Tony Blair.
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Yet, as you admitted later, bodies do in fact burn. I'm now wondering if Joe smoked from an early age , as latest reports suggest a link between smoking and schizophrenia. (which Joe obviously has, as he seems to be in two minds about the subject of bodies burning, or not)
They really do
Sponsored Links
no it doesn't. Completely different question you are answering there boyo
Perhaps your paper could be used to start the Waugh family's bonfire of swine?
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Carefully laying 250 railway sleepers across the pit, ministry experts and labourers piled 75 tonnes of coal and two lorry loads of straw onto a giant pyre before adding the pigs and cattle.
If bodies burned - why was all that lot needed?
If bodies burned - why was all that lot needed?
to provide the wick. bit dense aren't you?
The arguments that you have put forward, I have gone out investigated and found that they are false. I have presented scientifically backed evidence, as well as calculations to back my argument up.
You have quoted the guardian, and even then, it backs up my argument, by showing that material to act as a wick is needed. Those fires burnt for days. That amount of hay and wood would burn a lot quicker if, say, the bodies were not burning by the wood/hay acting as a wick.
You haven't even considered you are wrong Or looked at the alternative arguments. That's not science, that's being a Billy bullshitter.
The arguments that you have put forward, I have gone out investigated and found that they are false. I have presented scientifically backed evidence, as well as calculations to back my argument up.
You have quoted the guardian, and even then, it backs up my argument, by showing that material to act as a wick is needed. Those fires burnt for days. That amount of hay and wood would burn a lot quicker if, say, the bodies were not burning by the wood/hay acting as a wick.
You haven't even considered you are wrong Or looked at the alternative arguments. That's not science, that's being a Billy bullshitter.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
So the government scientists are all clueless then? It wasn't the Guardian that built the fire. I guess they never even considered that they were were wrong eh? Try it yourself. Get some meat from a supermarket and place it on a bit of hay and watch it wick and burn.
Where ave I ever argued that 50k bodies could be burnt in a Day.
In fact, pleas quote the post where anyone on this forum has said this.
I explained that a fire of wood and hay would
Not have burned for days, and it was in fact the bodies burning.
I don't need to experiment, other, peer reviewed published scientists have.
Have you read the scientific papers I referred too? Quite a few PhDs listed
In fact, pleas quote the post where anyone on this forum has said this.
I explained that a fire of wood and hay would
Not have burned for days, and it was in fact the bodies burning.
I don't need to experiment, other, peer reviewed published scientists have.
Have you read the scientific papers I referred too? Quite a few PhDs listed
Of course Joe hasn't read these papers. He prefers to believe that, because his daughter has a degree, this makes him clever. Joe much prefers to look at the pictures in the papers (as the reading is a bit hard)
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Hindus have been cremating bodies for thousands of years. If they didn't need all that fuel - don't you think that someone might have noticed? They have even tried gas and electric arc cremation to cut down on the amount of wood used. What does Occam's Razor say?
Yes, because a ceremonial religious act us exactly the same as what we are discussing
Occams razor is not a scientific argument.
And you often miss the first part of the phrase off when you quote it, which makes a lot of difference to its meaning.
- Status
Sponsored Links
