If my discussions with Mr. Rogue were a tennis match with energetic back-and-forth volleys, I'd be saying -- and have for quite some time -- "the ball's in your court, love."
The way I see it, our many exchanges early in our relationship helped hone my case. This was laid down in two similar articles: 1. "Nuclear 2001-09-11", 2. "Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)". Since then, my beliefs have deviated somewhat, but these remain core elements of 4th generation nukes. They have not been debunked point-by-point.
Mr. Rogue has authored some rebuttals over time, like a re-tread about the ten characteristics of controlled demolition. Unfortunately, none of the ten characteristics exclude the 4th generation nuclear devices that I am championing. I went through them point-by-point. In fact, the two articles above were built on substantiated rebuttals to Mr. Rogue's debunking efforts. The ball has been in Mr. Rogue's court for quite some time. *sigh*
The disinformation circus being what it is, Mr. Rogue seems obligated to regularly drop his hypnotic suggestion regarding nuclear discussions already having been discussed and resolved, supposedly in favor of no nukes. But they haven't. And lying Mr. Rogue can't reference (a) where these nuclear themes were fairly debated, (b) where these themes were soundly defeated, ~AND~ (c)_ where responses-to-rebuttles were addressed. I mean, if my response to a debunking rebuttle thoroughly trashes that rebuttle and the foundation it rests on, then not only does my final response stand but it also leaves standing much of the original nuclear musings. The ball is in his court.
Having shot his load and standing on the limits of his intellectual capacity, all Mr. Rogue can do is drop his "hypnotic innuendo" about "chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers" and the pre-mature "(nuclear) case is closed." Just another one of those stalling game tactics.
At any rate, this collection takes us on one more spin on Mr. Rogue's carousel. My comments were posted on his blog, but were not (nor will they ever be) published and exposed to the world there. Mr. Rogue read them and replied through his blog.
x68 hybridrogue1 : chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers
Proving beyond reasonable doubt that chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers, in itself proves any and all alternative methods false.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You're an idiot too proud to acknowledge flaws in your logic as well as in the evidence you rely on.
Evidence of involvement of chemical based explosives -- to the meager extent it was provided having chain of custody issues as well as lack of collaboration by several reports -- does NOT equate to them being both the primary as well sole cause of the destruction for everything at the WTC. Such sophomoric, moronic, logic mistakes...
Your only consistency is that to the extent you ignore these flaws, you also ignore the evidence (and collaboration by several stilted reports) and the very real probability of 4th generation nuclear devices which no one including the government and Dr. Jones has decisively debunked. It is the very GLARING weaknesses in the BYU nuclear physicists' efforts that leave such nukes on the table. Yet you give him a fawning pass, proving your actual intelligence level being far below what your brain-dead copy and pasting would lead others to believe.
Moreover, were nukes truly off the table, any number of suspects could have been and would have been scapegoated by the government to explain away what you believe. Not so easy with nukes, which is why they don't go into any involvement of anything premeditated, because looking into any cause exposes risks of discovery the true (nuke) causes and their undeniable complicit actions.
But go ahead and repeat your stupid mantras that leave no wiggle room for anything super high tech for even the buildings that you also ignore (WTC 4, 5, 6). You only hurt your own credibility.
"Dear Mr. Rogue,
You’re an idiot too proud to acknowledge flaws in your logic as well as in the evidence you rely on.
Evidence of involvement of chemical based explosives — to the meager extent it was provided having chain of custody issues as well as lack of collaboration by several reports — does NOT equate to them being both the primary as well sole cause of the destruction for everything at the WTC. Such sophomoric, moronic, logic mistakes…"~Señor El Once on my "Controlled Demolition thread"
. . . . . . . .
Thus begins Bridges in his standard harangue, put to me over and again for years.
He calls the evidence of chemical based explosive "meager". I am sure he is referring to the ‘physical’ evidence, which is not meager, nor weak in any sense. But there is more in the visual and testimonial evidence of chemical based explosives, that indeed combine to proofs beyond reasonable doubt.
Whereas with Bridges nookiedoo "theory", there is nothing but conjecture and square pegs forced into round holes. As is pointed out, his main source for the 4th generation nukes states clearly in the title of the paper that such devices are still in the realm of speculation. And if the word "meager" is applicable to anything it is the amount of Tritium that seems to excite Bridges prurient interests to the point of hysteria.
He would have a better time with a blow-up sex doll than riding his rocking horse.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
The vast majority of the evidence that you could point to regarding chemical-based weapons overlaps with 4th generation nukes. The meager amount that suggests NT (solely) has no correlation anywhere other than what Dr. Jones was handed with chain of custody issues, logistics issues, physics issues, etc.
Nukes on the other hand have traces that do creep out in ALL reports that on the surface and in their conclusions avoid 4th generation nukes. The framing of ALL nuclear discussions that avoid 4th generation advancements in their considerations is a major tell in THEIR bluff for which you have been suckered, hook, line, and sinker.
Furthermore, your shoddy analysis of the 4th gen papers highlight a repeated flaw in your logic that loudly and belligerently tries to con people with the premise "if one point doesn't apply, then no points apply." Wrong. Specifically, when several types and configurations of 4th gen nukes are brought up -- even in the speculative sense --, they need to be addressed INDIVIDUALLY with regards to 9/11 applicability. This you haven't done, in part because you don't have the chops, and in part because you've found nothing to debunk them. So you pull stupid argumentative tricks.
You know this (or should know this by now), which just makes you a Dick for your continued argumentation to the contrary.
Were my words side by side with yours, yours come up way short in substance and must stoop to ad hominem, further discrediting you in the long run.
"Dear Mr. Rogue,
The vast majority of the evidence that you could point to regarding chemical-based weapons overlaps with 4th generation nukes. The meager amount that suggests NT (solely) has no correlation anywhere other than what Dr. Jones was handed with chain of custody issues, logistics issues, physics issues, etc." ~Señor El Once
. . . . . .
Are you trying to convince me Bridges? Do you seriously think that anything you can add to your science fiction tale about nukes at WTC is going to have any effect? Just your opening sentence above, which you repeat ad nauseam, becomes a dull headache as I have countered this too many times to remain amused by your raving nonsense.
I will repeat one more time Max, you have zero evidence of nuclear devices being used on 9/11; nothing. The only overlap of evidence is in your fevered imagination.
You are wasting your time here Señor, take it up with others I have had enough. Seriously.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You are in no position intellectually to distinguish fiction from science. Were it otherwise, you would be just a little more critical of Dr. Jones' work. To my recollection, you have never acknowledged any flaws (not a single one) in his efforts either in "reputing" nukes or in NT going the high school science distance, your nose being too far up his ass evidently.
You claim (erroneously):
"you have zero evidence of nuclear devices being used on 9/11"
Deploying your repetitious argumentative tricks amounting to nothing more than hypnotic suggestion, I see. Can you say "tritium"? I'll leave it at that as being sufficiently greater than zero to prove you wrong.
On the theme of zero evidence, you should double check that your NT doesn't run much much closer to zero than the nuke case. You would know this were you to be as critical of Dr. Jones' work as you were to Dr. Fetzer's. Normally I would have also included a reference to Dr. Wood, but you gloriously screwed the pooch on that front and shot both your objectivity and your credibility full of holes in the process. All the more damning when considering your boastings of being an expert in the PR game and disinfo deployment that you have been consistently closed-minded in rescuing nuggets of truth from those efforts... Played right into the hands of it with your sweeping denials.
Yep, all in all, if you couldn't located someone else's words (and understanding) to copy and paste in your response, you couldn't refute it. Which is a why Dr. Wood's is such a sore spot for you. Not that it doesn't have disinfo, but it has never been A to Z debunked and subsequently leaves too many un-re-incorporated nuggets of truth glaringly around.
"You are wasting your time here Señor, take it up with others I have had enough. "
If there were any truth to your sentiments, not only would my un-published comments NOT push your buttons into making hypnotic claims under "my" articles on your blog, but also you would probably hide, un-publish, or just delete your failed homages to me.
Just for the record, I made my case and substantiated it. You get kudos for a 10 point rebuttal awhile back. However, as per the rules of debate, your points were addressed one by one (and thoroughly trashed, a fact you know all too well). The ball has been technically in your court for quite some time to rebut the rebuttal, but you dropped that ball spectacularly and can only muster very repetitive hypnotic suggestion and ad hominem.
The case for the use of nuclear devices at WTC on 9/11 is a frivolous argument. I have made my case and stand by it. I proclaim the case closed.