• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

January 2008 Stundie Nominations

steve s said:
Troofers really love using the word "squibs", don't they? Same with thermite. I think that's part of the attraction for teenage males, they get to use cool sounding words that aren't familiar to the general public. It makes them feel that they've got knowledge of something secret. Nevermind the fact that they're using the word squibs incorrectly. It's not a term used in the CD industry.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

Ya.
I never have figured out why they would use firearms for demolition in the first place, especially with "primer-only" loads in them, and how the Hell anyone can tell that from street level!
 
My nomination goes to LastChild

LastChild said:
No you lie. It's obvious if the demolition charges were not even louder then the people in the foreground then there is little to no likelihood they would have been picked up from inside a 110 story collapsing building by a similar recording device.
Click to expand...

So the explosives in the towers weren't heard because they were obscured by the sound of the collapsing building. That makes sense...I just have to wonder.....if that's the case, then what made the building collapse?

Sounds like he's frosted his cake before baking it.
 
Last edited:
nicepants said:
So the explosives in the towers weren't heard because they were obscured by the sound of the collapsing building. That makes sense...I just have to wonder.....if that's the case, then what made the building collapse?
Click to expand...
A bunch of neocons blowing on it reeeeeeally hard.

Duh. :rolleyes:
 
JamesB said:
I know men always lie about size, but geez.

http://911blogger.com/node/13294#comment




The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. That "tiny" section he is referring to is 921 feet wide.
Click to expand...
There's a follow-on question to that: how did he identify the renovated section from the air in order to hit it? Were there some obvious visual clues outside the Pentagon which pointed to which section was the renovated section?
 
I just don't have any words fit to describe this Stundie masterpiece from Heiwa.
Originally Posted by Heiwa
I have to repeat that the forensic evidence doesn't support my theory above. Forensic evidence shows that a bomb is dropped on the building.

Where could it have come from?
Click to expand...
Dave
Click to expand...

I knew it. The Philadelphia police department was in on it!

Steve S.
 
In this video in relation to why Danny Jvenko believes WTC 1,2 were not demolished but WTC 7 was, Shumonik1 explains when a controlled demolition expert really isn't a controlled demolition expert:

I think that they are clearly different types of demolitions than he has ever done or encountered so he can't or doesnt want to imagine how they might have actually been that. Basically, that it is outside of his expertise.

And I respect that he doesn't want to go there. In many ways, it bolsters his credibility around building 7.
Click to expand...

Is there a quota for nominations submitted by one person? I have a treasure trove of these!
 
nicepants said:
So the explosives in the towers weren't heard because they were obscured by the sound of the collapsing building. That makes sense...I just have to wonder.....if that's the case, then what made the building collapse?
Click to expand...


I'm more amused by his implication that, because foreground noises (people talking) can drown out "background" noises (the demo charges) in one video, that it's only logical to assume that one "background" noise (a tower's collapse) can drown out another "background" noise (the alleged demo charges) traveling roughly the same distance to the camera.

By his logic, people chatting underneath the collapsing towers would have drowned out the sound of the collapse itself, since distance apparently has no effect on sound in his strange world.
 
Hey, I found a short rebuttal of Ryan Mackey's whitepaper by Charles "Erector Set" Thurston. Here's the funniest quote, from the section titled The Relevance of Erector Sets:

If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.

The difficulty involved in crushing either structure with pressure applied from above, especially when compared to the downward force of its own weight, should yield an appreciation of the difficulty that would likewise be encountered in crushing one of the Towers.
Click to expand...


http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html
 
Probably not a winner, but this comment on 911 Blogger just struck me as funny.

http://911blogger.com/node/13294#comment-173809

The only thing that we should be concerning ourselves with when it comes to the Pentagon strike is that SOMETHING hit it. The most defended structure in world history was struck without any interference whatsoever. The anti-aircraft defense system was seemingly inoperable ONLY on that day.
Click to expand...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Still with the AA defense system? Argh...
Click to expand...

It is not so much that he believes in the missiles, which is old news, it is the fact that somehow they were supposedly to demonstrably operative on every day other than 9/11. Were there some planes shot down that I don't know about or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom