So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 84
17
<< 81  82  83   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
'good' ol dave, don't you ever tire of trying to defend the indefensible? if nothing else, i admire your stamina




I note that despite my "defending the indefensible" not a single person has shown why anything I've said is incorrect. Despite the incessant round robin of arguments and reading through Silverstein's statements looking for hidden meanings, at the end of the day "pull it is lingo for controlled demoliitons" is still an internet hoax, and any accusation based upon said intenet hoax is an outright lie.

Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.
edit on 2-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


It means to pull a building down, by whatever means appropriate to the situation.


Wrong yet again. You're actually quite a useful pundit because you are 100 per cent incorrect all the time. Do you have any stock tips? I feel a short coming on...



And why did Larry say it? He's a smug bastard who knew he could say it and get away with it. That's how these douchebags work. They tell you what they are going to do or have done so that they don't violate free will, in their own bass-ackwards reality,


My favourite of all the CT justifications. Anything that is logically assinine for the 'conspiracist' to have admitted is explained away by the ridiculous notion that "they want you to know". Completely mental.


It must really suck to have to fight from between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy you.
edit on 2-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


I envy you. It must be so comforting to think that everything is going to be alright in the end.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Care to share any of these "many people"? In which professional or peer-reviewed journals have they published? Can you refer us to the articles as I have done?


Well, technically there IS Judy Wood and her crackpot "lasers from outerspace" report. If memory serves, didn't Morgan Reynolds put out a book pushing the "no planes" theory?

Kidtwist said there were "many people who released reports that refute the OS". I notice he never mentioned wiat it was they were saying.


I'm not impressed. Book publishers will publish nearly anything they think will sell. As far as I know, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and other "published" CT authors have not published anything regarding 9/11 in a peer-reviewed journal where their theoretical "research" would be subject to the scrutiny of knowledgeable editors and professionals in the fields of applied physics.

If they had any real (scientific/mathematical) evidence to support their half-baked theories, they might actually catch the attention of someone with credibility in the field who would publish their work. No surprise it hasn't happened.

(And I don't buy that EVERY professional journal, world-wide, is under some kind of coercive or collusive censorship by the 9/11 perps).





 
17
<< 81  82  83   >>

log in

join