Fire can't melt Steel?

gumboot

lorcutus.tolere
gumboot
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
25,327
We've all heard the claim...

But in the local news:

More than a quarter of a million dollars worth of hay has gone up in smoke after the latest arson attack in the Manawatu.

...

Feilding Station officer Glenn Davies says the flames have melted the steel shed causing it to collapse onto the bales. This has limited the access for fire fighters.

Source
Click to expand...

Remember this was hay. Just hay.

-Gumboot
 
It was nano-hay. Specially engineered in elite NWO labs for its flammability. Nano-hay was intended to burn the methane from cow flatulence which is such a dangerous greenhouse gas, thereby reducing global warming and discrediting Al Gore, and by extension all left-wing environmental groups, and ESPECIALLY that loudmouth in Austin, Texas, Alex Jones. This would clear the way for the systematic pillaging of the environment, oil drilling in the ANWR, the Canadian Arctic, Yellowstone, and Perry Logan's back yard.*

And they would have gotten away with it too, except some idiot had to play "light the cow fart" and set off a batch of nano-hay prematurely.

* - Assuming there isn't an oil rig there already
 
This is all public knowledge. You're stupid if you don't know this.
 
Last edited:
This is all a part of the conspiracy. There is no such thing as fire. NWO made it up and implantet it mentally in preparation for the 9/11 attacks.
 
It was "special NZ steel", which is nowhere near as strong as good ol' US steel, and it will melt under the heat of a child's birthday-cake candle.
 
Fire can't soften(it does not need to melt to loose structural integrity) steel?

Crap, I have been violateing the laws of physics when I am blacksmithing I guess. Who knew?
 
hayfire_250207_232.jpg

Here is an image of the shed that was on fire...notice how the support structures are still standing while the corrogated iron covering has disappreared?

The steel HASNT melted, the corrogated iron has!

Then again, is this just another example of how evil the NWO is? :D

Mailman
 
mailman said:
[qimg]http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/news2007/accidents_emergencies/hayfire_250207_232.jpg[/qimg]
Here is an image of the shed that was on fire...notice how the support structures are still standing
Click to expand...

...except for all the ones that aren't! :D
 
Yeah, it does get pretty boring to continuously debunk the same CT crap over and over again. You guys ever going to produce some new, challenging material?
 
John Blonn said:
Yeah, it does get pretty boring to continuously debunk the same CT crap over and over again. You guys ever going to produce some new, challenging material?
Click to expand...

And what have you personally debunked lately John?

I thought your contribution was to pick up the pom poms when they got dropped.

MM
 
I thought your contribution was to pick up the pom poms when they got dropped.
Click to expand...
lol - what does that even mean? Was that seriously supposed to be an insult?

As for what I've debunked - Well I believe I savaged the PentaCon movie pretty badly. Though that certainly wasn't a challenge.

And if that's the best the truth movement can come up with, we're REALLY gonna get bored around here.
 
John Blonn said:
lol - what does that even mean? Was that seriously supposed to be an insult?

As for what I've debunked - Well I believe I savaged the PentaCon movie pretty badly. Though that certainly wasn't a challenge.

And if that's the best the truth movement can come up with, we're REALLY gonna get bored around here.
Click to expand...

I think everyone took a shot at the Penatcon "smoking gun" version.

The witnesses were quite solid though. I think they mad a good case for north of Citgo flight path.

MM
 
MerryMelodies2377657 said:
I think everyone took a shot at the Penatcon "smoking gun" version.

The witnesses were quite solid though. I think they mad a good case for north of Citgo flight path.

MM
Click to expand...

There was a Penatcon smoking gun too? whats that about? a prison flyover?
 
I see it the other way around...

1) Their interviewing methodology was terrible. Because we'll never see the uncut footage, we won't know how much they influenced their subjects. And there was a ton of questions they could have asked, but didn't. And they were looking for evidence for a conspiracy - confirmation bias, anyone?

2) They explored no other reasons behind the discrepancy between the official flight path and the witness testimonies. For example, their position at the Citgo may have resulted in the artifact of the North of Citgo claim.

3) The argument they make about the North of the Citgo path is something akin to: "How could it be wrong if it was corroborated by multiple credible witnesses?" And yet they reject the following: "The plane hit the Pentagon," even though it was "corroborated by multiple credible witnesses" as well. Inconsistency, cherry-picking, bias, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I could go on forever. This was a disaster of a movie - its claims are highly dubious and the film has no merit.
 
John Blonn said:
I see it the other way around...

1) Their interviewing methodology was terrible. Because we'll never see the uncut footage, we won't know how much they influenced their subjects. And there was a ton of questions they could have asked, but didn't. And they were looking for evidence for a conspiracy - confirmation bias, anyone?

2) They explored no other reasons behind the discrepancy between the official flight path and the witness testimonies. For example, their position at the Citgo may have resulted in the artifact of the North of Citgo claim.

3) The argument they make about the North of the Citgo path is something akin to: "How could it be wrong if it was corroborated by multiple credible witnesses?" And yet they reject the following: "The plane hit the Pentagon," even though it was "corroborated by multiple credible witnesses" as well. Inconsistency, cherry-picking, bias, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I could go on forever. This was a disaster of a movie - its claims are highly dubious and the film has no merit.
Click to expand...

The witness were good.

The question was simple.

The memory required was straight forward.

They were at the Citgo station...you weren't. It's not hard to remember which direction they looked to see the plane.

They were Pentagon cops which only adds to their credibility.

I agree the producers went too far claiming a flyover based on nothing but speculation.

Regardless, the witness testimony was good.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom