October Stundie Nominations [Archive]

Sabrina

1st October 2009, 08:10 AM

First one! From atavisms (Stundie part bolded):

My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about. The issues at hand are about what we do know.

I think Jone's work is important, I just do not see it as necessary to knowing that explosives were used on these buildings. The event itself is what screams explosives. Consider the case of WTC7, and then realize that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse.

Jones' work is vital, seeing as how NIST cannot follow regulations and test for explosives. (something that would have shut up all of this)

How could a massive building that occupied an entire city block fall so quickly and symmetrically into a tidy rubble pile with large sections of the facade laying neatly (intact sections) on the pile without internal explosives? http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
Unfortunately, fire and gravity (and damage to the southeast) do not come close to being able to account for it/ We should look at the evidence and work from there with hypothesis that fit observed events.

Unintentional acknowledgment of the way things actually are FTW!

JohnG

1st October 2009, 03:01 PM

Classic. It almost sounds like something a character in The Office or a Christopher Guest movie would say, only the writers would probably dismiss it as "too dumb". Truth really is stranger (and funnier) than fiction.

The Truth Movement: Source of unintentional hilarity since 2001

NWO Sentryman

1st October 2009, 03:41 PM

Looks like Len Hart has done it again folks:

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

The collapse of WTC is memorable for its 'text book' symmetricality, its near seamless fall into its own footprint hours after the larger building had already collapsed.

Sabrina

1st October 2009, 06:36 PM

I forgotted the link for my Stundie nom above; apologies.

Found on page... um, 8 or 9 of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154872

Highly Selassie

1st October 2009, 09:39 PM

Apparently this moon hoaxer on city-data.com (http://www.city-data.com/forum/science-technology/778157-looks-like-astronaut-neil-armstrong-comes.html) (pronounce it like the Chinese restaurant owner on South Park) is unaware that The Onion is a spoof...

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This doesnt surprise me of our Government ; does it you ?

You can obtain alot of compelling information posted by Professionals on virtually any subject ... Scientists included , on YouTube despite the typical Youth garbage that is prevalent . In addition, I have studied a very professionally done DVD on loan from a friend on the major reasons why it was in fact a big hoax . Until you have thoroughly investigated both sides of the debate without an apriori-philosophical bias , you should refrain from speaking in absolutes ; I can tell by your demeanor that you automatically disqualify a competing view ... and resign to 'of course we went to the Moon...I watched it on TV when i was younger ; and our Government wouldnt do anything so heinous as to fool the World' . If you are willing to proceed with a deep investigation of this issue, please do so then post your findings at which time we can have a proper dialogue instead of one based on personal attacks and hostility. Thank you. End.

Sword_Of_Truth

1st October 2009, 10:56 PM

Nominating Tippit for fighting the good fight against narcissism:

Based on interactions with "debunkers" online, the most consistent characteristic I have encountered is also Narcissism, with the propensity to use a type of condescension that only comes with the warmth and security of being part of the herd. Of course, I am smarter than most everyone, at least based on intelligence quotient, and I take pride in my ability to brush off those who think I am crazy or stupid for what I know.

TokenMac

1st October 2009, 11:40 PM

If only we could Stundie videos
i wouldnt put this under the conspiracy file but a lot of cool and chilling coincidences that were found in tv shows, movies and even comic books. this youtube clip starts off with part one and ends at part 25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L1k8AxGe4g

1L1k8AxGe4g

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155406

Orphia Nay

2nd October 2009, 03:40 AM

Nominating Tippit for fighting the good fight against narcissism:

That is some prime Stundipity. :D

twinstead

2nd October 2009, 06:54 AM

That is some prime Stundipity. :D

Wow. It certainly is.

I take pride in my ability to brush off those who think I am crazy or stupid for what I know.

You have to hand it to him though; considering some of the things that he posts, this is an excellent skill to have.

Horatius

2nd October 2009, 07:08 AM

From an ATS thread (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread505845/pg1) on steel from the WTC that NIST had been studying being returned to NYC, there are a couple of nominations, both with a similar theme.

First up, titorite:

That was my thought too... If I remember the OS correctly all the steel was transported out in record time for recycling by Chinese Steel corporations.

Then, Desolate Cancer:

Wait I thought it was official story that wtc7 was a controlled demolition? I was under the impression that the nyc or port authority officials had requested that wtc7 be brought down in a controlled manner since they were afraid there was structural problems and didnt want it to collapse unexpectedly and in an unsafe manner.

Yep, these guys have been listening to Twoofer strawmen for so long, they've actually started thinking they represent the "Official Story".

triforcharity

2nd October 2009, 07:54 AM

Caan we expect a comic in the future regarding this....um....Snafu??

Horatius

2nd October 2009, 09:45 AM

Maybe.

While I'm at it, here's a good one from our latest FOTLer. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5162481#post5162481)

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

My GOD! England is a Monarchy?!!??!?! Why Wasn't I Told?!?!??!?

I think this quite nicely demonstrates the sort of complete lack of education that is required for one to believe this "FOTL" nonsense. Anyone who can honestly describe this fact as "surprising" is just woefully ignorant.

Travis

2nd October 2009, 12:01 PM

Just letting everyone know that I've been out of town but I will get the Stundie Finals for September up tonight....after I'm done mourning Chicago getting mugged at the IOC vote.

dudalb

2nd October 2009, 12:45 PM

And newcomer Especially outdoes himself in this rant from page 4 of the thred that Horatius has a link to:

Really ?

In that case you will confirm to us that the deal made between King John of England with the pope in Rome (during the era of Magna Carta) was binding on him and all future kings of England in perpetuity. According to its own text. Sealed by King John. Which meant England and the tax payers of England were forever to pay, each year, big money to the papacy in Rome through all monarchs. There's the truth.

As for the Jesuits, they infiltrated England, big time, and are today running whole areas of our government, our secret services, our mass media, our newspapers, television etc. Haven't heard about it ? Have you heard of the Knights of Columbus and their control of the CIA ? How many directors have been members of that one group ?

Try the website 'Arctic Beacon' ?

Surely you can confirm this to be true. You are a historian. The documented scam of the monarchy and the papacy in alliance in perpetuity. Forever. Says so right in the text ! Assuming of course documentary evidence matters to you, that is. I am also a historian.

The mind truly boggles.

Ambrosia

2nd October 2009, 02:01 PM

Try the website 'Arctic Beacon' ?

I can't be the only person who read that as 'Arctic Bacon'

(sounds like a great name for a band)

mmmmmmm bacon.

Debaser

2nd October 2009, 02:22 PM

If only we could Stundie videos

1L1k8AxGe4g

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155406

OMG!! They've outed Agent Ernest!!

Seriously, so Hollywood likes to set a lot of films in New York and liked to make the most of its unique skyline with fly-throughs and shots from the ferry (I assume)?

Whodathoughtit?

Newtons Bit

2nd October 2009, 03:04 PM

My GOD! England is a Monarchy?!!??!?! Why Wasn't I Told?!?!??!?

Does the Queen know?

Horatius

2nd October 2009, 03:39 PM

Does the Queen know?

God, I hope not! She has enough trouble, what with Lizards for In-laws, and all, poor dear.

Mr.D

2nd October 2009, 04:36 PM

Seriously, so Hollywood likes to set a lot of films in New York

Oh no!

If we're not careful, the truthers will notice that many Hollywood movies and TV shows prominently feature the 25th of December - and then they'll figure out when the next big secret plan is going off!

</NWO mode>

apathoid

2nd October 2009, 07:33 PM

First one! From atavisms (Stundie part bolded):

My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about.Unintentional acknowledgment of the way things actually are FTW!

I just stumbled on that post accidentally. Naturally, my first instinct was to come here and see the lucky one was. I had hopes that maybe this one slipped through the cracks....I shoulda known better. Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to beat you guys. :p

Hokulele

2nd October 2009, 09:14 PM

From over in Religion & Philosophy (don't ask), there is this exchange.

From what I hear, on what you would probably consider conspiracy mongering radio, all the new people Obama has appointed to head whatever departments of government that oversee how medicine is run, are telling all the new people becoming doctors to not take the oath. The suggestion on these radio shows is that they want to save money by administering death instead of care, if you are not considered a productive part of society, just like the Nazi's.

At the risk of being repetitious, do you have a credible citation for that claim?

It is not all like that, this comes from even the more reputable shows, like Coast to Coast.

Reputable? I think Ethnikos' first description of "conspiracy mongering radio" was a bit more apt.

Elizabeth I

2nd October 2009, 10:29 PM

Over in the "Freeman Movement and England" thread, this poster demonstrates a failure to grasp the concept of historical sequence:

Yes, and the unelected monarchy of England invaded the USA and killed lots of Americans. It happened in the War of Independence. Did you forget that ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5163495&postcount=177

Mel Odious

2nd October 2009, 10:43 PM

Hahaha yeah. If you go to amazon.com and look at all the books talking about how 9/11 was an inside job, and then look at all the books that say it wasn't an inside job, you'll notice that the non-conspiracy books are given fewer stars. If you look up the 9/11 Commission Report it has 3/5 stars from 210 reviews. If you scroll to the lower end of that page you'll see TONS of written reviews giving the book 1 star. It's hilarious if you read them.

...We also have books like "Debunking 9/11 Myths" by Popular Mechanics it only has 3/5 stars, and it's opposing counterpart called "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" has 4/5 stars. If you read the reviews for David Icke's "Alice in Wonderland..." they constently gave it 5 stars.

So yeah based on the public response from people who actually look at the evidence and draw their conclusions, WAY more people just agree it was an inside job.

From the David Icke Forums, aka Stundie Central (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058303640&postcount=26).

Alareth

3rd October 2009, 12:03 AM

God, I hope not! She has enough trouble, what with Lizards for In-laws, and all, poor dear.

No, the monarchy of England are werewolves. I saw it in a documentary about a man in a blue police box.

tuc0

3rd October 2009, 02:24 AM

Nominated, because it highlights the failed thinking of CT believers:

[...] the language of speculation (aka, what helps further truth and science)

jaydeehess

3rd October 2009, 12:17 PM

Nominating Tippit for fighting the good fight against narcissism:

Hmm, it explains why two 911 Conspiracy Deniers on the Blackvault have told me that I have a large ego due to my illustrating that they were wrong.

jaydeehess

3rd October 2009, 12:26 PM

Over in the "Freeman Movement and England" thread, this poster demonstrates a failure to grasp the concept of historical sequence:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5163495&postcount=177

Welllll,,,, actually he only off on when it occured. England invaded the USA during the War of 1812-1814

Whenever it comes up that the head of state of England(or for that matter , Canada) is the Queen, an unelected person, I simply ask the nutbar to tell me the last time that he Queen, or any English Monarch moved against Parliament.
Oddly, I don't recall any response along those lines.

Elizabeth I

3rd October 2009, 12:35 PM

Welllll,,,, actually he only off on when it occured. England invaded the USA during the War of 1812-1814

Oh, I know, but he seems to think the United States of America existed pre-1776. (And by the way we're still a little peeved over the Brits making Dolly Madison do all that work.)

Nosi

3rd October 2009, 03:09 PM

Nosi

3rd October 2009, 03:21 PM

And newcomer Especially outdoes himself in this rant from page 4 of the thred that Horatius has a link to:

The mind truly boggles.

There's a marital spat in your Vatican English soup.

Mel Odious

3rd October 2009, 10:49 PM

TITANIC HIGHT 175 FT

FLIGHT 175 HIT THE NORTH TOWER

TITANIC RIVETS USED = 3,000

9/11/2001 = 2,819 Total Death Toll

19 = ALLEGED HIJACKERS

19-3000= 2981 same numbers as 9/11 death toll

2819
2981

ALSO WHEN YOU USE ALL 8 NUMBERS YOU CAN ALMOST MAKE 9/11/2001

The titanic snapped in half before it sank to the bottom.

And Just think of the tops of both of the wtc towers as the body of the titanic.

JUST ANOTHER SMALL COINCIDENCE

9/11 Truth Movement Forums (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7248&view=findpost&p=15471908).

:dl:

Hokulele

4th October 2009, 01:38 AM

Numerology is so 20th century.

sylvan8798

4th October 2009, 12:25 PM

9/11 Truth Movement Forums (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7248&view=findpost&p=15471908).

:dl:

Are you allowed to post over there? They rejected me when I told them it was none of their business what other forums I posted to under what screen names.

TjW

4th October 2009, 02:39 PM

Oh, it's gotten better, if weirder.
In the context of the Titanic disaster and 9/11 being related:

The 9/11 and the Titanic have one thing in common. Both incidents were engineered by the Society of Jesus.
ROFL The Pope did it!
The attacks were carried out by the US Military-Industrial Complex, US/Israeli Intelligence, and the US Newsmedia..

Apparently, the Israelis have a time machine.

GlennB

4th October 2009, 02:47 PM

9/11 Truth Movement Forums (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7248&view=findpost&p=15471908).

That's just one giant parody forum, yes? Please say it's so.

3,000 rivets in the Titanic? No wonder it sank :D

Debaser

4th October 2009, 03:03 PM

9/11 Truth Movement Forums (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7248&view=findpost&p=15471908).

:dl:

As a big fan of 'creative maths' myself, can you tell them they are just the matter of a factor of 10^3* out and see how they incorporate that?

*http://titanicstation.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
(see question 2)

Horatius

4th October 2009, 06:36 PM

Okay, I'm not sure if this qualifies for a Stundie, as it's not really about CTs, but it's certainly in the Stundie tradition of absolutely stupid, self-debunking posts:

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

You heard it here first folks, your boss doesn't have to pay you, ever.

Sword_Of_Truth

4th October 2009, 06:47 PM

From someone called "Anarcho-Capitalist" no less...

R.Mackey

4th October 2009, 07:12 PM

Well, I have to object. One does not have the "right to profit," i.e. others may judge your work to be worthless, and if so, you're out of luck. Just because you work doesn't mean you get paid, unless you have a contract that states that you do.

One does, of course, have the right to seek profit by one's work.

It's a fine distinction, practically a semantic difference, sure.

rwguinn

4th October 2009, 07:22 PM

Okay, I'm not sure if this qualifies for a Stundie, as it's not really about CTs, but it's certainly in the Stundie tradition of absolutely stupid, self-debunking posts:

You heard it here first folks, your boss doesn't have to pay you, ever.
Oh, but it got better:
when I asked
Then why would I do it in the first place?
He responded:

You would do it if you profit off of it.

I'm not entitled to benefit from sitting in my home breaking glass.

So I can't benefit from it, but I can profit off it???
The breaking glass is a complete non sequiter

R.Mackey

4th October 2009, 07:32 PM

Yeah, that's more like it. I think most of us do some things that we don't profit from...

tsig

4th October 2009, 07:46 PM

Saw this from a poster called cam:

"very stunning, even the average idiot can grasp the concept. "

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=18030

Seems a perfect self description.

rwguinn

4th October 2009, 09:32 PM

Yeah, that's more like it. I think most of us do some things that we don't profit from...
OK, let's get this straight.
Are you MY sock, or am I yours?

fitzgibbon

4th October 2009, 09:49 PM

(And by the way we're still a little peeved over the Brits making Dolly Madison do all that work.)

Well, she only had to do it 'cuz the boys scattered PDQ. But you know, boys will be boys. :D [/derail]

Mel Odious

4th October 2009, 10:11 PM

Are you allowed to post over there? They rejected me when I told them it was none of their business what other forums I posted to under what screen names.

Sorry, not a member over there. I tried signing up for membership once, but was rejected.

jaydeehess

5th October 2009, 09:14 PM

I don't what is more Stundiable, the fact that a poster on the Blackvault posted a link to the following, referring to the posters there as the smartest people on the internet, or the posts in this (http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5276&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105) thread on 'breakfornews forums"

Poster "littlematt"
Water found on moon

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090923-moon-water-discovery.html

Unlucky they missed that when they were there

ROFL

followed by poster "Raphael"
helps explain two things...
one is a victory...
why their footprints could remain intact...

I suspect it exposes a big FIB though...
...just another reason to suggest SPACE is NOT a vacuum.

namaste

next lie from science, space is not a vacuum.

jaydeehess

5th October 2009, 09:26 PM

Oh, but it got better:
when I asked

He responded:

So I can't benefit from it, but I can profit off it???
The breaking glass is a complete non sequiter

He did not say you cannot benefit from it, just that doing so is not a 'right'.

You have the right to expect that a contract to do work for a described benefit, will be honoured and thus you profit and continue.

The breaking glass thing is shake-one's-head boggling though.

jaydeehess

5th October 2009, 09:28 PM

Saw this from a poster called cam:

"very stunning, even the average idiot can grasp the concept. "

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=18030

Seems a perfect self description.

Given that is a PfT foray into WTC tower no-plane allegation, yes!

Travis

6th October 2009, 12:25 AM

Wow, so I'm back. Very eventful weekend. Got one of my neighbors arrested and we had a medical emergency in the family (full story will follow in Community) so I can finally get to the September finals. I was beginning to think I'd have to ask someone to take over this month but things have settled down.

jaydeehess

6th October 2009, 11:26 AM

Inquiring minds were perplexed, but are now satisfied

jaydeehess

6th October 2009, 12:01 PM

From an Apollo Hoax believer
Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon’s gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least. Though it may only have 1/6 the gravitational pull of Earth, keep in mind that it is still a force strong enough to create the tides here on Earth, 234,000 miles away.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html

The entire treatise is basically an arguement from incredulity, all 4 large web pages of it.

sylvan8798

6th October 2009, 01:33 PM

From an Apollo Hoax believer

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html

The entire treatise is basically an arguement from incredulity, all 4 large web pages of it.

Well that's just full of goodies:

Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Does a 50-pound weight fall more slowly than a 300-pound weight? Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon? And given the fact that they were much lighter on their feet and not subject to air and wind resistance, shouldn’t the astronauts have been able to move quicker on the Moon than here on Earth? Was slow motion the only thing NASA could come up with to give the video footage an otherworldly feel?

Once again, we see that trying to expound on physics questions without studying any physics first just makes you fodder for other people's jokes.:boggled:

twinstead

6th October 2009, 02:22 PM

I can imagine the person responsible for deciding to slow down the fake footage of men walking on the moon for an otherworldly feel was probably fired right away when it was discovered that in actuality they should have been moving faster on the moon.

Curses! And we would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for Dave. And his talking dog.

Horatius

6th October 2009, 03:44 PM

Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Does a 50-pound weight fall more slowly than a 300-pound weight?

I made that same mistake once.

Of course, I was in grade 6 at the time.

I got better.

grmcdorman

6th October 2009, 06:05 PM

I'm insane? According to you, if there was a heavy person on one side of the see-saw it would tip toward the heavy person. If the fulcrum is removed and the see-saw is falling through air, you want us to believe it will not continue to rotate until the heaviest load (person) is aligned in the direction (plane) of free-fall motion?

Pre-Galilean physics in action: heavier objects fall faster, right?

KoihimeNakamura

7th October 2009, 01:42 AM

Why did it take more motion, anyway? Fighting inertia?

ETA: I know it took more because Kranz's book mentions that the EVA's were really hard until they eliminated unnecessary movements.

Travis

7th October 2009, 02:57 AM

If they looked at the video of the EVA's they would have seen that the dust kicked up by their steps lifted and fell at a perfectly normal speed with the only anomaly being that the dust traveled in a perfect arc. Of course that wasn't strange once you consider it's a vacuum.

Travis

7th October 2009, 03:03 AM

Also the supposed "slowness" is really the result of our own misconceptions. On the Moon their steps into the air raised them much further and made their strides much longer than a corresponding motion would have on Earth. Greater distance to travel means the step takes longer to take. Of course when we see it our brain interprets everything from the bias of Earth experience and concludes they're moving around slowly. Then, of course, you have those suits where all but the most exaggerated movements are virtually imperceptible.

Horatius

7th October 2009, 06:01 AM

Why did it take more motion, anyway? Fighting inertia?

ETA: I know it took more because Kranz's book mentions that the EVA's were really hard until they eliminated unnecessary movements.

Actually, the hardest part was fighting the pressure in the suit vs. the vacuum of space. Every time they bent a joint, they changed the volume of the suit a little bit, which took work (in both the physics and colloquial sense of that word), as they were compressing/expanding the volume of air in the suit a little bit. Imagine what your daily tasks would be like if you had a set of springs attached to your arms and legs, that constantly biased them into a straight position. You'd tire out a lot faster doing any task at all, no matter what it was.

Modern suits have much fancier joints, that try to minimize these changes, for just this reason.

See Wikipedia for a longer discussion of this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit#Theories_of_spacesuit_design)

Ohnoes

7th October 2009, 08:50 AM

Nomination Time!

Another gem brought to you by the good folks at Infowars. This quote is referring to peoples beliefs on planet X

It is easy to throw your hands in the air and to drift aimlessly on ethereal air currents. It is hard, on the other hand, to challenge the very real New World Order that is engaged in depopulation policies on record.

http://www.infowars.com/2012-fears-inspire-apathy/

Travis

7th October 2009, 09:51 AM

This NWO is just soooooo bad at this depopulation stuff.

Klimax

7th October 2009, 12:14 PM

Multiple collected nominations time:
I am working on the theory that the sheep reject conspiracies because they reject history. They are not very bright. And so the dumbing down of history suits the mass media, the bankers, the dynasties, the corporate control agents and those who never think.

The effects of modified paraffin delivered in an aluminium tube can pierce vertical reinforced steel several times and can bring down two giant skyscrapers set in solid concrete. And spacemen can walk on the film studio, oops, lunar surface, without any ill effects from solar radiation. They and their rocket can pass through the Van Allen Belt and in to space (for days) although their rocket offers them no protection from radiation. This is all possible because they eat apple pie. And because they are heroes.

Another from very well known thread...
He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

You are right. Which is why the City of London still has massive controlling interest in the USA. And always has.

The iniquity is this. The law of the USA (and appeal to the Constitution of the USA) is being diluted by the legal industry. People should wake up to the fact that Admiralty Law is NOT the law of the land.

And another:
It doesn't matter. If the council tax pays for even a fraction of a penny towards the upkeep of the roads or pavements, you may not walk on them if you refuse to use the council's services.

'It doesn't matter' !!!!

You have got to be joking ! It doesn't matter if you pay in tax 10 times more than you receive back ? Spoken like a true Europhile !

Wow, you are in line for an award at the next cucumber party !

I may walk on public roads according to the Law of England.

So there !!!:jaw-dropp

All boldings and italics are by me.

I think he has nice chance doesn't he...

shandyjan

7th October 2009, 08:23 PM

I dont know if this would count, but its a fascinating way of deciding who is covering up and who is telling the truth about the inside job nontheless :D by Charlie Wolters

Here’s a lesson to help you know when someone is lying. If you question their statement, and they get mad at you for that, then they are lying. Their voice will rise in volume and tone as they try to make the person who questions then as the bad guy. If they remain calm and just say they understand what they said as truth, they are most likely telling the truth. Do you remember when Bill Clinton repeated the statement “9/11 was an inside job? 9/11 was an inside job? HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU!” This is a classic liar’s reaction. So, you know he knows that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

From prison planet comments

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-attack-piece-promotes-cottage-industry-of-debunkers.html

Horatius

7th October 2009, 09:34 PM

shandyjan

7th October 2009, 09:37 PM

Has this guy ever seen Alex Jones?

Further down the comments someone pointed that out :D
Some of the comments are quite facepalmingly funny...some are depressing!

Cl1mh4224rd

7th October 2009, 09:38 PM

Travis

8th October 2009, 02:56 AM

Multiple collected nominations time:

Another from very well known thread...

And another:

All boldings and italics are by me.

I think he has nice chance doesn't he...

Wow. I have yet to wade into that Freemen in England thread. I hear it has to be seen to be believed.

Horatius

8th October 2009, 05:56 AM

Someone in a Thread over in Social Issues pointed this one out:

CTLovesNathanHale Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

More limey garbage from the global center of tyranny, England. **** you, England — we’ll be fixing your wagon soon, don’t worry!

The amazing Randi was a magician who debunked true frauds when alive. I don’t recall him ever trying to reinforce false arguments about political events. Sounds like his foundation has been taken over by limey intel operatives.

funk de fino

8th October 2009, 08:33 AM

A fashionable Freeman rant I found over at the Sun. Please do not ask why I was there.

The dumbest thing is you dont even need a passport to travel,we think we do,you can apply to a country for the common law right to travel and they will send you a document for when you arrive in that country.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/9/THE_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_IS_HERE_~46~~46~~46~~46~~46~~4 6~~46~~46~~46~~46~~33~-223516.page

I would love to follow this guy to the airport.

Travis

8th October 2009, 09:06 AM

Someone in a Thread over in Social Issues pointed this one out:

Randi will be dismayed to hear that he is, in fact, dead.

A fashionable Freeman rant I found over at the Sun. Please do not ask why I was there.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/9/THE_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_IS_HERE_~46~~46~~46~~46~~46~~4 6~~46~~46~~46~~46~~33~-223516.page

I would love to follow this guy to the airport.

Technically he's right that you don't necessarily need a passport to travel. You need it to enter the country when you get there. Then of course there's always ways to enter a country illegally.

funk de fino

8th October 2009, 03:12 PM

Technically he's right that you don't necessarily need a passport to travel. You need it to enter the country when you get there. Then of course there's always ways to enter a country illegally.

Except many times recently, when I've been travelling to certain countries, they do not let you on the plane unless you have a passport and a visa. I have been checked at Schipol many times in the last few years. Libya is one. No visa, no passport, no travel.

Hence my airport crack.

Mel Odious

8th October 2009, 11:31 PM

Hoi.polloi sums it all up:

I am being extremely conservative here by calling bull on the lie, top to bottom: Fake reporting. Fake video. Fake victims. Fake airplanes. Fake physics. Fake conspiracy theories. Perhaps even fake companies - how do we find out if they are real? We just trust it's a real company because we are all collectively agreeing to some legal docs in some archive somewhere that we've never seen?

I have nothing to "prove." We have no patriotic duty, no social obligation and no reason to believe what anyone says to us. Ever.

From that thread. (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7174&view=findpost&p=15473714)

Now hoi.polloi seems to think that Judy Wood might be a simulation. (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7263) I predict he'll be saying the same thing about other well-known truthers in the weeks/months to come.

Stundie nominees don't usually involve pictures, but I think the following bit stands alone pretty well without any:

Is a reasonable explanation for these similar lighting conditions, angles and strange looking glasses on her face that:

"Judy Wood" is some kind of an extension of Operation North [Judy] Woods; a CIA team of actresses, actors and false reality created explicitly for researchers to accept fake pictures as reality?

Brainache

8th October 2009, 11:39 PM

Hoi.polloi sums it all up:

From that thread. (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7174&view=findpost&p=15473714)

Now hoi.polloi seems to think that Judy Wood might be a simulation. (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7263) I predict he'll be saying the same thing about other well-known truthers in the weeks/months to come.

Stundie nominees don't usually involve pictures, but I think the following bit stands alone pretty well without any:

How long til this guy starts to suspect that he is actually a sim himself?

Klimax

9th October 2009, 01:23 AM

Wow. I have yet to wade into that Freemen in England thread. I hear it has to be seen to be believed.

Correct... :D

Dave Rogers

9th October 2009, 02:25 AM

Except many times recently, when I've been travelling to certain countries, they do not let you on the plane unless you have a passport and a visa.

I can vouch for that, as the same thing happened to me three days ago.

Dave

Agatha

9th October 2009, 04:10 AM

Wow, you are in line for an award at the next cucumber party He hasn't sent me my invitation to this cucumber party yet. Should I be worried? :D

Klimax

9th October 2009, 09:47 AM

He hasn't sent me my invitation to this cucumber party yet. Should I be worried? :D

I wouldn't as next one is scheduled at 30th February... :D

dudalb

9th October 2009, 12:21 PM

Wow. I have yet to wade into that Freemen in England thread. I hear it has to be seen to be believed.

You really need to. It is one for the ages as far as sheer lunacy goes.

defaultdotxbe

9th October 2009, 12:51 PM

A fashionable Freeman rant I found over at the Sun. Please do not ask why I was there.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/9/THE_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_IS_HERE_~46~~46~~46~~46~~46~~4 6~~46~~46~~46~~46~~33~-223516.page (http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/9/THE_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_IS_HERE_%7E46%7E%7E46%7E%7E46% 7E%7E46%7E%7E46%7E%7E46%7E%7E46%7E%7E46%7E%7E46%7E %7E46%7E%7E33%7E-223516.page)

I would love to follow this guy to the airport.
i wonder if hes simply never traveled outside the EU, lol

Except many times recently, when I've been travelling to certain countries, they do not let you on the plane unless you have a passport and a visa. I have been checked at Schipol many times in the last few years. Libya is one. No visa, no passport, no travel.

Hence my airport crack.
well you dont necessarily "need" a passport to leave a country, they just check before you get on the plane because they know youll need it when you get where your going

as for a visa, depending where you go you might get the visa after you arrive

i just got back from germany (i live in the US) and before i left the airline confirmed i had a valid passport, but didnt do anything else, just made sure i had one, then when i got to frankfurt and went through passport control they stamped the visa in the passport

although it is true that some countries require you to obtain a visa prior to arriving in the country, or permission from your home country to travel there (or both) libya for example :)

Rolfe

9th October 2009, 01:20 PM

Certain airlines, no passport no fly, even on internal flights.

Rolfe.

dudalb

9th October 2009, 01:44 PM

I suggest the epic fail today in court for the NYC Truther Intiative deserves a mention. To have a intiative thrown out of court for being unconstutional even before it makes the ballot is a unique acheivement.

HeyLeroy

9th October 2009, 03:42 PM

Sword_Of_Truth

9th October 2009, 07:15 PM

Tin Foil Timothy is back from his recent hiatus and up to his usal form:

It might be as well to learn that Iraq was invaded and it's government replaced. the last time Iraq was at war was with Iran. Iraq invaded Kuwait and was driven out. The neocons invaded Iraq and unseated Saddam. These were military actions but not war. As it stands right now, you display evidence of incomprehension of some very simple words.

The mind boggles...

Björn Toulouse

10th October 2009, 07:16 AM

Here's one (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=328177&t=2381099)from Anti-Evil on LCF:

If flt 93 was suppose to double back and hit WTC 7 ... by removing WTC 1 and 2 does that give a clear flight path down to 47 story WTC 7 or is it obscured by buildings...?

Reminds me of the sniper tactic with the target behind a window pane. One sniper takes out the window, providing an unimpeded kill shot for the other sniper. Seems like to some that the whole point of targeting the twin towers was to get WTC7.

Will this kind of speculation never end?

JAStewart

10th October 2009, 07:27 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5189784&postcount=20

solve for x

2x+2=8
I don't know. 9?

Cl1mh4224rd

10th October 2009, 09:17 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5189784&postcount=20

He's just trolling.

Travis

10th October 2009, 09:32 AM

It's funny because of the name (I thought someone needed to point out the obvious).

JK

triforcharity

11th October 2009, 07:08 PM

I nominate this one, its not the best, but certainly worth a alaugh.

You'd have to say that the amount of damage caused to surrounding buildings was minimal at worst. Makes you wonder why a controlled destruction of a building, such as the surviving WTC towers, takes so long to set up and implement, considering WTC 7 collapsed without significantly damaging other buildings, and WTC 1 and 2, two huge structures, caused very little damage to surrounding buildings.

This is AFTER I showed him pictures of Fitterman Hall.

Here is another one!! Same guy, same post.

Secondly, if eyewitness accounts are based on memory then they are not particularly accurate at the best of times, but under these circumstances, they are highly likely to be inaccurate.

From The STUNDIE gold mine that is David Icke forums. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83168&page=17

Mr.D

11th October 2009, 10:14 PM

What happens when the woo gets so far out there that it becomes indistinguishable from parody ... and then keeps going until it becomes woo again? (Or, what happens when Poe's law meets Atariworld?)

I'm not sure, but metamars is carrying out his own little experiment in that area.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5194680#post5194680

Idunno. Pick a paragraph. Any paragraph as the nom.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2009, 01:31 AM

Stundie-ing bill smith is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

So the North Tower collapse had no bearing on the collapse of WTC7. That's all we need to know really.

Because it's not like it set it on fire, or anything like that.

Dave

UNLoVedRebel

12th October 2009, 01:43 AM

Stundie-ing bill smith is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel,
Speaking of the all-stars, is Heiwa even eligible for the stundies? I nominated him for one of his best stundielicious posts ever, the one where he compared WTC 1 to a hen egg then topped it off with a lecture on reality. If that couldn't get a nomination, nothing could. :wackyconfused:

Dave Rogers

12th October 2009, 02:37 AM

Speaking of the all-stars, is Heiwa even eligible for the stundies?

Not just eligible, I think he's in the running for a lifetime achievement award.

Dave

Travis

12th October 2009, 10:21 AM

Actually I decided to hold off on Heiwa for a few months ever since he stated he wanted to win a Stundie. It kinda goes against the spirit.

Unsecured Coins

12th October 2009, 11:51 AM

The towers just didn’t collapse into their own footprint……the disappeared into dust into their own footprint. 110 stories X 2…..disappeared into dust…..with a combined total of only 1 story high for almost 220 stories of building!!!! That isn’t a collapse….that’s what’s known as dustification. If a building collapses…there is still something there.

Watch the videos again. Watch what happens when the very tops of the buildings start to fall. Why should the very tops disintegrate before the rest of the building?

The Towers were blown to Kingdom Come.
That much alone is visually self-evident from the numerous videos and photos.

Jet fuel (which is just a variant of kerosene) didn't do that.

"Burning office furniture" or "burning drywall" didn't do that.

Not to tons of steel-reinforced concrete.

One interesting piece of material evidence is the almost complete absence of any plumbing from the huge amount of restroom sinks or toilets:
This was more than just a demolition. Every single piece of office furniture, human remains, computers, phones, file cabinets, security safes, toilets, printers, chairs, pictures, or personal effects….could ALL be picked up with one hand by a child. Nothing remained.
It was all turned into dust by gravity.

don't know where she was going with this post, but she got there in a hurry

Dave Rogers

12th October 2009, 02:16 PM

I'm so nominating patgspot's YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s)

In which a fire truck drives through a lake of molten steel.

Right.

Dave

UNLoVedRebel

12th October 2009, 02:19 PM

I think it should be nominated. If Terral's visual depiction won a stundie this YouTube video should at least be eligible.

And besides, how do you know the government didn't put the sunlight there?

Algebra34

12th October 2009, 06:30 PM

It's funny because of the name (I thought someone needed to point out the obvious).

JK

Hey that was funny. I really had no idea he was making fun of my logon at the time or that it was an algebra problem. I just thought it was some kind of weird math/engineering equation that some debunker was trying to trip me up with. So I just threw out the number 9 as a goof.

Anyway my logon and avatar are reference to a Little Rascals episode not my long ago 8th grade second period torture session. I even answered again later in the thread and still don't know if I got it right.

This should positivly be eligible for the finals. It's well deserved and even I will vote for it.

sylvan8798

12th October 2009, 07:21 PM

That isn’t a collapse….that’s what’s known as dustification.

The word dustification doesn't seem to appear in the dictionary.

Mr.D

12th October 2009, 08:50 PM

The word dustification doesn't seem to appear in the dictionary.

I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

UNLoVedRebel

12th October 2009, 11:55 PM

In a twist of irony, HI's stundie acceptance speech was, in fact, a stundie itself. In context, the math problem wasn't even an algebra problem but a pre-algebra problem. That's right, HI called a 7th grade math problem "some kind of weird math/engineering equation."

I just thought it was some kind of weird math/engineering equation that some debunker was trying to trip me up with.

What an interesting month so far..........

Unsecured Coins

13th October 2009, 10:55 AM

Youtuber "punxsutawneybarney" on why my video "Truther For a Day" is dishonest

Framing the issue as "inside job" will repel most thoughtful truthers, so your quest was set up to fail. I wouldn't sign your petition myself and I've been a committed truther for years.

and then he follows that up with:

Where did you get the notion that the purpose of the truth movement is the idea that 9/11 was an inside job?

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=dUFH-pVW1ME

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/barneystundie.jpg

Arcade22

13th October 2009, 11:58 AM

On the Flashback forums there was an discussion on "Harmful Jewish films", this post was pretty funny (translated of course):

Worthwhile to keep in mind is that the Ghostbusters movies are pretty Jewish.

Harold Ramis = Jew.
Ivan Reitman = Jew.
Rick Moranis = Jew.
Ernie Hudson = Negro (like him sharply in Oz, and The Crow, by the way).

Also remember that Mr Dick Less which is the first film's semi-villain, is a white man in a suit:

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/EPA-Shuts-Peck-R.jpg (angry white man)

Slavitza Jovan = angry white woman, the film's villain:

http://protoncharging.com/gb/1998/08/27/interview-slavitza-jovan/

But can one can count a Balkan-negro Serb, as white? Flashback-neo-Nazi wisdom says that Slavs are not white.

But what the hell, Ghostbusters films are classics of course, no question about it. I am a big Ghostbusters fan, love the movies and I'm going buy the game soon to my PS3. However, it is undeniable that the Ghostbusters movies have Jewish influences, but I can live with it.
https://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=19172087&postcount=562
:roll:

Horatius

13th October 2009, 12:09 PM

Youtuber "punxsutawneybarney" on why my video "Truther For a Day" is dishonest

and then he follows that up with:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=dUFH-pVW1ME

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/barneystundie.jpg

Can you link him to the video of Alex Jones et al. at Ground Zero, chanting "9/11 was an inside job!"?

Horatius

13th October 2009, 12:11 PM

Worthwhile to keep in mind is that the Ghostbusters movies are pretty Jewish.

Harold Ramis = Jew.
Ivan Reitman = Jew.
Rick Moranis = Jew.
Ernie Hudson = Negro

"Black is the new Jewish"? Is this the new fashion trend?

sylvan8798

13th October 2009, 09:42 PM

Something from the resident Stundie over at the aol 9/11 board:

Why bother is right. You can't explain why there is no evidence that hijackers boarded the alleged flights: no airline personnel saw them. They are alleged to have taken luggage on a suicide mission which turned out to have all the evidence the FBI needed to "convict" 19 Muslim men. There were no videos of the Muslims boarding the flights. None of the parts were matched to the alleged crashed flights by NTSB or the FBI. Why? Because "there was no question about the identity of the flights." Interestingly, the AA flights were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 and the UA flights weren't taken out of service until several years later.

Sadly, the only proof you have is what appears to be an outline of a plane on the side of a building. This, to you morons, is proof a plane flew through the building. This is your only proof of the OCT--a magic act. How sad.

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=564809&forward=true&listPos=_articleId:16:3156697883442183_threadId:16 :1775711278935614_pageNum:1:6&articleId=50190&func=6&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false&numPageTokens=8

Grizzly Bear

13th October 2009, 09:44 PM

pixarian72 (18 minutes ago) Show Hide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

+1
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
Lol! Error 1: fires did not reach even 700C, especially as in the towers most of the fuel burned up on impact and the smoke turned black well before the collapse proving oxygen-starved cooling fire. Also steel is an effective heat sink and would draw away heat from hot spots. Yes much hotter, longer fires have NEVER EVER lead to a collapse, fire-proofing is just a precaution.
Error 2 your logic is invalid, there is no double standard, take your medication.

Oh and the double standard he's denying is from me calling him out on the first time in history cannard with steel framed buildings and fire. For the CD he argues that just because it was never done before at this scale doesn't mean it couldn't be, but if it's a first for structural failure via fire... **** YOU!!!!

Mel Odious

14th October 2009, 09:45 PM

Poor Triforcharity is trying to reason with the David Icke inmates and is getting buried under an avalanche of stupid. But on the bright side, we have another Stundie nomination from there:

No....I asked can you provide and an example of ANY building....made of ANY material ANYWHERE that collapsed uniformly at freefall acceleration due to fire. Try it youself....build a cardboard building in your backyard and set it on fire and see how it falls. Do the same with wood, paper WHATEVER material. Fire will cause an ASYMMETRICAL collapse causing the structure to tip or fall completely over. Again...common sense...not your strong point I know.

Here's the post. (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058334382&postcount=206)

Grizzly Bear

14th October 2009, 10:18 PM

triforcharity

15th October 2009, 08:38 AM

Hey, I kinda like those guys over there. Heck, have you seen the Brazil's 70's fires thread?? Its quite amusing. Every single building they have put forth, I have studied and read papers on, and have proved they all had concrete framing/protection. But they STILL try to comme back with something else.

Heck, one guy even brought me a University fire in a building that only partially collapsed. This one was new on me. Only after at 15 minutes with Google, found out..........YEPO!! You guessed it!! Concrete framing.

Horatius

15th October 2009, 08:51 AM

Heck, one guy even brought me a University fire in a building that only partially collapsed. This one was new on me. Only after at 15 minutes with Google, found out..........YEPO!! You guessed it!! Concrete framing.

Man, that's some short response time on our NWO Disinformationists! We realy should give them a raise!

Macgyver1968

15th October 2009, 10:07 AM

For Bill Smith...who thinks all but 13 of the eyewitness at the Pentegon were paid Government shills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156565

....None of the witnesses in the CIT video witnessed the impact. The witnesses who said they witnessed the impact on 9/11 were ALL SHILLS. Every last one of them.

My first stundie nomination...how special.

NWO Sentryman

15th October 2009, 11:13 AM

Note: you need to sign up to see the nominee.

If I look into reports on the DPRK from many countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc... they have nothing but good things to say.

Myron Proudfoot

15th October 2009, 11:31 AM

On the Flashback forums there was an discussion on "Harmful Jewish films", this post was pretty funny (translated of course):

https://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=19172087&postcount=562
:roll:

I refuse to look closely enough to see if the StayPuft Marshmellow Man is circumcised. Nope, not gonna...

dudalb

15th October 2009, 03:07 PM

bill smith expands his CT Horizons:

Still....you have to take Lear's fantastic 40 year performance as a pilot into consideration when making any judgement of him. While I am not necessarily a believer in aliens I do believe that the credible evidence around does not permit for it to be ruled out altogether. It would obviously be stupid to do that. Have a look at this from july 2008...

'' 24 july 2008

FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens exist.
And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades...

:alien009:

Dave Rogers

15th October 2009, 03:10 PM

He's on a roll today. How about the following musings on the nature of evidence?

If one person really saw the plane hit the Pentagon- then a plane hit the Pentagon, end of story. But we know with 100% certainty that the plane flew on a trajectory that did not permit it to hit the Pentagon so we know that nobody saw it hit .

I think I'm glad it's slightly beyond me to parse the full complexity of the logical fallacy cocktail on display here.

Dave

NWO Sentryman

15th October 2009, 03:20 PM

Note: you need to sign up to see the nominee.

Problem. It's on the AH forums, with the link to the AH Forums Chat section (you need to register to see travis), then it was on the Iran Juche thread with the Nominee on Page 4.

dudalb

15th October 2009, 03:24 PM

I refuse to look closely enough to see if the StayPuft Marshmellow Man is circumcised. Nope, not gonna...

Does'nt matter. He's a sailor so circumcised or not, we get him laid,no problem!

Dubbi

15th October 2009, 04:00 PM

On the Flashback forums there was an discussion on "Harmful Jewish films", this post was pretty funny (translated of course):

https://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=19172087&postcount=562
:roll:

A relative of mine played in Ghostbusters 2. And yes, a Jew. What does this do to my NWO rank?

dudalb

15th October 2009, 04:21 PM

He's on a roll today. How about the following musings on the nature of evidence?

I think I'm glad it's slightly beyond me to parse the full complexity of the logical fallacy cocktail on display here.

Dave

It's like he was trying to see how many logical fallacies he could pack into a single statement.

Horatius

15th October 2009, 05:29 PM

A relative of mine played in Ghostbusters 2. And yes, a Jew. What does this do to my NWO rank?

It ups you to Best Boy.

You don't want to know what you're best for, however.

8den

15th October 2009, 05:35 PM

I rarely nominate a whole post, but this, this is breathtaking.

Maybe my fellow non scientific nutjob CT enthusiasts can comment here .

This is important/

this is not a CT forum , its plain to see
its a ' ct nut posts theory ,and science fans pull it apart forum '

Okay so he's not a scientist.

the whole point of a conspiracy forum is to discuss the conspiracys
as us so called CT nuts see fit -
not to barge in and try to convince the CT people they are wrong with
wooooohoooo *IMPOSSIBLE TO ARGUE WITH AND ALWAYS INFALLIBLE * = SCIENCE .

Pretty ignorant definition of Science.

it could actually be pretty goodif it didnt appear to be a fish in a barrell shoot

every one who attempts to discuss a C theory with fellow CT nuts
has to put up with the barrage of slide rule wielders

Yes how dare we use facts and empirical evidence to counter claims.

and it appears to be a modus operandi of hit em with science and run away -
smug in the self satisfaction of another wonderfull CT kill.

well - hello
we dont care about your science - we know whats really going on .
may be we should attempt to take over the astronomy forum, see how they like it

Okay well sod off if you want to deal with modern life.

the last person id listen to is a scientist -
narrow minded is an under statement for most of these people.

in any case ,
most true scientific discoverys are based on informed instinct - and so are many conspiracies .

seems the CT forum mods are not actually CT friendly -

why do you bother ?

is it just a honey trap for you to laugh at people on
your mountain of scientific / skeptical self importance ?

yours BB
CT NUT
and also a scientist .

I don't know where to start, the last person you'll listen to is yourself?

Like I said, its hard pressed to find a single noteworthy stundie in the midst of all this stupid.

Cl1mh4224rd

15th October 2009, 05:46 PM

I rarely nominate a whole post, but this, this is breathtaking.

Holy-- Link, link, link...

dudalb

15th October 2009, 05:58 PM

Holy-- Link, link, link...

Yeah, if Eden provides a link to that big ,big,bunch of Woo he has a real stundie contender there.
I like it because the guy actually says what a lot of the woos think but don't have the guts to say:That Science is a crock, and feeling and "instinct" are superior guides.

Toke

15th October 2009, 06:05 PM

That Science is a crock, and feeling and "instinct" are superior guides.
My instinct tend to be more reliable when supported by a multimeter.:D

shandyjan

15th October 2009, 06:26 PM

>snipped...

Okay so he's not a scientist.

Pretty ignorant definition of Science.

Yes how dare we use facts and empirical evidence to counter claims.

I don't know where to start, the last person you'll listen to is yourself?

Heehee, so he starts by saying the last person he'd listen to is a scientist...and ends by saying he id a scientist. Some kind of mix up going on there :)

8den

15th October 2009, 06:27 PM

Doh sorry it's from http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62559301&posted=1#post62559301

It kinda left me staggering. Theres a post from last year where someone claimed that you could release a suitcase nuke without releasing any radiation by being "very careful", but this. Jesus. I think I'm in with a winner here.

sylvan8798

15th October 2009, 07:38 PM

nharrit on youtube regarding why no one could have known in advance that WTC2 was about to collapse:

Because such a thing had never happened before. The thought cannot be thought.

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=b09NnCo_KIw&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3Db09NnCo_KIw

It's a wonder mankind ever made it out of the caves. Well, some of us did anyways.

Travis

16th October 2009, 09:48 AM

Well, the last person I would trust is a Stundie Dictator.
:D

Because such a thing had never happened before. The thought cannot be thought.

Why is it that CT's believe there is no "first time for anything?"

Dave Rogers

16th October 2009, 10:03 AM

Good grief, is that Nils Harrit of Thermite on a Biscuit Chip fame? This, folks, is the intellectual vanguard of the truth movement, the lead author of the scientific paper on which they base their brightest hopes - and he's reduced to claiming that inductive reasoning doesn't exist?

There are simply no words.

Dave

Travis

16th October 2009, 11:44 AM

sylvan8798

16th October 2009, 01:38 PM

I don't know if it's nils harrit or not, but it boggles the mind that anyone could "think" like that.

Dubbi

16th October 2009, 02:32 PM

I nominate this schmuck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icFFawk2p-U (reading is a conspiracy)

This is my insurance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKKL9V4Hsg (alien base under lake
ontario)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXKESd1AlrU (reptilian haleymes, almost sounds like a parody)

If there isn't a stundie somewhere in there, then there might just be a conspiracy against any of my nominations winning.

carlitos

16th October 2009, 04:17 PM

This is kind of long, and won't win anything, but I wanted to share the illogic. At the BBC blog comments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12#commen ts), #5547. I added quotes for attribution, because it's kind of hard to follow...

My question was about the force propelling the top section of the WTC in some direction other than down.

Oh, and I wanted to add a debunking of one of the standard “debunkers” “canards” (lol, in other words “red herring”, and yes I know a “canard” is French for a duck);

“- What force would propel the top section in any direction besides down? Be specific, please.”

This is standard “red herring” and smoke and mirrors. Truther argument is simple;

- The top section starts to fall, it hits an obstruction beneath it (the floor below) and encounters resistance so instead of continuing to fall down through this massive resistance it tumbles away to the sides and finds a path that has less resistance until it finds the path over the edge where there is no resistance, or until it no longer has momentum and comes to rest. This is of course a simplified model.

There is no question or need of “another force”, but “debunkers” insert this “red herring” of a question into the equation to obfuscate the issue. There is no silly magic force to make the top section “fall upwards”.

Why would anyone who claims to be honest use this here?

“- What force would propel the top section in any direction besides down? Be specific, please.”

Seriously, if you are not trying to deceive then why insert this obvious “red herring” smoke and mirrors into the conversation?

jaydeehess

16th October 2009, 04:25 PM

Doh sorry it's from http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62559301&posted=1#post62559301

It kinda left me staggering. ....

I have been told much the same in posts and in pm's in my dealings with the denizens of the conspiracies sub-forum at the Blackvault.
(not direct quotes, but the gist of what I have been told)
- 'we do not want to hear any science, we want to discuss conspiracies'
- ' you should go away, no one wants to hear anything that contradicts any conspiratorial contentions'
- 'the gov't lies, science is funded by gov't, therefore science lies, therefore you lie'

jaydeehess

16th October 2009, 04:29 PM

apathoid

16th October 2009, 08:51 PM

May not seem too Stundielicous, but you'd appreciate it more if you were a part of this discussion.

But don't you see...if you contend the witness testimony to be totally unreliable, then you cannot then turn around and use it to point out inconsistencies.

Rramjet basically said that we can't point out inconsistencies bewteen eyewitness accounts if we have called them unreliable...and that would allow him to cherry-pick the eyewitness testimony he likes the best, and then tell us we can't point out inconsistencies because we "contend the witness testimony to be totally unreliable"

:boggled:

triforcharity

16th October 2009, 08:51 PM

Ah, Yes, Steve Austin.

He posted here for quite some time, then he didn't show up anymore.

I have always wondered whata happened to him.

eromitlab

17th October 2009, 02:50 AM

When you want the truth of everything that happened on 9/11, make sure you find some kid on the internet that has skimmed the talking points once.

Exactly anyone that wants to deny 9/11 needs to go to saudi arabia and meet the supposed hijackers that "burned" in the towers, because they are still alive leading normal lives as doctors, lawyers, etc. And not to mention Building 7 where a fire on the fifth floor of a CONCRETE building made it collapse at free fall speed..hmmmmm
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9po90/loose_change_final_cut_does_anyone_in_here_view/c0dugbi

Travis

17th October 2009, 03:16 AM

It's like a time capsule of paranoid stupid from 2005.

TokenMac

17th October 2009, 04:05 AM

Don't know if this is a good Stundie, but it is good n' crazy.
Those who were injured on Vesey Street and taken to local hospitals that morning were not burned from falling debris but suffered trauma from the missile explosion that hit WTC 7 at 9:03.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156737

sylvan8798

17th October 2009, 07:15 AM

- The top section starts to fall, it hits an obstruction beneath it (the floor below) and encounters resistance so instead of continuing to fall down through this massive resistance it tumbles away to the sides and finds a path that has less resistance until it finds the path over the edge where there is no resistance, or until it no longer has momentum and comes to rest. This is of course a simplified model.

Baaakkk! The imagery! It burns!!! :jaw-dropp

Alareth

17th October 2009, 07:58 AM

Don't know if this is a good Stundie, but it is good n' crazy.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156737

TokenMac, a little history on MaGZ. His nick stands for Missles at Ground Zero and for years here he has maintained that the WTC fires were caused by the airforce F-15's attempting to shoot down the planes that hit the towers.

Elizabeth I

17th October 2009, 10:16 AM

Exactly anyone that wants to deny 9/11 needs to go to saudi arabia and meet the supposed hijackers that "burned" in the towers, because they are still alive leading normal lives as doctors, lawyers, etc. And not to mention Building 7 where a fire on the fifth floor of a CONCRETE building made it collapse at free fall speed..hmmmmm

I'm fascinated by the apparent inability of these people to understand that common names exist in other languages just as they do in English. If they read that someone named John Smith shot up a shopping center and finished up by turning the gun on himself, then heard that a Dr. John Smith in another city had won a humanitarian award, would they automatically assume the shooter John Smith had been a plant/hoax/hologram/government plot?

Toke

17th October 2009, 10:22 AM

I'm fascinated by the apparent inability of these people to understand that common names exist in other languages just as they do in English. If they read that someone named John Smith shot up a shopping center and finished up by turning the gun on himself, then heard that a Dr. John Smith in another city had won a humanitarian award, would they automatically assume the shooter John Smith had been a plant/hoax/hologram/government plot?

But the names of the hijackers were so outlandish!!
There cannot possible be more of those.:D

CptColumbo

17th October 2009, 10:59 AM

Well, the last person I would trust is a Stundie Dictator.
:D

Why is it that CT's believe there is no "first time for anything?"Because they have yet to have a "first time." ;)

Elizabeth I

17th October 2009, 01:26 PM

But the names of the hijackers were so outlandish!!
There cannot possible be more of those.:D

My stepfather had a friend/colleague whose first and middle names were Mohammed. There's more than one of those in the same person. :p

apathoid

17th October 2009, 08:23 PM

Another gem from a UFO enthusiant:

For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving "hard evidence" yet they exist.

Yeah, I've never seen any hard evidence of an airplane. :boggled:

Cl1mh4224rd

17th October 2009, 11:47 PM

Yeah, I've never seen any hard evidence of an airplane. :boggled:

That's probably because light leaves no hard evidence of its existence either. That makes seeing anything rather difficult. :)

rwguinn

17th October 2009, 11:51 PM

That's probably because light leaves no hard evidence of its existence either. That makes seeing anything rather difficult. :)
And photographing anything, impossible...

carlitos

17th October 2009, 11:55 PM

To be fair, Steve Austin rebutted my nomination, so I'm posting here in the interest of full disclosure.

"Doesn't his research skills just amaze and astound? I'm certainly left speachless"

So do you actually have an argument against this this time? Or are you going to continue to dodge it with your deceptions?

Also, Steve gave the punctuation keys a workout afterwards.

Yet carlito hand waves all that away with a “but there is no video that recorded the sound of explosions so there were no explosions” while on the other hand carlito says that WTC 7 was a “double collapse” (my wording for his explanation) where the “interior frame” somehow detaches itself TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY from the “outer shell” without any visible sign of this happening and collapses first, then the “outer shell” “collapses”, and when I point out that there is no video that records the sound of this “interior collapse” carlito uses a double standard that he does not need this evidence because he has seismic evidence (seismic evidence which, as was shown above, can easily be refuted).

Not to mention the fact that just the thought of the “outer shell” remaining completely intact for 8-10 seconds, that is standing on it’s own without any interior support, while having showed no sign whatsoever of the “interior structure” “pulling” itself away from the “outer shell” (which means that a few random fires on a few floors somehow managed to “disconnect” every single beam and joint from the “outer shell” all at nearly the exact same time), then not having the “outer shell” simply collapse in on itself but instead “drop” straight down not as if the entire “inner structure” was gone but as if the building were continuously being cut off at the feet over and over again just like a controlled demolition from the bottom up.

dc1971

17th October 2009, 11:56 PM

That is some prime Stundipity. :D

Just going off topic a bit, I had to laugh at your avatar... AAHHH YES, the "noo nee noo nee noo noo noo" Typewriter!! HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Boy that takes me back! Used to laugh at that when I was 6 years old and I still laugh at it to this day!

DC

Orphia Nay

18th October 2009, 12:33 AM

Just going off topic a bit, I had to laugh at your avatar... AAHHH YES, the "noo nee noo nee noo noo noo" Typewriter!! HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Boy that takes me back! Used to laugh at that when I was 6 years old and I still laugh at it to this day!

DC

:) Hehehe, glad you like it. "Noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noo" is imprinted on my brain from those days. I wander about saying it and I don't know I'm doing it. :D

triforcharity

18th October 2009, 06:14 AM

Here is one that I believe to be a Stundie.

From www.daavidicke.com/forums I know, fish, barrell......

and yet you don't think that its a conflict of interest that the PHDs at NIST are paid by the very entity that charged them with the investigation

So, using his logic, if anyone hires anyone to investigate something, it is a conflict of interest.

Gorgonian

18th October 2009, 01:19 PM

Truther: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Me: No, here are pictures showing parts of WTC7 hanging from other buildings and wreckage all over the place.
Truther: what does that have to do with anything.
Me: points out that those buildings with parts of WTC7 hanging from it are not within WTC7's footprint
Truther: i dont think you know what falling into their own footprint even means!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Gorgonian14/stundie.jpg
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=13891361&postcount=853

carlitos

18th October 2009, 01:23 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Gorgonian14/stundie.jpg
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=13891361&postcount=853
Wow, that is thick. Maybe the footprint / non-footprint thing is similar to the internal / external thing...

LashL

18th October 2009, 05:17 PM

Hehehe, glad you like it. "Noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noo" is imprinted on my brain from those days. I wander about saying it and I don't know I'm doing it.

And I love that you got it Halloweenatized! Woot!

[/OT]

Myron Proudfoot

18th October 2009, 06:52 PM

WOW, you're dealing with a whole lot of stupid people in that thread! Holy Cow!!!

triforcharity

18th October 2009, 07:21 PM

It really is beyond comprehension. HOLY SNIKEYS BATMAN!!!!

Toke

18th October 2009, 11:43 PM

Guess he got really big feet.

Dave Rogers

19th October 2009, 01:53 AM

I picked up this little gem from PrisonPlanet's article on the Danish Prime Minister's comment that he was aware of concerns that WTC2 would collapse a few minutes before it actually did.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/danish-prime-minister-knew-wtc-would-collapse.html

In the eight years since the attacks, Giuliani has failed to explain how and why he received advance knowledge of this unprecedented event and why that same warning was not passed on to those inside the towers, who had been told to remain in their offices via loudspeaker after the first plane struck at 8:46am.
“Some people — it’s not clear how many — returned to their offices after announcements on the building’s emergency loudspeaker system said that it was safe to stay in the south tower,” reported USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm) under the sub headline “announcements caused deaths,” adding that to some this sounded like an order to return, not an option.

Jones appears to be saying that people weren't warned that WTC2 would collapse before it was even hit by a plane, and therefore this proves an inside job, because it the attacks had been a surprise then the authorities would have known in advance that WTC2 was going to be hit by a second plane and then collapse. Or something. :confused:

Dave

Sword_Of_Truth

19th October 2009, 03:17 AM

Parky76 regales us with his years of experience and training in the field of image analysis, expertly exposing yet another dastardly zionist conspiracy:

they look like fakes to me. for several reasons. that's all that matters.

Dave Rogers

19th October 2009, 04:04 AM

Tony Szamboti tries to be rational, but every now and then he just takes a step too far.

Although you probably will never admit it, I haven't been wrong yet with any suspicions about these collapses.

It's a little reminiscent of Dilbert's boss. "Okay, you're always right about these things in the end, but haven't you noticed I'm always right initially?"

Dave

tsig

19th October 2009, 08:00 AM

Travis

19th October 2009, 01:14 PM

carlitos

19th October 2009, 02:09 PM

The title is "A Basic Chemistry Lesson with Dr. Niels Harrit." That quote makes my brain hurt so bad.

PhantomWolf

19th October 2009, 10:35 PM

I'm sure there is a stundie in amongst all of this craziness.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5408

1337m4n

19th October 2009, 11:01 PM

Lets face it Myriad....if the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo gas station as 100% of the eyewitnesses say it did then it definately didn't hit the Pentagon. There are at least 10 of these witnesses including police officers. 100% confirmation.

That means that ALL of the eyewitnesses to the plane impact (only the impact) were SHILLS as many of us have been saying for years.

Sometimes I pity the stupid. Other times I want to punch them. This would be a case of the latter.

dc1971

20th October 2009, 12:25 AM

:) Hehehe, glad you like it. "Noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noonie noo" is imprinted on my brain from those days. I wander about saying it and I don't know I'm doing it. :D

I'm at a loss though... was that Sesame Street or was that Electric Company?

tyr_13

20th October 2009, 08:41 AM

I'm sure there is a stundie in amongst all of this craziness.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5408

You owe me a half hour of my life back.

Dave Rogers

20th October 2009, 08:47 AM

You owe me a half hour of my life back.

The thread title was "Moon landings, NAZIs and Freemasons." If you step past a warning sign like that, I don't think you've got anyone but yourself to blame for the consequences.

Dave

Skeptic Guy

20th October 2009, 08:52 AM

I'm sure there is a stundie in amongst all of this craziness.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5408

That hurt. You are not a nice person.

GlennB

20th October 2009, 10:19 AM

tyr_13

20th October 2009, 10:25 AM

The thread title was "Moon landings, NAZIs and Freemasons." If you step past a warning sign like that, I don't think you've got anyone but yourself to blame for the consequences.

Dave

Fair enough. I took a good thirty seconds looking at the avatar, trying to decide if I wanted to read anything written by someone with that.

To be fair, I did stop after a half-hour. For a frame of reference, I stopped watching Very Bad Things about five minutes in.

Damien Evans

20th October 2009, 10:32 AM

"Black is the new Jewish"? Is this the new fashion trend?

Well, as the song doesn't say, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

carlitos

20th October 2009, 11:02 AM

I'm sure there is a stundie in amongst all of this craziness.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5408
Well, it wasn't a half hour, but I am going to get some of my life back after reading this. :)

IF I had been on the moon, I first would have made snow angels in the moondust, and then whilst on my back, would have then changed the settings on the totally manual hasselbad camera, and shot a roll of film of the stars above. Changing the settings on the camera would have been NO problem, because NASA forgot to pressurize my already bulky gloves.

I would then photograph the moon-angel I made in the cosmic dust...and then show the angel to all my buddies back at the masonic lodge.

LUNAR SAND ART?

I also would have left more than just footsteps behind on the moon.
I probably would have made swastikas in the lunar surface too!
I would only be showing reverence to the god Apollo (in whose spaceship/chariot I had arrived in.

ETA - this is probably my new signature
lozenge = diamond = vatican = Mi5?

carlitos

20th October 2009, 11:24 AM

Yikes. From the comments on youtube for Tom Lehrer singing about Von Braun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro).

N.A.S.A. has always been under the control of the Department of Defense since it's inception. Anything that is funded by the government and military is controlled by the government and the military. N.A.S.A. is nothing more then a "PUBLIC RELATIONS FRONT" to hide the actual space program that they have. N.A.S.A. IS A PATHETIC JOKE AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE. FOR GOD SAKES "WAKE UP" !!!!!!!!!

cwalner

20th October 2009, 02:44 PM

Yikes. From the comments on youtube for Tom Lehrer singing about Von Braun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro).

"Vonce the Rockets go up I don't care Vere they come down.
"That's not my concern" says Werner Von Braun

apathoid

20th October 2009, 05:20 PM

Travis

20th October 2009, 05:47 PM

Well, it wasn't a half hour, but I am going to get some of my life back after reading this. :)

ETA - this is probably my new signature

Also there was this:

When wondering why there are no pics of the stars
the only logical reason would be ... it would have been difficult to photoshop the stars into the images back then.

Yeah, that's the only logical reason. :rolleyes:

Grizzly Bear

20th October 2009, 05:53 PM

WTF, over? Language barrier issue?

Only way that sentence would make sense is if he were talking about one piece being broken down into numerous smaller pieces. For example a single block has less surface area than the same block broken up into 50 smaller blocks.

Wasn't sure how to word it... but I trust that makes sense... but the quote seems to reference to a single unit being shrunk = more surface area... I'm lost for words if that's what he really meant...

sylvan8798

20th October 2009, 07:38 PM

Only way that sentence would make sense is if he were talking about one piece being broken down into numerous smaller pieces. For example a single block has less surface area than the same block broken up into 50 smaller blocks.

Wasn't sure how to word it... but I trust that makes sense... but the quote seems to reference to a single unit being shrunk = more surface area... I'm lost for words if that's what he really meant...

I really think he means they have more surface area relative to their volume. For example, a sphere has surface area s = 4 pi r^2 and volume 4/3 pi r^3. The ratio of s to v is 3/r, so if r is larger, than the ratio is smaller.

Looking at this chart of lifespans of mammals, it does seem like the larger ones live longer, but it might just be that they are higher up the food chain, lol.

http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan-MaxMin.htm

apathoid

20th October 2009, 07:52 PM

I really think he means they have more surface area relative to their volume. For example, a sphere has surface area s = 4 pi r^2 and volume 4/3 pi r^3. The ratio of s to v is 3/r, so if r is larger, than the ratio is smaller.

That makes sense, but not in the literal fashion he worded it. In any case, not hard to figure out why this dood is a truther.

Orphia Nay

20th October 2009, 08:13 PM

I'm sure there is a stundie in amongst all of this craziness.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5408

I'll nominate this one:

Raphael: "THE BEST WAY TO CONTROL THE WEATHER?
CONTROL THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELD of dreams and nightmares."

:newlol

I'm at a loss though... was that Sesame Street or was that Electric Company?

Sesame Street.

triforcharity

20th October 2009, 09:17 PM

That's right - people were immediately told to hand any photographs or videos into the FBI as evidecne.

If you had been sitting in your car and happened to film a missile hitting the Pentagon... would you think 'Oh look there goes a homegrown missile - best keep this footage as evidence against my own regime'?

No.

You would run to the police/FBI to hand the film in thinking you were doing your good citizen bit and providing evidence.

This is eactly what happened to the majority of those who photographed or videod the events of 911 - they 'were required' to hand them into the FBI.

And yet, nobody has claimed they filmed or saw a huge missle.

And even funnier, we have hundreds of video online that are from personal video of the WTC etc.

Humm............... LOL!!

ETA-link.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058352052&posted=1#post1058352052

I KNOW!! FISH!! BARRELL!!!!! Stop TELLING me that!!

Cl1mh4224rd

20th October 2009, 09:22 PM

Looking at this chart of lifespans of mammals, it does seem like the larger ones live longer, but it might just be that they are higher up the food chain, lol.

http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan-MaxMin.htm

I'm no biologist, but I think lifespan has a lot more to do with metabolism than size. Tortoises, for example, can live as long as a human (and sometimes twice as long). Blue Whales are estimated to be able to live to at least 80 years. Again, comparable to a human lifespan.

tsig

20th October 2009, 09:26 PM

I really think he means they have more surface area relative to their volume. For example, a sphere has surface area s = 4 pi r^2 and volume 4/3 pi r^3. The ratio of s to v is 3/r, so if r is larger, than the ratio is smaller.

Looking at this chart of lifespans of mammals, it does seem like the larger ones live longer, but it might just be that they are higher up the food chain, lol.

http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan-MaxMin.htm

Well he follows up with this:

"Now, so the smaller the particles, the bigger the surface means that a bigger fraction of the atoms are lying at the surface. But there is a lower limit for this process, when you’re talking about aluminum. ..., I’m not sure…but nanometer is very very very very small. So around every aluminum particle there’s a thin thin layer of aluminum oxide. And this means that there is a lower limit for how small the aluminum particles actually can be and still be aluminum. You see, because the smaller the particle, the bigger the surface and since you have aluminum oxide on the surface, there is a lower limit to how small the aluminum particles can be."

It seems his misunderstanding runs very, very deep.

defaultdotxbe

20th October 2009, 09:28 PM

I'm no biologist, but I think lifespan has a lot more to do with metabolism than size. Tortoises, for example, can live as long as a human (and sometimes twice as long). Blue Whales are estimated to be able to live to at least 80 years. Again, comparable to a human lifespan.
which, oddly, is what harrit was saying, once you translate what he said into what he meant of course

small animals tend to have a higher metabolism because they lose proportionately more heat than larger animals

Dave Rogers

21st October 2009, 02:56 AM

It seems his misunderstanding runs very, very deep.

I can live with the misunderstanding. When he goes on to explain how explosives work by a reaction that evolves gases, then claims that nanothermite is an explosive (although the thermite reaction doesn't evolve any gases), and then claims that the energy density of thermite is higher than the energy density of TNT (it isn't, not even for a conventional thermite formulation), he makes it quite clear that he doesn't know the basics of a subject he's claiming to be an expert in. That, I take exception to.

Dave

Dave Rogers

21st October 2009, 03:06 AM

Normally I wouldn't nominate a spelling mistake. But hey, it's bill smith.

Oops... I made an uncharcteristic error.

In the context of it being bill smith, it's even funnier.

Dave

sylvan8798

21st October 2009, 05:04 AM

b) the pentagon isn't a skyscraper or in the middle of a major metropolitan city... Its a central US MILITARY base/command cntr... which means you didn't have thousands of civilians walking around in the backyard.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058352052&posted=1#post1058352052

Has he ever been there? Have any of these nuts ever been anywhere?
:boggled:

tsig

21st October 2009, 11:01 AM

which, oddly, is what harrit was saying, once you translate what he said into what he meant of course

small animals tend to have a higher metabolism because they lose proportionately more heat than larger animals

If I get a yellow card here at JREF i want you as my defense attorney. You can explain the the mods that I didn't mean what I clearly wrote and should get a pass.

defaultdotxbe

21st October 2009, 11:05 AM

If I get a yellow card here at JREF i want you as my defense attorney. You can explain the the mods that I didn't mean what I clearly wrote and should get a pass.
im not defending his inability to mean what he says and say what he means, but living in a family with a history of senility i have knack for figuring out what people are trying to say even if they come nowhere near actually saying it

Horatius

21st October 2009, 11:21 AM

If I get a yellow card here at JREF i want you as my defense attorney. You can explain the the mods that I didn't mean what I clearly wrote and should get a pass.

That's the thing though - he didn't write it, he spoke it:

Transcript from Visibility 9-11
As recorded on Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey, April 8, 2009
Full interview with notes found here.

It's from a podcast:

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=453204#

It's much easier to make slips like that verbally.

Travis

21st October 2009, 02:09 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058352052&posted=1#post1058352052

Has he ever been there? Have any of these nuts ever been anywhere?
:boggled:

Everyone knows that Arlington is nothing but rolling bucolic pastures where the inhabitants have never even heard of electricity.

Alternatively, maybe this person thinks all cities that aren't New York are not "major metropolitan cities."

Grizzly Bear

21st October 2009, 02:34 PM

Does anybody remember the "clunkity clunk 110 times" girl? Well, try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21664
I have had tremendous success talking about controlled demo

My bullhorning speech at street actions:
(I can see people stop what they are doing and listen as I progress through my statements. I can see the transition their thoughts are going through - written all over their faces, and the fact that they are unaware of their mouths hanging open)

-------------------------------
Have you heard of Building 7?
<snip>
Watch footage of the Twin Towers coming down. They were exploding (I use my hands to demonstrate the banana peel explosions). They weren't collapsing. They were exploding. It's obvious.

How can 110 story towers turn themselves into powder in 10 seconds? Try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds. Go ahead, try to cheat (I demonstrate tapping the palm of one hand with the fingers of my other hand as quickly as I can). You will never make it up to 50, yet you are being asked to believe that 110 story towers turned themselves into powder in 10 seconds - both in the exact same way.

The Twin Towers didn't collapse, they exploded in controlled demolitions. Did you see 110 stories stacked on top of each other? No, you saw powder, several inches thick spread out over 75 acres.

There is too much to tell you here, and that's why we ask that you go home and get online and look up Building 7. Start there.

-------------------------------
I have over 90% estimated success with this speech. I can usually get it out during one red light cycle without rushing. I don't yell. I just calmly state this through a bullhorn, putting expressive sincere inflections in the appropriate spots. I don't own the copyright on these words ;), so feel free to use them as your own.

With you in the struggle
<snipped other info>

Toke

21st October 2009, 02:42 PM

By that logic speakers does not work and the sound from stereos and telephones are simply delusions.

Pure Argent

21st October 2009, 03:53 PM

tsig

21st October 2009, 04:13 PM

That's the thing though - he didn't write it, he spoke it:

It's from a podcast:

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=453204#

It's much easier to make slips like that verbally.

What he says doesn't count?

defaultdotxbe

21st October 2009, 04:14 PM

I could feel my brain cells dying as I read that. Curse you, tsig.

But you know, reading this makes me wonder. Do the woos and conspiracy theorists have a similar award that they are nominating us for?
they've tried several times, nothing ever came of any of it

Horatius

21st October 2009, 06:30 PM

What he says doesn't count?

No, it's just that it's much easier to miss a word or two when speaking, particularly if you're not working with a prepared speech. Also, isn't English a second language for him?

There was a feature in one of our local newspapers years ago that would print, verbatim, the verbal answer the Prime Minister gave to a verbal question*. It was nigh on unreadable.

Try it some time. Produce an exact transcript of something you said without much preparation. Most of us sound like illiterate fools when speaking.

*This was, of course, in response to accusations that the paper had "misquoted" him.

funk de fino

21st October 2009, 09:19 PM

http://www.infowars.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters/#

From the comments.

Each plane had over 2 million time-stamped parts that could immediately ID it anywhere in the world. Not one single piece has ever been found.

For the millionth time stop exaggerating about aircraft stuff.

Pure Argent

21st October 2009, 10:01 PM

they've tried several times, nothing ever came of any of it

We should help them get one started, then. Just for the hilarity value.

tsig

21st October 2009, 10:19 PM

Travis

21st October 2009, 11:42 PM

Does anybody remember the "clunkity clunk 110 times" girl? Well, try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21664

1) Start with insane premise
2) Turn insane premise into a procedure
3) Fail at procedure
4) Congratulations, you're an idiot!

http://www.infowars.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters/#

From the comments.

For the millionth time stop exaggerating about aircraft stuff.

When all else fails, make the lies stupider!

We should help them get one started, then. Just for the hilarity value.

They could call it The Debonkers and they could nominate us when we accurately quote from technical journals and reference actual facts and stuff!

"I totally nominate this debonker over at the JREF for this bit of nonsense:

Copper's atomic number is 29.

Yeah, sure it is!"

So we can't trust anybody when their mouth is working?

Heck, I don't trust people when they're sleeping!

Alareth

21st October 2009, 11:53 PM

We should help them get one started, then. Just for the hilarity value.

Too bad you weren't here for William Rea. His crusade against the Stundies was on the obsessive side to say the least.

His "Debunking the Stundies" threads were painful to read as he played apologist and attempted to rationalize or justify the things said by Stundie nominees.

They could call it The Debonkers and they could nominate us when we accurately quote from technical journals and reference actual facts and stuff!

Debonkers is the name the real stundie used for non-truthers over at the old Screw Loose Change forums.

Horatius

22nd October 2009, 05:51 AM

So we can't trust anybody when their mouth is working?

Gee, strawman much?

The point is, someone who is speaking extemporaneously should be given a greater benefit of the doubt than someone who is reading a prepared text, or who is employing a written medium, where careful consideration of their words is easier to accomplish.

It's not like Stundies are so rare we have to go nit-picking everything a non-native English speaker says.

tsig

22nd October 2009, 07:09 AM

Gee, strawman much?

The point is, someone who is speaking extemporaneously should be given a greater benefit of the doubt than someone who is reading a prepared text, or who is employing a written medium, where careful consideration of their words is easier to accomplish.

It's not like Stundies are so rare we have to go nit-picking everything a non-native English speaker says.
Yep a power of ten is just a nit-pick. If you chose to speak in an another language it's up to you to learn it not the native speakers to interpret what you might have meant.

Ricomise

22nd October 2009, 07:54 AM

No, it's just that it's much easier to miss a word or two when speaking, particularly if you're not working with a prepared speech. Also, isn't English a second language for him?

There was a feature in one of our local newspapers years ago that would print, verbatim, the verbal answer the Prime Minister gave to a verbal question*. It was nigh on unreadable.

Try it some time. Produce an exact transcript of something you said without much preparation. Most of us sound like illiterate fools when speaking.

*This was, of course, in response to accusations that the paper had "misquoted" him.

This is quite true. Read just about any court reporter's transcript from a basic hearing or trial. Most of them record every syllable uttered, coherent or not. You will be shocked that the idiots speaking were able to dress themselves, never mind get through seven years of higher education and pass a bar exam. It's even worse when one of the idiots is yourself.

Horatius

22nd October 2009, 02:16 PM

Read it and weep:

"Dr. Harrit: Definitely, that’s the whole thing, because the smaller the particle is, the greater the surface area. This is what you call, geometrical truth. Our bodies, well, excuse me this is because the surface goes with the radius squared, and the volume goes with the radius to the third. So the larger the body, the smaller the surface. And this is why an elephant gets very old because his metabolism is very slow because he doesn’t have a very big surface where he lose heat but a tiny mouse runs his whole life, they eat 22 hours in a day because when he is so small he loses a lot of heat so the surface is bigger."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090415231352441

OOps!! not this month. I'll leave it here for enjpyment.

Yep a power of ten is just a nit-pick. If you chose to speak in an another language it's up to you to learn it not the native speakers to interpret what you might have meant.

Which "power of ten" are you referring to? The only time he mentioned anything dealing with powers of ten, he's correct.

At this point, a churlish individual would suggest you learn to read English before criticizing someone else's language use.

Of course, the Stundie Nom dealt with his assertions that "because the smaller the particle is, the greater the surface area", and "So the larger the body, the smaller the surface", which are only missing the word "proportionally", a single word that it would be easy, even for a native speaker, to miss while speaking extemporaneously, to a friendly audience.

Mr.D

22nd October 2009, 02:17 PM

Too bad you weren't here for William Rea. His crusade against the Stundies was on the obsessive side to say the least.

His "Debunking the Stundies" threads were painful to read as he played apologist and attempted to rationalize or justify the things said by Stundie nominees.

Don't forget his anti-stundie comic strips, which were almost "meta-funny" in the way that they lacked both sense or humor.

cwalner

22nd October 2009, 08:11 PM

I had to stundie this for sheer arrogance while being completely wrong even after a gentle correction for an easy mis-spelling/typo to make.

In times of social upheaval prisons are the anti-chambres to power.

Oh, and it's ante (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante-), not anti (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-). Very different meanings.
You are wrong wise guy. Both spellings are admissible.

Brainache

23rd October 2009, 01:28 AM

I had to stundie this for sheer arrogance while being completely wrong even after a gentle correction for an easy mis-spelling/typo to make.

So an anti-chambre would actually be the opposite of a room... The outdoors? So prisons put you outside the chance for power?

Travis

23rd October 2009, 01:31 AM

I will now call going outside going to the "anti-room."

tsig

23rd October 2009, 01:34 AM

Which "power of ten" are you referring to? The only time he mentioned anything dealing with powers of ten, he's correct.

At this point, a churlish individual would suggest you learn to read English before criticizing someone else's language use.

Of course, the Stundie Nom dealt with his assertions that "because the smaller the particle is, the greater the surface area", and "So the larger the body, the smaller the surface", which are only missing the word "proportionally", a single word that it would be easy, even for a native speaker, to miss while speaking extemporaneously, to a friendly audience.

Kinda funny you don't give me any slack but you give him some. Maybe because I don't have Dr in front of my name?

Dave Rogers

23rd October 2009, 04:54 AM

Don't forget his anti-stundie comic strips, which were almost "meta-funny" in the way that they lacked both sense or humor.

Didn't somebody propose an award for debunkiers called the Botties? The idea was that, if anyone offered a counter-argument to a truther fantasy that had been posted many times before, they would get the award for being a 'bot. It struck me as a fascinating insight into the lunatic mindset of the idealogue; a response can be dismissed as worthless, not because it's untrue, or even because it's irrelevant, but simply because it's the same true and relevant response that's been given in the past to the same question. Apparently, the only way to have a consistent narrative is to keep changing it for no reason.

Dave

Dr Adequate

23rd October 2009, 05:42 AM

An anti-room:

gGL5tgqvrg4

Alareth

23rd October 2009, 06:07 AM

Didn't somebody propose an award for debunkiers called the Botties? The idea was that, if anyone offered a counter-argument to a truther fantasy that had been posted many times before, they would get the award for being a 'bot. It struck me as a fascinating insight into the lunatic mindset of the idealogue; a response can be dismissed as worthless, not because it's untrue, or even because it's irrelevant, but simply because it's the same true and relevant response that's been given in the past to the same question. Apparently, the only way to have a consistent narrative is to keep changing it for no reason.

Dave

The Botties was another William Rea production.

twinstead

23rd October 2009, 06:32 AM

One day, huge starships with anti-room engines will be powered by the energy released when rooms and anti-rooms come in contact with each other.

kookbreaker

23rd October 2009, 06:48 AM

Don't forget his anti-stundie comic strips, which were almost "meta-funny" in the way that they lacked both sense or humor.

I had made a couple of replies to his poor efforts at the time:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/perhaps-more-annoying-in-swarms.png

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/not-equal-opportunity-funny.png

Horatius

23rd October 2009, 07:05 AM

Kinda funny you don't give me any slack but you give him some. Maybe because I don't have Dr in front of my name?

Or maybe because your mistake wasn't just a slip o the tongue? And maybe because, in the finest Stundie tradition, you kept trying to defend your mistake, rather than admit it?

Travis

23rd October 2009, 08:43 PM

I haven't seen so much hate in here since old Rea went "bye bye!" :D

Brainache

23rd October 2009, 08:49 PM

I haven't seen so much hate in here since old Rea went "bye bye!" :D

I think its because we are running out of Truthers. The debunkers have started feeding on each other....

Can't we send Dylan Avery some new editing software or something?

Travis

23rd October 2009, 09:59 PM

I'd rather we send Gage some legos and see what he does with that.

Mel Odious

23rd October 2009, 10:39 PM

I'd rather we send Gage some legos and see what he does with that.

He'd probably throw the legos in the trash and play with the box.

Travis

23rd October 2009, 11:33 PM

Maybe he could make into a little fort for him and his buddies.

tsig

23rd October 2009, 11:53 PM

Or maybe because your mistake wasn't just a slip o the tongue? And maybe because, in the finest Stundie tradition, you kept trying to defend your mistake, rather than admit it?

I'm having a hard time seeing my mistake since all I did was copy and paste his remarks. You then decided he didn't mean what he said. I'm glad you are inside his head and can tell what he means more than he can.

CptColumbo

25th October 2009, 04:14 AM

Apparently the A320 is a secret plot by some beer company to turn us all communist and therefore it's France's fault that those pilots missed MSP last wednesday.

The A-320 is French. This is a hold over from the Busch [sic] Administration. I watch Fox News andI know that the A-320 emits subliminal communistic messages during flight. It also not American and borderline Communist (it's French - did I mention that?) so it is not programmed to work within our system of safe, non-carbon fiber flight. I definitely blame the French.

In the comments section.
http://www.startribune.com/local/65778012.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

Dubbi

25th October 2009, 04:16 AM

A truther is about to come to a realization that there is no global conspiracy, but then sinks even further.

What I don't understand is, Why is the Illuminati Zionist controlled electronic "Big Google" brain have this video in, not one, but TWO places right on the front page of Google video?? ...for the whole world to see...

http://video.google.ca/?hl=en&tab=iv

Is this a global Satanic ritual of telling the Goyim of what they are going to do before the mass culling of humanity for the celebration of the Reptilian blood sacrifice Earth Festival??

-I dun get it.
source:
http://9-11.meetup.com/282/boards/view/viewthread?thread=7924835

TjW

25th October 2009, 02:25 PM

Okay, it's not exactly a CT, it's a science crank. (Although I suppose you could make a case that there is a conspiracy not to recognize his genius.)

This post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5234989&postcount=106) has this little gem in it:

Right 200 % means 100% Ithought you knew that.

HeyLeroy

25th October 2009, 02:38 PM

(snip)
Debonkers is the name the real stundie used for non-truthers over at the old Screw Loose Change forums.

I remember that.

I told him I'd wear that title as a badge of honour; he was promoting ideas that were 'bonkers'.

I don't think he figured that one out...

Travis

25th October 2009, 05:12 PM

Apparently the A320 is a secret plot by some beer company to turn us all communist and therefore it's France's fault that those pilots missed MSP last wednesday.

In the comments section.
http://www.startribune.com/local/65778012.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

If not for Poe's law I'd dismiss that as someone having fun.

NWO Sentryman

26th October 2009, 11:22 AM

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.

I think someone didn't leap far enough, nor have they read up on their chinese history

carlitos

26th October 2009, 11:29 AM

Prevented? Ugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine).

sylvan8798

26th October 2009, 10:58 PM

It's so hard to find good Google help these days:

From the new whackjob forum: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=21&st=60

Now it's difficult to determine how many lease-able square feet per floor there are, but since Windows on the World leases 40,000 on the 106th floor, we'll use that as our benchmark.

However, Marsh USA leases 361,000 s.f. on floors 93-100, with Fred Alger using 36,000 on floor 93. So 7 times 40,000 is only 280,000, so 7 times 50,000 makes for 350,000, which is a more likely number---so it's somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 lease-able square feet per floor.

It took some clever salesmen to lease those cubicles outside the windows of the 208 by 208 foot (43264 square feet) building...

Dave Rogers

27th October 2009, 04:15 AM

It took some clever salesmen to lease those cubicles outside the windows of the 208 by 208 foot (43264 square feet) building...

I like the way they think "floors 93-100" is only seven floors.

Dave

defaultdotxbe

27th October 2009, 06:00 PM

It's so hard to find good Google help these days:

From the new whackjob forum: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=21&st=60

It took some clever salesmen to lease those cubicles outside the windows of the 208 by 208 foot (43264 square feet) building...
that thread is painful

their ultimate conclusion seems that cantor fitzgerald is/was not a real company, and their 658 employees who died on 9/11 never existed

but remember, they are doing it for the victims!

cwalner

27th October 2009, 06:30 PM

I like the way they think "floors 93-100" is only seven floors.

Dave

As a mathematics major, I find no humor in innumeracy. It just makes me cry. :(

Myron Proudfoot

28th October 2009, 06:36 PM

The Wizard of Oz is about the Federal Reserve!

FYI, The Wizard of Oz, written 1900
Federal Reserve, created 1913.

mrchillz October 17th, 2009 4:26 pm :

this article couldnt be farther from the truth,…..actually, this story is about the creation of the FEDERAL RESERVE and how it enslaved the people of America,…..

whoever wrote this article is WAYYYYYYY OFFFFFF!!!!!!

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=2282

gtc

28th October 2009, 07:17 PM

cwalner

28th October 2009, 09:57 PM

Alareth

28th October 2009, 10:51 PM

I remember somebody claiming it was about drugs, because Dorothy fell asleep in a poppy field (Opium) and awoke to a blanket of snow (cocaine)

I'm confused, how does Pink Floyd fit into all this?

Myron Proudfoot

29th October 2009, 07:33 AM

The belief is that the Wizard of Oz is an allegory about populism (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm). There have been a couple of academic articles about it. It sounds far fetched to me but I am not certain whether it has been debunked or not.

Yeah, it's been debunked. For one thing Baum was a big McKinley supporter. The theories about populism came out in (I think) the 1960s but have long since been abandoned. I can find some references for you if you want. I have a small shelf of books on the history of the Wizard of Oz. it was my father's favorite movie. He was a member of the Oz fan club so I grew up with Oz stuff, including the books.

FWIW, I still use the Populism story in class, although I explain that it's been debunked it's a good story for students to remember the issues involved in the 1896 election (gold, silver, industrialization, farmers, etc).

carlitos

29th October 2009, 10:03 AM

I believe this is what you are referring to. Much more detail at the link.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/wizzoz.html

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum (Chicago, 1900) is a parable about Money Reform and the 1890s Midwestern political movement led by William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925); three times candidate for President of the United States (see his poster at bottom of this page). From 1891-1895 Bryan served in the House of Representatives, where he advocated the coinage of silver at a fixed ratio with gold, in order to break the bankers' monopoly and manipulation of the gold-backed currency.

cwalner

29th October 2009, 11:20 AM

I'm confused, how does Pink Floyd fit into all this?
Maybe the Flying Monkees?, Or maybe the Horse of a Different color was called Floyd, but only when he turned pink?

gtc

29th October 2009, 03:33 PM

Yeah, it's been debunked.

<snip>

Thanks!

dudalb

29th October 2009, 03:42 PM

A Beyonce video is part of a mind control scheme:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=2153

And in keeping with the Wizard of Oz "Secret Meanings" theme;

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=2282

THe Mind truly boggles.

And check out VigiliantCitizen's Home Page. It's a Mother Lode of CT insanity. EVERYTHING is part of some vast occult conspiracy in his world.

jaydeehess

29th October 2009, 04:32 PM

If not for Poe's law I'd dismiss that as someone having fun.

Its a new one on me, but it ranks up there with TV's that spy on you, and my personal favorite, that the switch to digital TV is being done so that TPTB can transmit false TV news to specific individuals(remember, this switch involves ONLY over-the-air broadcast).

cwalner

29th October 2009, 05:05 PM

Its a new one on me, but it ranks up there with TV's that spy on you, and my personal favorite, that the switch to digital TV is being done so that TPTB can transmit false TV news to specific individuals(remember, this switch involves ONLY over-the-air broadcast).

Cool, more people should watch the Daily Show

Dave Rogers

30th October 2009, 05:51 AM

Reality Shack is looking like a brand new Stundie motherlode - compared to the majority there, ULTIMA1 is looking like the voice of reason!

All I can say for now is that if anyone pretending to be a cutting edge researcher claims that "an airplane crashed in Shanksville" - today, in late 2009 - we must ask 2 questions:

- Is this person an agent?
- Is this person an imbecile?

And not, of course, "How could a 'cutting edge' reporter take eight years to find out something that obvious?"

http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=7&st=0

Dave