[PluggyRug]

You still did not answer my question, here it is once more....

Quote:

So...Fire-em-Up, you stated in an earlier post that jet fuel (kerosene) could not burn hot enough to melt steel...how about used engine oil?

[FireEmUp]

Simple, it cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Duh.

You people have no basic grasp on science and that's why it's so easy for any government to pull off this shit. They know that most of the public are just too dense to figure it out.

The towers, ALL 3 of them, were controlled demolition. There is no argument.

Furthermore, if you wish to talk about dodges, not one of you brainiacs touched on the air quality issue. What's the matter; couldn't find an excuse for it in that handbook of yours.

Lastly, you do realize I am only here for fun right? I know damn well your purpose in debating me and it's not to learn anything; its just to discredit this information to further your own political goals. It's not hard to see. I mean, you people can't really be this dense can you?

[FireEmUp]

Also, which genius created the poll for this thread?

Bush nor Al Qaeda are countries. The term 'other' in the 3rd option is just idiotic.

Plus, the poll does not give you the necessary option to select something true. Bush did not do it alone. Al Qaeda did not do it alone. Bin Laden did not do it alone and certainly the 19 hijackers did not do it alone.

Of course, you people still believe that Osama and his 19 supermen where able to cripple the biggest technological and military might in the world... with boxcutters.

Ludicrous.

[Blue_Nose]

FireEmUp wrote:

You people have no basic grasp on science and that's why it's so easy for any government to pull off this shit. They know that most of the public are just too dense to figure it out.

So this ridiculously elaborate plan failed to follow even the most "basic" aspects of "science"? Why would a plan be designed to be so easily discredited by the likes of you (albeit, you've thus far failed to address any specific aspect of the NIST report or any official reports) if the coordinators so easily proceeded without leaving a shred of actual, undeniable evidence? All you seem to be capable of doing is pasting links to the websites of others and calling it "science". On a scale of one to ten, your knowledge of this matter compared to other "truthers" that have posted here is maybe a three.

FireEmUp wrote:

Lastly, you do realize I am only here for fun right? I know damn well your purpose in debating me and it's not to learn anything; its just to discredit this information to further your own political goals. It's not hard to see. I mean, you people can't really be this dense can you?

You're not fooling anyone - you think you're doing something valuable with your time, attempting to "educate" the masses with your tripe. You've been shuffled into this single thread, not because anyone is worried that you'll expose some information that's been posted hundreds of times already by others before you, but so we can pick on you.

Try not to project the level of commitment you have to this issue on others. You're desperate to validate your crackpot theories by seeking out sympathizers on the internet.

[Zipperfish]

FireEmUp wrote:

Also, which genius created the poll for this thread?

Bush nor Al Qaeda are countries. The term 'other' in the 3rd option is just idiotic.

Plus, the poll does not give you the necessary option to select something true. Bush did not do it alone. Al Qaeda did not do it alone. Bin Laden did not do it alone and certainly the 19 hijackers did not do it alone.

Of course, you people still believe that Osama and his 19 supermen where able to cripple the biggest technological and military might in the world... with boxcutters.

Ludicrous.

The hijackers did not cripple the United States, and most certainly not their military. It was an attack on civilians that had zero impact on teh militarty capability of the US.

Blue Nose actually knows quote a bit about science and even more about eningeering. You should consider his comments more carefully.

But speaking of science--do you actually have a scientific theory? A scietnific theory must be falsifiable. What conceivable piece of evidence could be presented to you that would disprove your theory?

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish wrote:

But speaking of science--do you actually have a scientific theory? A scietnific theory must be falsifiable. What conceivable piece of evidence could be presented to you that would disprove your theory?

The assumption of omnipotence of the US government allows this "theory" to persist - in the mind of a 'truther', there's nobody they can't silence, no operation too complex, no resource too limited, and of course, none of them would dare come forward and admit their participation, ever.

It's a "God did it" card they throw in the mix whenever the pieces don't fit.

[SprCForr]

Again with the dodging. You still haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised on your claims, you just keep chanting "controlled demolition, there is no argument".

How do you know I'm not having fun? I'm actually having a great time holding you to your claims. You're my monkey! Dodge monkey, dodge! While you're at it can you demonstrate how can one acheive a BSc in Civil Engineering without a grasp of basic science?

You reek of desperation Mr. McDodge.

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

But speaking of science--do you actually have a scientific theory? A scietnific theory must be falsifiable. What conceivable piece of evidence could be presented to you that would disprove your theory?

The assumption of omnipotence of the US government allows this "theory" to persist - in the mind of a 'truther', there's nobody they can't silence, no operation too complex, no resource too limited, and of course, none of them would dare come forward and admit their participation, ever.

It's a "God did it" card they throw in the mix whenever the pieces don't fit.

It also has the psyhoclogically comforting effect of letting the "truther" in on a ervelaedsecret that only a privileged few share. Maybe there should be a name for such a condition. How about Mulder Syndrome? Also, it provides purpose in the evangelical zeal to inform others.

That said there is no doubt some weirdness around 9/11. I mena flying out the bin Ladens--what teh hell was that all about. And a fifty-story building should not collapse due to a structure fire. And why was the US government so apparently disinterested in who paid the hijackers--espeically the ISI connection.

I think I'd make a good foiler. Unfortunately, I subscribe to the theory of Occam's Razor, so it's not possible for me.

[Thanos]

Better change your name from "FireEmUp" to "FuckEmUp" and just get it over with already. Dude, you've been thoroughly dissed, owned, pwned, and bent over a table with tits painted on your back in a fashion that even Djjackkassedeydee didn't manage to pull off. You're leaking blood by the litre into the water right now and they can smell it. You might want to consider retreating now because it's only going to get worse for you if you continue.

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish wrote:

Also, it provides purpose in the evangelical zeal to inform others.

You're not the only one to notice the relation - if you search the internet for characteristics of conspiracy theorists, virtually all of them can be applied directly to religious evangelism.

Here, for example, is a list that's written in the context of conspiracy theorists:

• Arrogance
• Relentlessness
• Inability to answer questions
• Fondness for certain stock phrases
• Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor
• Inability to tell good evidence from bad
• Inability to withdraw
• Leaping to conclusions
• Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims
• It's always a conspiracy

Zipperfish wrote:

That said there is no doubt some weirdness around 9/11. I mena flying out the bin Ladens--what teh hell was that all about. And a fifty-story building should not collapse due to a structure fire. And why was the US government so apparently disinterested in who paid the hijackers--espeically the ISI connection.

There's undoubtedly a lot of political loose ends (most of which I'm unaware) that deserve all the attention they can get, but that doesn't mean fabricating these elaborate scenarios and pissing on accepted practise in forensic engineering and science.

[Toro]

I'm disappointed with FEU actually. Some of the foilers in this thread at least provided a bit of a fight, like OPP for instance, who at least could craft a semi-coherent argument. All FEU says is "science," and "its impossible."

[Tricks]

FireEmUp wrote:

Also, which genius created the poll for this thread?

Bush nor Al Qaeda are countries. The term 'other' in the 3rd option is just idiotic.

Plus, the poll does not give you the necessary option to select something true. Bush did not do it alone. Al Qaeda did not do it alone. Bin Laden did not do it alone and certainly the 19 hijackers did not do it alone.

Of course, you people still believe that Osama and his 19 supermen where able to cripple the biggest technological and military might in the world... with boxcutters.

Ludicrous.

I'm the genius who made it, and it wasn't really meant as a serious poll you twit.

[Regina]

Tricks wrote:

I'm the genius who made it, and it wasn't really meant as a serious poll you twit.

[FireEmUp]

Zipperfish wrote:

It also has the psyhoclogically comforting effect of letting the "truther" in on a ervelaedsecret that only a privileged few share. Maybe there should be a name for such a condition. How about Mulder Syndrome? Also, it provides purpose in the evangelical zeal to inform others.

That said there is no doubt some weirdness around 9/11. I mena flying out the bin Ladens--what teh hell was that all about. And a fifty-story building should not collapse due to a structure fire. And why was the US government so apparently disinterested in who paid the hijackers--espeically the ISI connection.

I think I'd make a good foiler. Unfortunately, I subscribe to the theory of Occam's Razor, so it's not possible for me.

Finally, somebody who is not afraid to ask questions. Don't let anyone label you as anything. That's a tactic used to lump all people who question into a label they can push off as crazy.

[ziggy]

FireEmUp wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

It also has the psyhoclogically comforting effect of letting the "truther" in on a ervelaedsecret that only a privileged few share. Maybe there should be a name for such a condition. How about Mulder Syndrome? Also, it provides purpose in the evangelical zeal to inform others.

That said there is no doubt some weirdness around 9/11. I mena flying out the bin Ladens--what teh hell was that all about. And a fifty-story building should not collapse due to a structure fire. And why was the US government so apparently disinterested in who paid the hijackers--espeically the ISI connection.

I think I'd make a good foiler. Unfortunately, I subscribe to the theory of Occam's Razor, so it's not possible for me.

Finally, somebody who is not afraid to ask questions. Don't let anyone label you as anything. That's a tactic used to lump all people who question into a label they can push off as crazy.

I think Thano's said it best.

So,still dodging eh?
Where's the blast detritus? The explosive signature? the siesmic signature?
A cast blast in montana will show up on siesmic instruments in Russia so why no signature from instruments a few miles away?

What makes you think jet fuel wont melt steel?
We use it up north to incinerate everything,jetA,jetB,diesel,all the same.

Maybe I was seeing things?

Or are you just a born liar?