jew's. Unfortunately, our forum now has two village idiot's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Rallying against banks and the economy would be a leftist thing to do no? He also rallies against globalism.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Rallying against banks and the economy would be a leftist thing to do no? He also rallies against globalism.. He could be hard right wing paleoconservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 One mass hitting another on the way down would slow things down. That's a lie. You just made that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Rallying against banks and the economy would be a leftist thing to do no? He also rallies against globalism.. He could be hard right wing paleoconservative. You didn't lie and make that up did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 You didn't lie and make that up did you? No, Paleoconservatism is an actual political philosophy, it tend's to oppose globalization and free trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackascoal Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 white doors:Not true - you made that up That was wrt to a pancake collapse and is true. One mass hitting another on the way down would slow things down. Glad you could help me out here blackascoal. There are too many of these neoliberal sychophant fascists out there. Blackascoal: do you need any help with physics on this thread or are you OK on your own ? I have a degree in engineering and can see Riverwind just has no idea what he is talking about in physics and writes down what he imagines as fact. I'm wondering if its that obvious to you as well. I appreciate the offer my brother and feel free to jump in and correct me when you think necessary .. but this is Science 101. The Law of Falling Objects is real easy to understand if anyone is really seeking truth .. but as you know, this is not about truth or science. I find this issue a fascinating study of the human psyche as it demonstrates how easily humans are controlled. There absolutely couldn't be more conclusive evidence of the Fraud of the Fairy-Tale than what is already available, yet even in the face of the mountain of documented and proven lies and deceptions of the war on Iraq, many are still trapped by the limits of how much reality they can take. What we're doing in this thread is arguing science against ideology and the limits of the human mind to concieve what is clearly before it. We exist in the Matrix where illusion is more desired than reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackascoal Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Blackascoal: do you need any help with physics on this thread or are you OK on your own ? I have a degree in engineering and can see Riverwind just has no idea what he is talking about in physics and writes down what he imagines as fact. I'm wondering if its that obvious to you as well. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Glad you could help me out here blackascoal. There are too many of these neoliberal sychophant fascists out there. I believe the only one on here who is a fascist is yourself, since alot of your claim's sound like the same ones the NAZI's made against the Jew's. Unfortunately, our forum now has two village idiot's. "Idiots"? Let me guess .. you thought Saddam had WMD .. am I right? I'm new here and I haven't read any of your posts on the subject, but I'm guessing that I'm right .. simply based on the intellectual prowess you just displayed. Am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I appreciate the offer my brother and feel free to jump in and correct me when you think necessary .. but this is Science 101. The Law of Falling Objects is real easy to understand if anyone is really seeking truth .. but as you know, this is not about truth or science. Yes, those of us who believe the official event's of 9/11 have support from the mainstream scientific community, while you guys only refer to quotes taken out of context, and support from maybe at best the 1% of the scientific community that has nutbar theories. I find this issue a fascinating study of the human psyche as it demonstrates how easily humans are controlled. There absolutely couldn't be more conclusive evidence of the Fraud of the Fairy-Tale than what is already available, yet even in the face of the mountain of documented and proven lies and deceptions of the war on Iraq, many are still trapped by the limits of how much reality they can take. I'm more interested in the psyche of people who believe a military jet, phaser beam, or CD, somehow cause the WTC tower's to come down. I think that no matter what their will always be those people in the population that like to believe a conspiracy theory over rational logic. Polynewbie is extremely paranoid, hell one of his quotes is even my signature. What we're doing in this thread is arguing science against ideology and the limits of the human mind to concieve what is clearly before it. Apparently the Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, NIST, and the American Society of Civil Engineer's aren't really involved in the science field. As for ideology, you and Polynewbie are the one's spouting off the Lyndon Larouche BS. We exist in the Matrix where illusion is more desired than reality. When did the machines take control of the earth? When somebody bases a conclusion off an action movie I question how much they actually know. I personally make conclusion's on issue's from the movie Roadhouse starring Patrick Swayze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I find this issue a fascinating study of the human psyche as it demonstrates how easily humans are controlled. There absolutely couldn't be more conclusive evidence of the Fraud of the Fairy-Tale, yet even in the face of the mountain of documented and proven lies and deceptions of of the war on Iraq, many are still trapped by the limits of how much reality they can take. And here, folks, is glimpse into the core of the conspiracy nut mind. It's all about the self-aggrandization. These people just get off on the notion that they know something the "sheeple" don't. They are special, see? All the "fascistBushwarmongerNeoCon" shit is just boilerplate. What we're doing in this thread is arguing science against ideology and the limits of the human mind to concieve what is clearly before it. Well some of us are. You and PN are just talking bullshit. We exist in the Matrix. Aw man: why can't we exist in a movie that doesn't suck ass? "The Godfather" maybe. Or "The Big Lebowski." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Idiots"?Let me guess .. you thought Saddam had WMD .. am I right? I'm new here and I haven't read any of your posts on the subject, but I'm guessing that I'm right .. simply based on the intellectual prowess you just displayed. Am I right? Within 15 minutes you made a post saying that a large jet crashing into the WTC would only create a "small" fire. Thus I made the conclusion that you are an idiot. Originally I thought Saddam had WMD's based on what the intelligence community had brought forward. However I'm against the occupation of Iraq. Aw man: why can't we exist in a movie that doesn't suck ass? "The Godfather" maybe. Or "The Big Lebowski." How does "Road House" sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackascoal Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Not to mention that two jetliners crashing into a large building would only create a relatively small fire. Once again more lunacy from the truthies. You're not very good at this are you? Pardon my presumption but I'm new here and sizing up the posters. Normally, those who are good at this don't deny shit that can be clearly backed up by looking at the thousands of available videos. Show me one with raging fires after the initial impact and I'll show you one thousand with relatively small fires in the buildings and WTC7 with very small fires. By the way, I read that nonsense about WTC7 "getting it's face ripped off" .. but it was so ridiculous that I thought why bother to pop that ugly balloon. Wanna' see videos of WTC7 as it collapes .. with its face intact? Do you guys get the internet? Here's a clue .. jet fuel is essentially kerosene .. what are the characteristics of kerosene in a fire? Here's another clue .. kerosene reaches what temperature? Here's another more exciting sort of hands on clue .. take a wheelbarrel, fill it with kerosene, toss in a regular flimsy soda can .. see if that weakens the structure of the can .. then once you find out that it didn't, go back to the previous clue and you'll have your answer as to why it didn't. Science can be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Black Dog:Well some of us are. You and PN are just talking bullshit. We are talking solid evidence. Everything said on our side is based on evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 We exist in the Matrix where illusion is more desired than reality. Easy there Orpheus. Have some more cool aid and fire up the bong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Black Dog:Well some of us are. You and PN are just talking bullshit.We are talking solid evidence. Everything said on our side is based on evidence.You randomly select 'evidence' that supports your case. Ignore perfectly rational alternate explainations that explain the same evidence and simply discard evidence that rules your theories out. That is not following the evidence - what you do is better called 'creative fiction'.I have a degree in engineering and can see Riverwind just has no idea what he is talking about in physics and writes down what he imagines as fact. I'm wondering if its that obvious to you as well.I love it. You can't argue the facts so you start throwing around your credentials. PN, you are clearly someone who was lucky to scrape through an engineering degree with 51%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I personally make conclusion's on issue's from the movie Roadhouse starring Patrick Swayze. A classic face puncher if there ever was one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Everything said on our side is based on evidence. "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."-Lonel Hutz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 But if we are looking for a move to be living in, why not Porky's? bad movie but that sounds like fun. Lots of boobies. Think Poly would be able to get laid in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackascoal Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Idiots"?Let me guess .. you thought Saddam had WMD .. am I right? I'm new here and I haven't read any of your posts on the subject, but I'm guessing that I'm right .. simply based on the intellectual prowess you just displayed. Am I right? Within 15 minutes you made a post saying that a large jet crashing into the WTC would only create a "small" fire. Thus I made the conclusion that you are an idiot. Originally I thought Saddam had WMD's based on what the intelligence community had brought forward. However I'm against the occupation of Iraq. Aw man: why can't we exist in a movie that doesn't suck ass? "The Godfather" maybe. Or "The Big Lebowski." How does "Road House" sound? I have a request .. how about we debate like adults and challenge what is actually said. I said that there were relatively small fires in the buildings when they "collapsed" and that small kerosene fires cannot melt buildings. In fact, LARGE kerosene fires cannot melt buildings. How did I know that you thought Saddam had WMD? Man you sure look like you knew what you were talking about on that one. And, I already knew that you support the worst military blunder in American history. You're batting a thousand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I wonder if ballet dancers can kick ass like Patrick Swayze? Is it the dancing that makes you so good at face punching? Of course Sam Elliott was pretty good too and he wasn't much of a dancer.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 You're not very good at this are you? Well, what do you mean sphincter boy? Normally, those who are good at this don't deny shit that can be clearly backed up by looking at the thousands of available videos. Show me one with raging fires after the initial impact and I'll show you one with relatively small fires. If your only using video evidence, then that's not really science. As well, if you look at the video I provided you'll notice that each jet went up into a fireball, with the WTC it would have been easy for the fire to spread due to the many flammable material's in the building. Here's another more exciting sort of hands on clue .. take a wheelbarrel, fill it with kerosene, toss in a regular flimsy soda can .. see if that weakens the structure of the can .. then once you find out that it didn't, go back to the previous clue and you'll have your answer as to why it didn't. I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an idiot. Here's a clue .. jet fuel is essentially kerosene .. what are the characteristics of kerosene in a fire? http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/ We are talking solid evidence. Everything said on our side is based on evidence. The brown nutty stuff coming out of your head doesn't count as solid evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 And, I already knew that you support the worst military blunder in American history. The Civil war? Where did that come from and what does that have to do with phazers bring down the WTC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I wonder if ballet dancers can kick ass like Patrick Swayze? Is it the dancing that makes you so good at face punching? Of course Sam Elliott was pretty good too and he wasn't much of a dancer.. I wonder whatever happened to Patrick Swayze, he was truly one of the greatest actor's out there. However if Chuck Norris was on here he would have punched both PN and the other one in the head by now. I said that there were relatively small fires in the buildings when they "collapsed" and that small kerosene fires cannot melt buildings. In fact, LARGE kerosene fires cannot melt buildings. Damage buildings son, not melt them How did I know that you thought Saddam had WMD?Man you sure look like you knew what you were talking about on that one. And, I already knew that you support the worst military blunder in American history. How do you know that, I said that I believed the intelligence was correct, and that's what I made my conclusion's on, as did many other people. You're batting a thousand. Well polynewbie has refused to debate me after I spotted his BS with regards to Lyndon Larouche, and after he said he would be charged with a hate crime if he let his true feelings out. For some reason I have a feeling you might be the same sphincter boy. I have a request .. how about we debate like adults and challenge what is actually said. But you actually said we were living in the matrix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I said that there were relatively small fires in the buildings when they "collapsed" and that small kerosene fires cannot melt buildings. In fact, LARGE kerosene fires cannot melt buildings.Since you love facts try to absorb these ones:1) Steel does not need to melt to weaken - it just needs to be heated. Normal fires burning carpet, furniture, etc can easily reach 800C. That is why steel frame buildings require fire proofing on all steel supports. 2) No one knows how hot the fires were when the buildings collapsed so your statement "relatively small fires" is simply something you made up. Gawd, I feel like I am standing in front of a whack a mole machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.