Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

How To Spot Bullsh!t: Question-Sayers

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
30,241
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 11, 2011

If someone argues by saying a bunch of questions — while ignoring perfectly reasonable answers — they probably subscribe to a bullshit belief system.

Answers to questions in this video:
Q. If evolution is real, where are the transitional fossils?
A. All fossils are transitional fossils. Species tend to change slowly in a stable environment, however, and fast changes — the appearance of new species — tend to occur over short geological timescales, with tiny numbers of individuals involved. Many types of fossils being rare by nature, the fossil record therefore is not nor could it ever be 100% complete. Doubters can always use this fact to claim that critical evidence is missing, but it is a bit like denying that a murder occurred just because no photograph exists of the bullet in mid-flight.

Q. How did the World Trade Center buildings fall straight down like that?
A. Gravity points straight down, by the definition of "down." In the case of a steel skyscraper with no concrete core, like all three collapsed WTC buildings, once the perimeter steel began to buckle, the load of the upper floors immediately transferred to other columns, which failed in quick succession. The upper portion of the building never rotated more than a few degrees as the upper portion descended into the lower. These buildings were over 95% air, with no central concrete core. And there were no sideways forces strong enough to accelerate the upper portion away from this path. So, they came straight down. However, the buildings hardly collapsed into their own footprints. Debris was ejected in all directions, and even 7 World Trade Center's collapse destroyed part of a building across a four-lane street.

Q. Why are there no stars in the background of the Moon landing footage?
A. The TV video cameras brought to the moon were crude and were designed to capture the brightly lit scene on the surface, not faint distant starlight.

  • likes, 91 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (912)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @DecassyJake <--Cries about me. Because she has no proof.

    Edge wins!

    HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!­!!!!

  • @EdgemanLL2 Typed like a true FOXTARD!

  • @EdgemanLL2 is this Edward Current?..Come on dude, you can troll harder than that, SURELY?? If steel armoured buildings fell as fast as your pants, and by all accounts, (gov ones) they do, you'd be lucky to get a sniff from a rescue dog....

  • @DecassyJake Yep, planes flwon into the ground at over 700 mph proves planes cant go tha tfast. LOLOLOL.

    Go back to Kookville. LMGDAOOOOOO

  • @DecassyJake <--has sexual fantasies about my ass. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Somebody give this guy an enema!

  • @EdgemanLL2 Yes foxtard, if they are falling out of the sky..in pieces. Edge is terminally blunted..go back to Hannity-ville, and suck on that..

  • @DecassyJake But it IS proof that in a descent, speeds in excess of Vmo are possible.

    No planes = No brains, fuxhead.

    Edge wins!!!

  • somebody give this guy a show!

  • @EdgemanLL2 Civil airliners falling apart, falling out of the sky is not the same as the missile-like behaviour of these planes...NO PLANES..you lose dude, please try again!

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more