June 2007 Stundie Nominations

8 bit agent shows us his where his gullibility reaches its breaking point.
I can buy Zionists funded Hitler, maybe even wanted the holocaust to get Israel, but theres nothing "hoaxish" about the holocaust
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think I can top that.


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&view=findpost&p=13786411
8bitagent said:
You know what, ok...

lets say Oswald was the lone gunmen

lets say al qaeda carried out 9/11

THEYRE BOTH STILL black ops, because both of these scapegoats
were cultivated, brainwashed, trained, sheparded, etc by shadow elements of the US government and it's allies.

In my view 9/11 was the final act in a massive ritual trilogy that includes Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and JFK.
Click to expand...


ETA: Damn, beaten to it.
 
Posted by US=illigallyblind @ LCF

I am here because I BELIEVE in the notion that "WE THE PEOPLE" have the obligation to stand up and FIGHT for what is being taken from us....our FREEDOMS. I cant sit back and let my ENEMY lure us around as if we are a flock of sheep... I must have the strength and fortitude to lead my fellow believers to pull back the wool from our eyes and see into the grim future that awaits us if left unchecked.

We cannot be judged by our thoughts, rather let us be judged by our actions taken to repel the evil that attempts to harm our way of living and everything this country was FOUNDED on. Our differences set aside, our common GOAL in mind, let us unite to stop the bleeding caused by these tyrants!
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10384

I take it going for a few pints with your mates at the weekend and actually enjoying yourselves is out of the question then.
 
Chris7 continues his swin into the deep end. With the amount of Stundie type posts he's been making lately, sadly, I think he might be mentally ill. The overall general amount of super crazy CT posts have been going up

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2677625&postcount=2613

His statement refutes their opinion.
He is an expert, they are not.
It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.
Have they refuted his statement?
 
Last edited:
The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:

The conventional explanation does not explain what Judy Woods has uncovered. She gives a talk with photos on her site Google "jane Doe Judy Wood". She is a Phd Structural Engineer and has other related degrees in material science. No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.
Click to expand...

I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side.
Click to expand...

I'm not a believer in qualifications but if you say you read that paper you are implying that you understood all that math. Having taught technologists math from all over the country I find that highly doubtful. I don't care about qualifications but you must always use dishonesty to support your arguement.
Click to expand...


Take your pick.
 
Civilized Worm said:
The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:

Take your pick.
Click to expand...



Are private e-mails acceptable? I think they would fail on the "providing links or screenshots" rule, as they are not accessable to everyone.
 
Civilized Worm said:
The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:


Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Doug Plumb: Trust Judy Wood because she has these qualifications.

Doug Plumb: I'm not a believer in qualifications!

Oh the hilarity, it's full of ironic, hypocritical goodness.:D
 
Greg @ SLCB said:
Anderson cooper was an intern to CIA during his enrollment in an ivy school (yale I think?) and attended CIA summer camps.

Once a CIA, always a CIA.
Click to expand...
(Link)

I get the distinct impression that the truthers feel that there must be about 30 million CIA agents in the U.S....
 
I have an odd stundie to offer up...

It is not from a website, but from a book. Thus there is no link, but the content of the book can be verified by anyone who owns it. Also, the book was published some time ago, but I offer up this Stundie now because I have only recently received my copy of the book.


Dr Griffin on the WTC fires and x-ray cameras said:
Photographs show, in fact, that not a single floor beyond the fire's starting location was hot enough to ignite paper or plastic or to break windows.

Griffin, D.R.; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Pg.25
ISBN 1-56656-584-7
Click to expand...

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I have an odd stundie to offer up...

It is not from a website, but from a book. Thus there is no link, but the content of the book can be verified by anyone who owns it. Also, the book was published some time ago, but I offer up this Stundie now because I have only recently received my copy of the book.




-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhh that explains the roof then...... riiiiiight.
 
gumboot said:
I have an odd stundie to offer up...

It is not from a website, but from a book. Thus there is no link, but the content of the book can be verified by anyone who owns it. Also, the book was published some time ago, but I offer up this Stundie now because I have only recently received my copy of the book.




-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Hmm...I'm going to accept this for consideration on a few conditions. It may have been published some time ago, but as it is now coming back into the limelight a little bit I'm comfortable in allowing it to be considered for June.

The conditions are:

  1. Two other people verify the existence of the quote.
  2. A little bit more context is given - primarily just which building he is talking about when he says that.

In addition to this, the same edition of this book may not be nominated again in the future, so any "Stundie" material from the book will have to be nominated this month.

This is working a little bit on the honour system - I'm relying on two other people who have read or who own the book to verify this quote. If it comes out later that the quote is incorrect, out of context, etc., I will consider disallowing nominations from books.

Does that sound fair?
 
Mobyseven said:
Hmm...I'm going to accept this for consideration on a few conditions. It may have been published some time ago, but as it is now coming back into the limelight a little bit I'm comfortable in allowing it to be considered for June.

The conditions are:

  1. Two other people verify the existence of the quote.
  2. A little bit more context is given - primarily just which building he is talking about when he says that.

In addition to this, the same edition of this book may not be nominated again in the future, so any "Stundie" material from the book will have to be nominated this month.

This is working a little bit on the honour system - I'm relying on two other people who have read or who own the book to verify this quote. If it comes out later that the quote is incorrect, out of context, etc., I will consider disallowing nominations from books.

Does that sound fair?
Click to expand...


That sounds fair. Alternatively I might try get a photo of the page tomorrow, just in case. I know MikeW has a copy of the book.

The comment appears to be specifically talking about WTC2, although the context implies his claims are true of both WTC1 and WTC2.

I say WTC2 because the preceding sentences in the book refer to the fireball from UA175's impact, and the implications of this fireball occurring outside the building. The nominated statement is then raised in support of the conclusions drawn from the observation of the fireball.

My nomination is based not so much on the fact itself, but on the absurdity of the "photographs show" claim (presented as an absolute fact), as if there are stacks of photographs taken in the floors immediately around the impact floors which show piles of untouched paper. Regardless of whether the temperatures in surrounding floors were indeed hot or not, his statement is utterly absurd, because he claims the existence of evidence that not only does not exist, but any person with a scrap of logic would immediately realise could not possibly exist.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
That sounds fair. Alternatively I might try get a photo of the page tomorrow, just in case. I know MikeW has a copy of the book.

The comment appears to be specifically talking about WTC2, although the context implies his claims are true of both WTC1 and WTC2.

I say WTC2 because the preceding sentences in the book refer to the fireball from UA175's impact, and the implications of this fireball occurring outside the building. The nominated statement is then raised in support of the conclusions drawn from the observation of the fireball.

My nomination is based not so much on the fact itself, but on the absurdity of the "photographs show" claim (presented as an absolute fact), as if there are stacks of photographs taken in the floors immediately around the impact floors which show piles of untouched paper. Regardless of whether the temperatures in surrounding floors were indeed hot or not, his statement is utterly absurd, because he claims the existence of evidence that not only does not exist, but any person with a scrap of logic would immediately realise could not possibly exist.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Goodo. A photo will do just as well, don't know why I didn't think of that.

Probably because you're smarter. :p
 
Whole quote:
Sirrus said:
okay, I myself am not a strong believer in the no plane theory, however, i was just thinking, because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them) besides the control tower, couldn't they have just turned the holograms or whatever on right as they entered the place where most people could see it?
Click to expand...


Link.


"......because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them)....."



Are sentence fragments acceptable? The whole statement is freakin' out there, but the bit I highlighted above can surely stand on it's own.....can't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom