"Technologically plausible" and CTs

[Fledermaus]

I have read the term "Technologically plausible" in regards to plenty of *interesting* claims made by those of the 9/11 ilk.

Among them....

Energy Beams

Sol-Gel

Thermite

Nano-thermite

Mini-nukes

And yet pressed for how these technologies are applied to WTC buildings I get nebulous claims, insistence of secret technologies, etc.

I personally believe (based on what I believe is sound science and experience with explosives and pyrotechnics)) that NONE of the above are "Technologically plausible" nor are they even logical.

Do you have anything that might convince me other wise.

BTW - Whining that I won't look ate you evidence or theory isn't an argument. Try providing your evidence or theory first.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You missed the Cloned Bushs in there with back pack explosives.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I have read the term "Technologically plausible" in regards to plenty of *interesting* claims made by those of the 9/11 ilk.

Among them....

Energy Beams

Sol-Gel

Thermite

Nano-thermite

Mini-nukes

And yet pressed for how these technologies are applied to WTC buildings I get nebulous claims, insistence of secret technologies, etc.

I personally believe (based on what I believe is sound science and experience with explosives and pyrotechnics)) that NONE of the above are "Technologically plausible" nor are they even logical.

Do you have anything that might convince me other wise.

BTW - Whining that I won't look ate you evidence or theory isn't an argument. Try providing your evidence or theory first.

None of which compare to the over the top lunacy of those who claim it was OFFICE FIRES.





NIST spent 7 years and could not demonstrate this possibility but had to show something for 7 years of ****ing around so they claim it was due to normal office fires and of course debunkers put on their blind folds and happily sing the chorus leaving independent physicists and engineers aghast and in shock.


Like this:



NO I have nothing that will ever convince someone who simply has the ears plugged and eyes closed of anything.


Lets see your evidence it was office fires, start there




you have been shown plenty of evidence to the point of obnoxious and you have simply closed your eyes to it. You need to take a small course in law so you understand what evidence is in the first place how it is used and determined handled and viewed by the courts so you can stop spinning yours and everyone elses wheels out here.

I have shown it was thermite cutters which is easily demonstrated for people who understand what they are looking at.




the bright flashes are not osama bin laden lighting his beer farts.



so keep your eyes closed and carry on.

 

[zyzygy]

None of which compare to the over the top lunacy of those who claim it was OFFICE FIRES.





NIST spent 7 years and could not demonstrate this possibility but had to show something for 7 years of ****ing around so they claim it was due to normal office fires and of course debunkers put on their blind folds and happily sing the chorus leaving independent physicists and engineers aghast and in shock.


Like this:



NO I have nothing that will ever convince someone who simply has the ears plugged and eyes closed of anything.


Lets see your evidence it was office fires, start there




you have been shown plenty of evidence to the point of obnoxious and you have simply closed your eyes to it. You need to take a small course in law so you understand what evidence is in the first place how it is used and determined handled and viewed by the courts so you can stop spinning yours and everyone elses wheels out here.

I have shown it was thermite cutters which is easily demonstrated for people who understand what they are looking at.




the bright flashes are not osama bin laden lighting his beer farts.



so keep your eyes closed and carry on.

A nuclear bomb is more likely than an office fire? It wasn't just an office fire, large planes crashed at high speed into buildings. Did you miss that bit?

 

[KokomoJojo]

A nuclear bomb is more likely than an office fire? It wasn't just an office fire, large planes crashed at high speed into buildings. Did you miss that bit?

Do you have pics of planes that crashed at high speed into building 7? If they did yeh I missed it.

Oh and for building demolitions, its classified as a device not a bomb. They have very short term radiation.

 

[Mark F]

I have read the term "Technologically plausible" in regards to plenty of *interesting* claims made by those of the 9/11 ilk.

Among them....

Energy Beams

Sol-Gel

Thermite

Nano-thermite

Mini-nukes

And yet pressed for how these technologies are applied to WTC buildings I get nebulous claims, insistence of secret technologies, etc.

I personally believe (based on what I believe is sound science and experience with explosives and pyrotechnics)) that NONE of the above are "Technologically plausible" nor are they even logical.

Do you have anything that might convince me other wise.

BTW - Whining that I won't look ate you evidence or theory isn't an argument. Try providing your evidence or theory first.

I think that is getting too far ahead. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why it was necessary to demo any building on 9/11/2001 in the first place - how the very high risk justifies any possible reward. Or put more simply, why was it necessary to bring buildings down for the plot to succeed?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I think that is getting too far ahead. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why it was necessary to demo any building on 9/11/2001 in the first place - how the very high risk justifies any possible reward. Or put more simply, why was it necessary to bring buildings down for the plot to succeed?

what high risk? You mean no risk.

That was proven to us in 1993 bombing when the FBI substituted real explosives and blew the place to hell.

When trying to prosecute them for crimes against the people the case never made it to court. whoda thunked it?

The moral of the story is they can do it right out in the open for all to see and get away with it. No risk is exactly as they did it. Exactly as you seen them come down.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

None of which compare to the over the top lunacy of those who claim it was OFFICE FIRES.





NIST spent 7 years and could not demonstrate this possibility but had to show something for 7 years of ****ing around so they claim it was due to normal office fires and of course debunkers put on their blind folds and happily sing the chorus leaving independent physicists and engineers aghast and in shock.


Like this:



NO I have nothing that will ever convince someone who simply has the ears plugged and eyes closed of anything.


Lets see your evidence it was office fires, start there




you have been shown plenty of evidence to the point of obnoxious and you have simply closed your eyes to it. You need to take a small course in law so you understand what evidence is in the first place how it is used and determined handled and viewed by the courts so you can stop spinning yours and everyone elses wheels out here.

I have shown it was thermite cutters which is easily demonstrated for people who understand what they are looking at.




the bright flashes are not osama bin laden lighting his beer farts.



so keep your eyes closed and carry on.

ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I think that is getting too far ahead. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why it was necessary to demo any building on 9/11/2001 in the first place - how the very high risk justifies any possible reward. Or put more simply, why was it necessary to bring buildings down for the plot to succeed?

Don't forget it was important to make it look like a plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Don't forget it was important to make it look like a plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field!

thats not how it looked though.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Right, it was important to make it look like they wanted it to look like one but didn't want it to actually look like one. Impeccable logic!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Right, it was important to make it look like they wanted it to look like one but didn't want it to actually look like one. Impeccable logic!

ah so thats how you got that figgered out huh..... alrighty then.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

If it were any dumber, I'd have to be a real truther.

 

[Quag]

Is there any cters more entertaining that the no planers?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Is there any cters more entertaining that the no planers?

aint got no debris'ers are far more entertaining.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If it were any dumber, I'd have to be a real truther.

debunkers cant grasp depths deeper than their reflection.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

 

[Mark F]

Don't forget it was important to make it look like a plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field!

Clearly. The plot never would have succeeded if it had say, crashed into the Capitol building.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Is there any cters more entertaining that the no planers?

They would have to be the biggest joke in the truther universe. As Mark pointed out, the supposed reasons for this imagined charade weren't necessary to achieve the aims that have been attributed to the event. These self-titled 'critical thinkers' missed the obvious flaw in their moronic premise.

 

[Quag]

aint got no debris'ers are far more entertaining.

You don't have any debris? Why not? I'm sure Gage or Balsamo will sell you some "genuine" debris if you are willing to pay

 

[Quag]

They would have to be the biggest joke in the truther universe. As Mark pointed out, the supposed reasons for this imagined charade weren't necessary to achieve the aims that have been attributed to the event. These self-titled 'critical thinkers' missed the obvious flaw in their moronic premise.

No planers exist because they figured out that if planes actually were hijacked and crashed on 911 then the rest of their nonsense would have a huge logical hole. Of course they missed all the other huge logical holes but by claiming there were no planes they closed one of them

 

[Mark F]

No planers exist because they figured out that if planes actually were hijacked and crashed on 911 then the rest of their nonsense would have a huge logical hole. Of course they missed all the other huge logical holes but by claiming there were no planes they closed one of them

The obvious logical fallacy of the no-planer position is that it would have been orders-of-magnitude easier to just crash some planes into buildings than anything they have proposed as an alternative.

 

[NWO_Spook]

The obvious logical fallacy of the no-planer position is that it would have been orders-of-magnitude easier to just crash some planes into buildings than anything they have proposed as an alternative.

Yes, the obvious tends to slip by the truthers with predictable regularity.

 

[Quag]

The obvious logical fallacy of the no-planer position is that it would have been orders-of-magnitude easier to just crash some planes into buildings than anything they have proposed as an alternative.

Agreed but I think what happened was in a rare and short lived lucid moment some truthers realized that if the planes did crash into the WTC then there is no logical reason for CD. In fact if the planes were hijacked and crashed then the idea of the ebil govt being responsible doesn't make sense, That is the kind of thing extremist terrorists do. For some reason truthers reject the very simple expedient of having the govt plant the idea of 911 in the terrorist minds and got out of their way to make sure they could succeed. Too simple and plausible for them I guess, or more likely they saw less opportunity to sell videos and books with that one.

However CD is something the govt would do (in their minds) thus being committed to the CD hypothesis, they have latched onto the idea of the planes being faked.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The obvious logical fallacy of the no-planer position is that it would have been orders-of-magnitude easier to just crash some planes into buildings than anything they have proposed as an alternative.

What?

Thats not a logical fallacy Mark, thats simply your lil ole opinion of what you think is easier. LOL

more of the same debunker incorrect cwazy associations