Stupid Truther Memes: "Fire Can't Melt Steel"

Walter Ego · 10th January 2011, 07:51 AM

From a recent comment on one of my You Tube videos:

Quote:

The meaning of this video: Some people would believe fire could melt steel, if a lot people told them that fire could melt steel.

(That truther's YT channel also contains this gem, among others: "The government never tells us the truth about anything. So why do we believe them after the impossible has happened?")

Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made? (Yeah, I know they're saying the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt the steel but the steel didn't have to melt to lose it structural integrity and the statement itself is prima facie stupid.)

I've noticed in my limited contact with real live truthers that they just repeat catch phrases like this as if the mere repetition of the phrase proves something. It's obvious they've never given a moment's thought to what they're actually saying and if what they're saying even means anything.

I've got some other examples but I thought I'd let some of the other forum members chime in first.

What's your favorite stupid truther meme or catch phrase?

Dog Town · 10th January 2011, 07:54 AM

First time in history, never before, etc...

DGM · 10th January 2011, 07:59 AM

"free-fall speed" has always been my favorite.

Oystein · 10th January 2011, 08:09 AM

Fall/not fall into its footprint.
What is this magic footprint?
What would it prove?

ozeco41 · 10th January 2011, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

"free-fall speed" has always been my favorite.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant but....

The implied claim that "free fall" always means CD and can never result from natural processes.

Many 'debunkers' seem to have fallen for that truther meme because we see lot's of arguments trying to disprove 'free fall' when the response could easily be "So what".

DGM · 10th January 2011, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

I'm not sure if this is what you meant but....

The implied claim that "free fall" always means CD and can never result from natural processes.

Many 'debunkers' seem to have fallen for that truther meme because we see lot's of arguments trying to disprove 'free fall' when the response could easily be "So what".

That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall?

grandmastershek · 10th January 2011, 09:27 AM

80+ Pentagon videos.

Flight 93 was destined for WTC 7.

Black smoke means oxygen starved.

Aluminum can't cut steel.

Julio · 10th January 2011, 10:37 AM

Manoeuvres of AA77 are impossible for professional pilots

And I have to agree there: a professional pilot wouldn't have done it so badly.

ozeco41 · 10th January 2011, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall?

Yes. Then add all the deceleration v less acceleration confusion. In fact all the basic relationships of V and A which 'they' regularly get confused.

Architect · 10th January 2011, 12:09 PM

I thought the one about steel wicking away heat so quickly that it could never fail was an obsolute corker.

Macgyver1968 · 10th January 2011, 12:12 PM

"through the path of greatest resistance" is always a favorite of mine.

Walter Ego · 10th January 2011, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall?

Some of the dumber truthers (including, if I remember correctly, Jesse Ventura) have said "the speed of gravity," which is more of a knee-slapper.

While it can be cruel to laugh at genuinely stupid people, laughing at the willfully stupid is perfectly acceptable. They deserve our mockery.

CompusMentus · 10th January 2011, 07:11 PM

Hi-jackers still alive.

No hi-jackers names on a victim list.

Mobile phones don't work on aircraft.

Compus

Dog Town · 10th January 2011, 07:14 PM

It looks like a CD, but not really!

JohnG · 10th January 2011, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made?

Temper, temper.

George152 · 10th January 2011, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by JohnG

Temper, temper.

Well, that's the next step

ProBonoShill · 10th January 2011, 09:39 PM

"The buildings were brought down with explosives" has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard considering all the video available that disproves this claim.

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 12:22 AM

Hanjour was such a bad pilot that he couldn't land a plane.

D'uh - he never intended to!

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 01:13 AM

Zero net force.

Dave

JAStewart · 11th January 2011, 02:11 AM

Silverstein1!11eleventy1!11

CompusMentus · 11th January 2011, 03:21 AM

Steel turned to dust.

Compus

tsig · 11th January 2011, 04:29 AM

Secret military weapons no one knows about.

ElMondoHummus · 11th January 2011, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made? (Yeah, I know they're saying the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt the steel but the steel didn't have to melt to lose it structural integrity and the statement itself is prima facie stupid.)

Well Walter, it gets me too, but for a different reason than what you or anyone else here has mentioned. It bugs me because it's actually a corruption and oversimplification of the original argument. In other words, truthers had to dumb it down when it was pretty simple and straightforward to begin with.

Anyone else remember way back, when the argument wasn't just "fire can't melt steel", but "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel"? That was the actual argument, and oddly enough had a real basis in fact, even though it was misapplied in the case of the Twin Towers. Back then, the notion was that jet fuel burning couldn't have gotten hot enough to have rendered the steel molten. And again, in open air, jet fuel by itself does indeed fail to reach that temperature. For context, we have to remember that even knowledgeable people like Thomas Eager referenced steel melting in the days immediately after the collapse, so that was indeed the dominant, accepted argument at the time, even alluded to in the FEMA BPR's, if I remember it right (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The truthers thought they had a point about jet fuel in regards to the structural steel of the towers. And on the surface, it's a legitimate point.

Of course, we know now that this is flawed even just in application to the specific case of the Twin Towers. We're aware of the fact that jet fuel was far from being the only combustant, and in fact was far from being the majority fuel available. Furthermore, we're all very aware of the fact that the columns never melted to begin with. So the entire idea was a red herring from the very start. Steel never melted, so therfore it's utterly irrelevant what could have caused such a phenomenon.

But taking the argument on it's own terms, I'm struck by how even something so simple as "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" - again, a true statement that's misapplied - is misunderstood by the very truther advocates who peddle the corrupted, oversimplified version. They took a statement that was jack-easy to remember and dumbed it down!!

I'm flabbergasted by that. What in heaven's name is so hard about remembering the original argument?

And if the claim shifted to avoid the counterargument that jet fuel wasn't the only fuel available, why in God's name do they shift it in THAT direction?? Fire can't melt steel? What, they've never heard of a freakin' forge before??

I mean, the argument bugs me because it's so emblamatic of the utter ignorance too many truthers display. Knowing the origin and degeneration of the wording of this claim makes patently clear that the driving force behind 9/11 "truth" isn't learning what actually happened, but rather selling a mythic fiction in place of established history. Instead of realizing "Oh, steel didn't melt, and the claim is inapplicable to begin with", they morphed it into something so abysmally stupid that it's refutable even without reference to specifics about the Twin Towers. It's wrong period, nevermind how it's wrong in relation to 9/11 history.

That's what bugs me about this. It goes beyond the claim being wrong on its face. It's actually a representation of the basic avoidance of truth on the part of 9/11 conspiracy fantasists. It's a summation of ignorance.

sheeplesnshills · 11th January 2011, 07:49 AM

Saudi Pilots...........as if Saudis are somehow genetically incapable of flying planes.

Edx · 11th January 2011, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Saudi Pilots...........as if Saudis are somehow genetically incapable of flying planes.

Sand people in caves can't fly, duh. They can barely speak, I mean I can't understand them? "Derka Derka Mohammad Jihad". Nonsense.

grandmastershek · 11th January 2011, 08:08 AM

"Pull It" is an industry term for bringing a building down with explosives.

Edx · 11th January 2011, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

"Pull It" is an industry term for bringing a building down with explosives.

You can't poe us, you need to set up another account

grandmastershek · 11th January 2011, 10:53 AM

Its ridiculous to believe 9/11 was orchestrated by a guy from a desert cave.

MikeW · 11th January 2011, 11:14 AM

The PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbour"
Rumsfeld "announced" the "missing" $2.3 trillion on 9/10 because he knew it was a "good day to bury bad news"
How could 19 <insert appropriate insult here> controlled by a man in a cave outwit the most powerful defence system in the world

...and it's not so popular these days, but I still fondly remember...

"The Pentagon is the best defended building in the world"

(And I suppose there's something related in the idea that "it's the Pentagon, it must have had more cameras", as though they qualify as a defence)

DGM · 11th January 2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by MikeW

The PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbour"

But, Was that "propitious"?

Brainster · 11th January 2011, 11:47 AM

What are the odds?

All the "Merry Pason" confessions, like Pull It or Bush's claim to have seen the first plane hit on the TV or Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Even better is when they claim that those confessions are a trap, a "honey pot" intended to draw attention and distract researchers.

Brainster · 11th January 2011, 11:53 AM

argggh! Dupe post

A W Smith · 11th January 2011, 11:56 AM

"multiple corroboration" of north of citgo witnesses,

ElMondoHummus · 11th January 2011, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by MikeW

"The Pentagon is the best defended building in the world"

But you know it is! It's so well defended, pilots landing at DCA love flying close by to luxuriate in its safety!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(2:28 and 0:46 marks respectively... sorry, YouTube time start index code doesn't wok with these yt tags, for some odd reason.)

Sabretooth · 11th January 2011, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

It looks like a CD, but not really!

This one is my fav right now.

It was a CD, but it was made to not look like a CD, and you can only tell the difference with grainy utube videos!!!!!11!!!!

GlennB · 11th January 2011, 01:55 PM

^ a lot of those ^ especially 'zero net force' and other references to Newton's 3rd law.

Plus - the smoke gushing from WTC7 was actually drifting up from WTC5+6

Monza · 11th January 2011, 02:12 PM

"Look at the video! It looks just like a controlled demolition!"

Well, first of all the towers collapse initiation was at the impact point, not at the base of the structure as in most (all?) controlled demotlitions. Second, a controlled demolition is still a demolition. What is the demolition of a building supposed to look like? The only noticiable artifacts of a controlled demolition are the ordered sequence of explosives, relative lack of damage of nearby structures and post-mortem evidence (demo cord, pre-cut structual members, etc.), none of which was present on 9/11.

Hokulele · 11th January 2011, 02:24 PM

"Pyroclastic clouds".

alienentity · 11th January 2011, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Monza

Well, first of all the towers collapse initiation was at the impact point, not at the base of the structure as in most (all?) controlled demotlitions.

According to the vids I've seen, the detonations often run all over the buildings, in sequences, but not restricted to the base.

In any case, none of those things happened to the WTC buildings, further negating the truther argument.

chipmunk stew · 11th January 2011, 09:00 PM

"Cui bono?"

"False flag op"

"Just asking questions"

10th January 2011, 07:51 AM	#1
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Stupid Truther Memes: "Fire Can't Melt Steel" From a recent comment on one of my You Tube videos: Quote: The meaning of this video: Some people would believe fire could melt steel, if a lot people told them that fire could melt steel. (That truther's YT channel also contains this gem, among others: "The government never tells us the truth about anything. So why do we believe them after the impossible has happened?") Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made? (Yeah, I know they're saying the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt the steel but the steel didn't have to melt to lose it structural integrity and the statement itself is prima facie stupid.) I've noticed in my limited contact with real live truthers that they just repeat catch phrases like this as if the mere repetition of the phrase proves something. It's obvious they've never given a moment's thought to what they're actually saying and if what they're saying even means anything. I've got some other examples but I thought I'd let some of the other forum members chime in first. What's your favorite stupid truther meme or catch phrase?
	Last edited by Walter Ego; 10th January 2011 at 07:52 AM.

10th January 2011, 07:54 AM	#2
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,467	First time in history, never before, etc...
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

10th January 2011, 07:59 AM	#3
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	"free-fall speed" has always been my favorite.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

10th January 2011, 08:45 AM	#6
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by ozeco41 I'm not sure if this is what you meant but.... The implied claim that "free fall" always means CD and can never result from natural processes. Many 'debunkers' seem to have fallen for that truther meme because we see lot's of arguments trying to disprove 'free fall' when the response could easily be "So what". That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

10th January 2011, 09:27 AM	#7
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	80+ Pentagon videos. Flight 93 was destined for WTC 7. Black smoke means oxygen starved. Aluminum can't cut steel.
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic) Last edited by grandmastershek; 10th January 2011 at 09:30 AM.

10th January 2011, 08:09 AM	#4
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,809	Fall/not fall into its footprint. What is this magic footprint? What would it prove?

10th January 2011, 08:12 AM	#5
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by DGM "free-fall speed" has always been my favorite. I'm not sure if this is what you meant but.... The implied claim that "free fall" always means CD and can never result from natural processes. Many 'debunkers' seem to have fallen for that truther meme because we see lot's of arguments trying to disprove 'free fall' when the response could easily be "So what".

10th January 2011, 10:37 AM	#8
Julio Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Madrid Posts: 71	Manoeuvres of AA77 are impossible for professional pilots And I have to agree there: a professional pilot wouldn't have done it so badly.

10th January 2011, 11:38 AM	#9
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by DGM That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall? Yes. Then add all the deceleration v less acceleration confusion. In fact all the basic relationships of V and A which 'they' regularly get confused.

10th January 2011, 12:09 PM	#10
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,478	I thought the one about steel wicking away heat so quickly that it could never fail was an obsolute corker.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

10th January 2011, 12:12 PM	#11
Macgyver1968 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,613	"through the path of greatest resistance" is always a favorite of mine.
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

10th January 2011, 12:34 PM	#12
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by DGM That too but. what exactly is the speed of "free-fall? Some of the dumber truthers (including, if I remember correctly, Jesse Ventura) have said "the speed of gravity," which is more of a knee-slapper. While it can be cruel to laugh at genuinely stupid people, laughing at the willfully stupid is perfectly acceptable. They deserve our mockery.

10th January 2011, 07:11 PM	#13
CompusMentus Waiting for the Worms Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wales UK Posts: 1,450	Hi-jackers still alive. No hi-jackers names on a victim list. Mobile phones don't work on aircraft. Compus
	__________________ Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit

10th January 2011, 07:14 PM	#14
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,467	It looks like a CD, but not really!
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

10th January 2011, 07:38 PM	#15
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by Walter Ego Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made? Temper, temper.
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

10th January 2011, 07:41 PM	#16
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,043	Originally Posted by JohnG Temper, temper. Well, that's the next step
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

10th January 2011, 09:39 PM	#17
ProBonoShill Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 920	"The buildings were brought down with explosives" has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard considering all the video available that disproves this claim.

11th January 2011, 12:22 AM	#18
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,809	Hanjour was such a bad pilot that he couldn't land a plane. D'uh - he never intended to!

11th January 2011, 01:13 AM	#19
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Zero net force. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 02:11 AM	#20
JAStewart Graduate Poster Tagger Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Shetland Islands Posts: 1,523	Silverstein1!11eleventy1!11
	__________________ Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60

11th January 2011, 03:21 AM	#21
CompusMentus Waiting for the Worms Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wales UK Posts: 1,450	Steel turned to dust. Compus
	__________________ Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit

11th January 2011, 04:29 AM	#22
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Secret military weapons no one knows about.

11th January 2011, 07:46 AM	#23
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,943	Originally Posted by Walter Ego Of all the stupid truther memes, "fire can't melt steel" has to be one of the dumbest. How do these clowns think steel is made? (Yeah, I know they're saying the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt the steel but the steel didn't have to melt to lose it structural integrity and the statement itself is prima facie stupid.) Well Walter, it gets me too, but for a different reason than what you or anyone else here has mentioned. It bugs me because it's actually a corruption and oversimplification of the original argument. In other words, truthers had to dumb it down when it was pretty simple and straightforward to begin with. Anyone else remember way back, when the argument wasn't just "fire can't melt steel", but "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel"? That was the actual argument, and oddly enough had a real basis in fact, even though it was misapplied in the case of the Twin Towers. Back then, the notion was that jet fuel burning couldn't have gotten hot enough to have rendered the steel molten. And again, in open air, jet fuel by itself does indeed fail to reach that temperature. For context, we have to remember that even knowledgeable people like Thomas Eager referenced steel melting in the days immediately after the collapse, so that was indeed the dominant, accepted argument at the time, even alluded to in the FEMA BPR's, if I remember it right (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The truthers thought they had a point about jet fuel in regards to the structural steel of the towers. And on the surface, it's a legitimate point. Of course, we know now that this is flawed even just in application to the specific case of the Twin Towers. We're aware of the fact that jet fuel was far from being the only combustant, and in fact was far from being the majority fuel available. Furthermore, we're all very aware of the fact that the columns never melted to begin with. So the entire idea was a red herring from the very start. Steel never melted, so therfore it's utterly irrelevant what could have caused such a phenomenon. But taking the argument on it's own terms, I'm struck by how even something so simple as "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" - again, a true statement that's misapplied - is misunderstood by the very truther advocates who peddle the corrupted, oversimplified version. They took a statement that was jack-easy to remember and dumbed it down!! I'm flabbergasted by that. What in heaven's name is so hard about remembering the original argument? And if the claim shifted to avoid the counterargument that jet fuel wasn't the only fuel available, why in God's name do they shift it in THAT* direction?? Fire can't melt steel? What, they've never heard of a freakin' forge before?? I mean, the argument bugs me because it's so emblamatic of the utter ignorance too many truthers display. Knowing the origin and degeneration of the wording of this claim makes patently clear that the driving force behind 9/11 "truth" isn't learning what actually happened, but rather selling a mythic fiction in place of established history. Instead of realizing "Oh, steel didn't melt, and the claim is inapplicable to begin with", they morphed it into something so abysmally stupid that it's refutable even without reference to specifics about the Twin Towers. It's wrong period, nevermind how it's wrong in relation to 9/11 history. That's* what bugs me about this. It goes beyond the claim being wrong on its face. It's actually a representation of the basic avoidance of truth on the part of 9/11 conspiracy fantasists. It's a summation of ignorance.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

11th January 2011, 07:49 AM	#24
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Saudi Pilots...........as if Saudis are somehow genetically incapable of flying planes.

11th January 2011, 07:56 AM	#25
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,272	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills Saudi Pilots...........as if Saudis are somehow genetically incapable of flying planes. Sand people in caves can't fly, duh. They can barely speak, I mean I can't understand them? "Derka Derka Mohammad Jihad". Nonsense.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,272	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

11th January 2011, 08:08 AM	#26
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	"Pull It" is an industry term for bringing a building down with explosives.
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

11th January 2011, 08:14 AM	#27
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,272	Originally Posted by grandmastershek "Pull It" is an industry term for bringing a building down with explosives. You can't poe us, you need to set up another account
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,272	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

11th January 2011, 10:53 AM	#28
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	Its ridiculous to believe 9/11 was orchestrated by a guy from a desert cave.
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

11th January 2011, 11:14 AM	#29
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	The PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbour" Rumsfeld "announced" the "missing" $2.3 trillion on 9/10 because he knew it was a "good day to bury bad news" How could 19 <insert appropriate insult here> controlled by a man in a cave outwit the most powerful defence system in the world ...and it's not so popular these days, but I still fondly remember... "The Pentagon is the best defended building in the world" (And I suppose there's something related in the idea that "it's the Pentagon, it must have had more cameras", as though they qualify as a defence)
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

11th January 2011, 11:20 AM	#30
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by MikeW The PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbour" But, Was that "propitious"?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

11th January 2011, 11:47 AM	#31
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,444	What are the odds? All the "Merry Pason" confessions, like Pull It or Bush's claim to have seen the first plane hit on the TV or Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Even better is when they claim that those confessions are a trap, a "honey pot" intended to draw attention and distract researchers.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

11th January 2011, 11:53 AM	#32
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,444	argggh! Dupe post
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

11th January 2011, 11:56 AM	#33
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	"multiple corroboration" of north of citgo witnesses,
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

11th January 2011, 12:18 PM	#35
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,163	Originally Posted by Dog Town It looks like a CD, but not really! This one is my fav right now. It was a CD, but it was made to not look like a CD, and you can only tell the difference with grainy utube videos!!!!!11!!!!
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

11th January 2011, 01:55 PM	#36
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,959	^ a lot of those ^ especially 'zero net force' and other references to Newton's 3rd law. Plus - the smoke gushing from WTC7 was actually drifting up from WTC5+6