See other Religion Articles
Title: Wizard of Oz Verified by using New Testament Verification Methods
Source:
yt
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 13, 2011
Author: .
Post Date: 2011-02-13 08:25:16 by PSUSA
Keywords: None
Views: 2283
Comments: 63
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#4. To: PSUSA (#0)
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Glad ya liked it. So... Can I count on you showing up at our next Black Mass? A wonderful time will be had by all. .
I thought you were racist.
I am. But if I have a hornets nest to get rid of, I will not pass up on Black Flag pesticide just because of the word "black" is on the label. OTOH, if they had a nigger advertising it, I'd find an alternative. .
Look how nice and neat and tidy my tagline is. Then look at yours. It's all big and messy and sloppy and reads like gobblydegook. Good heavens man, get a hold of yourself.
But mine is 100% verifiable. All you need to do is pick up your holey bobble, blow the dust off the cover, open it up, and read it for yourself. Yours, OTOH, is 100% unverifiable crap. You might as well say that the USS Enterprise fired photon torpedoes into the WTC bldgs. .
For you from the Wizard of Oz: I'd turn back if I were you: Notice how the Tinman didn't vanish or shape-shift much into mismatched parts when he crashed, like the "9/11 Fantastic Four planes" did? Here's where you'll probably want to say something pseudo-scientific to explain that like they just didn't make metal for those particular flying machines like they used to. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=gSoEcRg5DcE
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but when you crash at about about 400-500 mph, there isn't much left of the parts, either of the plane or of the people aboard. It would be pseudo-scientific of me if I claimed otherwise. .
Oh really! A "real" plane would crash against the building, it's tail snap off, and fuel-filled wings explode on impact. Let us examine this bit of bullshit. 1) a real plane did crash into the building. 2) Who says it's "tail" would snap off? Let's see if you or anyone else can give a reason why that would happen. 3) Fuel does not just immediately explode. It requires, REQUIRES, the proper fuel/air mixture in order to burn. Come on, man! You can do better than that! .
1) a real plane did crash into the building. I disagree. Why do you suppose there is no break in the building after the wing "entered" the wall?
Why are you basing that on a fuzzy pic, that may or may not be doctored (it doesn't matter), when I gave you 3 good reasons why that pic was wrong? ,
An aluminum airplane wouldn't slide through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter. At 400 mph, it would crumple on impact. "Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"
Hmmm. That sounds like a conclusion. But A conclusion based on what, I can't imagine. If only the kamikaze pilots had listened to this line of "reasoning" prior to taking off during the battle for Okinawa, the losses wouldn't have been as bad as they were. .
You know I'm not the smartest guy, but I'm not stupid enough to think I could teach you anything about logic.
That's good, because you haven't said one logical thing yet. .
I did, you just don't want to see it.
You expect me to hallucinate? Here you have an extremely heavy object traveling at, say, 400 mph. Its force is focused on a small area, ie the nose of the fuselage and the leading edges of the wings. It is going to smash whatever it hits. You seem to think it's going to hit and then just bounce off the building like it was a tennis ball. .
An airliner is a hollow shell of aluminum. The wtc was made of steel and concrete. I'm honestly not very interested in debating why the aircraft would give before the building would.
#35. To: wudidiz (#29)
That's certainly understandable. I wouldn't want to try and explain how a plane would hit a building, fold up like an accordion and drop to the pavement, without entering the building. .
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: PSUSA (#5)
Black Mass
#7. To: wudidiz (#6)
#8. To: PSUSA (#7)
#9. To: wudidiz (#8)
#11. To: PSUSA, wudidiz (#9)
You might as well say that the USS Enterprise fired photon torpedoes into the WTC bldgs.
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
Notice how the Tinman didn't vanish or shape-shift much into mismatched parts when he crashed, like the "9/11 Fantastic Four planes" did? Here's where you'll probably want to say something pseudo-scientific to explain that like they just didn't make metal for those particular flying machines like they used to.
#16. To: PSUSA, GreyLmist (#12)
I have no idea what you are trying to say......
#17. To: wudidiz (#16)
#18. To: PSUSA (#17)
Let us examine this bit of bullshit.
#19. To: wudidiz (#18)
Why do you suppose there is no break in the building after the wing "entered" the wall?
#20. To: PSUSA (#19)
#22. To: wudidiz (#20)
An aluminum airplane wouldn't slide through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter. At 400 mph, it would crumple on impact.
#24. To: PSUSA (#22)
#25. To: wudidiz (#24)
#27. To: PSUSA (#25)
#28. To: wudidiz (#27)
#29. To: PSUSA (#28)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 29. I'm honestly not very interested in debating why the aircraft would give before the building would.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.