Lol. It's wild, considering not only would most architects not be qualified to speak definitively and authoritatively on catastrophic structural collapse and failure, but neither would most engineers. And of those engineers, only some are civil engineers. And even most of them don't specialize in structural engineering. And even fewer are forensic structural engineers.
But a LOT more people watch YouTube videos.
I really don’t think you know what scientific theories and laws are. You can literally demonstrate conservation of momentum with a skateboard and bowling ball in your living room. You can also just watch a cannon recoil after firing. So I guess that’s a government conspiracy too? You’re better than this.
A WHOLE WEEK? Imagine what you can do in a month, or a year? You'll be able to get us to Mars and back if you put your mind to it!
But yeah, it's good to be back. Always in good fun with you.
You're not educated enough about space flight to form an opinion on it. No shame in that, but right now you are the epitome of dunning kruger.Wrong. You need 8 advanced degrees so you can doubt what your eyes clearly see. Then use said degrees to make yourself feel validated with 20 pages of analytical rambling that still concludes nothing, yet sheep give you likes cause they feel too inferior to form their own opinions
There is a law of gravitation and a theory of gravitation man.
When did I EVER say I have a theory explaining it? I'm pretty sure I have repeated ad nauseum that I have no idea, only that I know enough to know I do not know. I'm frankly VERY impressed that you and Thor are able to TOTALLY understand the nuances of the topic to be so conclusive in your assertations though. These people must be the best teachers on earth to be able to clearly explain these topics to people with no engineering background at all.
This. Dude not only claims to not understand simple real-world examples, but misses that one doesn't even need a vacuum to be tested and demonstrated, and somehow thinks he can still disprove the moon landing based on some "evidence." It's wild.
This. But seriously, why is no one factoring in the chem-trail ingredients every plane has? Do we know what temperature they burn at? If they explode? And what about the Jewish Space Lasers? Maybe the towers actually burnt down from space lasers?
It's all just to keep us meatbags distracted so we don't realize it's really the crab people and the mole people vying for superiority under our very feet.
when i attended columban college in the rp a priest told me that i should pray for understanding and guidance before reading the bible.
Yes, that is true, but sometimes you should also read historical and academic supporting literature and linguistic analysis to get a better picture of the context and history of the Bible and its translations. But the two are not mutually exclusive I suppose.
i love history and it has never interfered with my belief in GOD.
Oh, I don't AT ALL mean that studying history will disprove God. I mean that it can give a better history of what things in the Bible are products of their time, mistranslations, etc. That IN NO WAY disproves God, or even comes close. Believing in God is purely a matter of faith, and cannot be proved or disproved.
agreed...and the quote makes prayer for guidance and understanding before reading the bible even better advice from the priest.
I think we all should all redirect our focus to the the latest domestic terrorist attack on our capital that claimed the lives of zero politicians, and delayed the inauguration of an illegitimate and incompetent president by a few hours.
How will our country ever recover from such an act
People just throw a myriad of points at you, rapid fire, so by the time you’ve poked holes in one point, they’ve already thrown ten more at you, so it seems like you’re behind and struggling to keep up, when in reality the argument shouldn’t be continued past the first point until it has been agreed upon to be valid, as any points that build on that one must inherently be rejected if the initial premise they build on is also rejected. This is why it is vital to not concede an early point to go to the next one, as by conceding an early point that is invalid, you lend credibility to the rest of the argument building on a faulty foundation. Many Ancient Greek philosophers such as Epictetus talk about the importance of this in debates. So they throw 10 points at you, and you disprove the first one, but they say “well the other 9 are valid.” Well the other 9 built from that first premise that is wrong, so it’s not 9 of 10 correct, it’s 1 of 1 incorrect and 9 that are now not even worth entertaining. But the casual observer will see it as “well he’s still right on 9 of 10 things, so maybe there is something here, since 9/10 is an A grade.”
from my limited knowledge about how it really works, i am under the impression that there are people in different professions who are available to testify in courtrooms in any way that is profitable to them....i feel that many of the so called experts you see giving their opinions on main stream media are paid to give opinions with the slant that will promote the agenda that the particular media outlet paying them is trying to promote.
