• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Skinny said:
I'm a government shill also.

Do I have to give up my cupcake loser moron membership in order to become a Globalist Henchman?
Click to expand...

As long as you're entirely effecient in being completely inept, except when it serves no purpose, you're an ideal candidate. And no, I'm fairly sure we're all cupcake loser morons.
 
Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?
 
Belz... said:
If they have the level of discourse acumen you display, it should be really funny.



...
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Rumsfeld chuck holy water on Condoleeza Rice and shout "the power of Christ compels you, bitch!" (Family Guy dipped into that well more than once).
 
bob_kark said:
As long as you're entirely effecient in being completely inept, except when it serves no purpose, you're an ideal candidate.
Click to expand...
I'm the ideal candidate then, praise Ed! I was even inefficient enough to not correct your spelling, or put that [sic] thingy in your quote.

Now is that inefficiency, or not?
 
milesalpha said:
Well, I think Midway was the clear end of the battleship as the capital ship of the navy. The only nation that displayed any type of forward thinking was Germany (at least at the upper levels), and then only in selected areas. The construction of Bismarck and Tirpitz (as well as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the pocket battleships) was truly stupid by any standard.
Click to expand...

Oh, clearly. Though Midway was remarkable for being the first ship-to-ship battle on open sea decided by carrier-based planes, those planes sank other carriers, not battlewagons. I grant you that the major Axis battleships that were sunk in WW2 were sunk by planes, but were those carrier-based planes or land-based? I don't know the fate of every Japanese battleship, but I'm pretty sure that more of them faced combat with other battleships than carriers. I think the advances in submarines were the biggest and most devastating advances in naval warfare in WW2, crippling the Japanese merchant marine.
 
Hutch said:
Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..
Click to expand...
Hutch, my man...haven't talked to you since we met in Palmdale in '83. How ya been?
 
Hutch said:
Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?
Click to expand...

I think I remember something about a bunker busting cluster bomb. They invent new weapons all the time. Well, by invent, I mean claim that a weapon with magical powers exist without bothering to provide evidence or explaining how said weapon should function in the real world.
 
Huntsman said:
Um, bob?

No one completes the application...that's the secret method to get in.

I started mine 15 years ago...I'm almost a tenth of the way done with it.
Click to expand...

Hey, just because it is common knowledge doesn't mean that I want everyone to know!
 
geggy said:
.

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible? Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...could it have been caused by an explosion? oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.
Click to expand...

Which can you throw further? A heavy baseball sized stone? Or a handful of light dust?
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I'm the ideal candidate then, praise Ed! I was even inefficient enough to not correct your spelling, or put that [sic] thingy in your quote.

Now is that inefficiency, or not?
Click to expand...

Excellent! I don't have the authority to accept your application. However, no one has the authority to deny your application. Therefore, you become a member by default.
 
Belz... said:
Of course. Any major catastrophy will generate a number of conflicting testimonies. This is why eyewitnesses are considered unreliable.
Click to expand...

I'm going to try to head this off at the pass - before geggy uses this quote to prove all the Pentagon and Shanksville witnesses were mistaken.

Witnesses are unreliable in a "Witness mistook an Arab guy in a white Chevy for a Hispanic guy in a white GMC" way, not a "witness mistook a Bell helicopter on a tarmac for a pair of gay platypuses humping on a coffee table" way.
 
Stellafane said:
Just once, and it was kinda hard to get into -- basically a right-wing Family Guy from what I can see, but not as funny. The alien character seemed potentially interesting however (interesting that in Macfarlane's universe, it's the non-humans that seem to have the most sense). I'll give it another shot sometime.
Click to expand...

It's not right wing - it tries to make the ultra-patriotic jingoistic sabre-rattling dad the butt of the joke, but fails in the same way All in the Family tried to make Archie Bunker the butt of the joke. You're supposed to be laughing at the stupid patriot. It just seems so forced to me, like a 30-minute Bill Maher rant. Too much politics, not enough punchlines.
 
Hutch said:
Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?
Click to expand...

penetrate then explode backwards towards what it has passed.....
 
I just want to say I believe that in a criminal investigation they dont just take a witness testimony and thats it, they need evidence that points to the testimony being a reliable witness account.

I think that fact has escaped some of these people. Imagine trying to investigate 9/11 with all the data and trying to correlate where the testimonies fit the facts.

The whole bombs thing is classic. The CTers love to claim the whole "it sounded like bombs!" but the physical evidence completely rules this out - no explosive residue, no timers, nothing to physically hint that explosives were part of the fall of the WTC (which building? take your pick), yet the witness account is good enough for them to scream up and down. I dont get it. Thats why these witness accounts ARE NOT followed up. Its just conjecture. Anecdotal evidence.
 
Polaris said:
Oh, clearly. Though Midway was remarkable for being the first ship-to-ship battle on open sea decided by carrier-based planes, those planes sank other carriers, not battlewagons. I grant you that the major Axis battleships that were sunk in WW2 were sunk by planes, but were those carrier-based planes or land-based? I don't know the fate of every Japanese battleship, but I'm pretty sure that more of them faced combat with other battleships than carriers. I think the advances in submarines were the biggest and most devastating advances in naval warfare in WW2, crippling the Japanese merchant marine.
Click to expand...

This will be off the top of my head so excuse any missing. And due thanks to John Keegans books for filling my head with wonderfully useless information, until now.:D

Germans
Graf Spee: Scuttled after surface action 1939.
Bismarck: Scuttled after carrier aircraft attack and surface action 1941.
Scharnhorst: Sunk in surface action 1943.
Tirpitz: Sunk by Lancasters armed with dambuster bombs. 1944

Italy
Conte De Cavour: Sunk by carrier aircraft at Taranto
I think there was another but cannot remember.

Japan
Yamato: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Musashi: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1944
Kongo: Sunk by submarine 1944
Haruna: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Kirishima: Sunk by surface action 1942
Hiei: Sunk by carrier aircraft operating from Guadalcanal after surface action 1942
Mutsu: survived war, sunk at Bikini Atoll
Nagato: badly damaged by carrier aircraft, suvived war as coastal defence, Sunk at Bikini Atoll
Ise: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Fuso: Sunk by destroyer torpedo attack.

I probably missed a couple, best I can do right now.

On the submarine, I agree the Americans devastated the Japanese merchant marine but I'm not so sure it was due to techological developments. The Japanese record is just atrocious. They rejected convoy tactics for all merchant ships until late in the war. Their ASW tactics were terrible, badly underestimating the dive depths of US subs. They did not develop an advanced radar, the number one weapon against submarine attack, Their sonar development was awful. Cooperation between merchant marine, regular navy and the air force was non-existent. For me, the development of the submarine as the new capital ship of the navy came in the post war period.
 
Today I purchased a copy of Roger Ebert's book "The Great Movies II." This, along with its predecessor, is not meant to be a Top 100 list, but is rather a collection of his thoughts regarding films he believes are noteworthy. Moreover, these are light essays, not reviews or detailed analyses.

In reading his piece on Being There, this stood out:

In the much-discussed final sequence of Being There, Chance [the lead character played by Peter Sellers] casually walks onto the surface of a lake. We can see that he is really walking on the water, because he leans over curiously and sticks his umbrella down into it. When I taught the film I had endless discussions with my students over this scene. Many insisted on explaining it: He is walking on a hidden sandbar, the water is only half an inch deep, there is a submerged pier, and so on. "Not valid!" I thundered. "The movie presents us with an image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since [director Hal] Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier -- a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more."
Click to expand...
For all sorts of reasons, people are now looking at 9/11 and insist on devising explanations for it. But you can no more place squibs, or missiles, or remote control on those scenes than you can place a solid footing under Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom