Vote Now! May Stundie Finals!

[defaultdotxbe]

If he was taking a shovel to 98, I'd imagine college and pro baseball scouts alike would be watching this guy mighty intently.

98.3 was probably the fastest his nephew has ever thrown a baseball, so killtown decided to use that figure while assuming he can throw a shevel at the same speed he throws a baseball

it really goes to show how a seemingly simple equivocation fallacy can lead to grossly skewed results

 

[jaydeehess]

I have to go with No. 5. The fact that the poster is suspicious of government employees being in a government building...

While many of the others are so very very good it is just not possible to ignore the fact that No.5 sums up the severly warped reality in which the TM members often operate with.

I note he similarity between finding it suspicious that gov't workers would be in a gov't building and the redIbis quote in my sig where he found it preposterous that NIST would say that removing insulation from steel would accellerate the rise in steel in a fire.

Both are the 'shake-your-head-did-he-just-say-what-I-think-he-did' moments we have all come to enjoy.

Besides, Killtown is just so last year.

 

[jaydeehess]

Killtown. To throw ANYTHING that fast is impressive. A shovel? I don't think so.

I just dug a hole in the dirt this weekend and bent my shovel. It hit a rock so i stood on the shovel and jumped hoping to force the shovel around the rock.
Rock 1 - Shovel 0

 

[X]

My post:

Whatever. I merely pointed out it was uncalled for, and a blatant attempt to get a rise out of people. Since I seem to be feeding into your need for attention, I'm going to drop that issue.

What about the rest of my post?
Do you wish to re-assess your position on the matter, in light of the evidence?

Your reply:

Truthers are called stupid here everyday. Is that a blatant attempt to get a rise out of truthers? Biased much?

Do you wish to re-assess your position on the matter, in light of the evidence?

 

[nicepants]

Boo...I was hoping that the "fires cannot weaken structural steel!" claim would make it. Even funnier was the claim that I was arguing semantics when I showed why the position was ridiculous.

 

[jaydeehess]

OK, perhaps Killtown has missed the obvious way to test out the 98.3mph impact to a steel shovel. Take one pick up truck, put Kt in the back of it with a steel shovel. Have his nephew drive and take the truck up to speed (on this point I would reccommend going to 100 mph just to round things up a bit) Now Kt releases the shovel tossing it perpendicular to the direction of travel of the truck, far enough to have it land in a feild. The added perpendicular velocity would not amount to much in comparison to the velocity in the direction of the truck's travel. Now go back and check on the condition of the shovel. My bet, its bent, the handle maybe snapped. Now consider that the kinetic energy of that shovel would be 1/16th of the same shovel travelling at 400 mph.

But then Kt has never been good at physics or math.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you wish to re-assess your position on the matter, in light of the evidence?

Apparently he'd rather argue the strawman and ignore his mistake.

 

[fezzic]

I thought about government workers at the Pentagon but being charitable figure that government workers /= military personnel and civilian workers, security, etc.

Throwing a shovel into dirt... uh, yeah, that is a really reasonable approximation of (I presume) an aircraft smacking the ground at 400-500 mph. Ok.

sigh

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought about government workers at the Pentagon but being charitable figure that government workers /= military personnel and civilian workers, security, etc.

Throwing a shovel into dirt... uh, yeah, that is a really reasonable approximation of (I presume) an aircraft smacking the ground at 400-500 mph. Ok.

sigh

well you see, Kt and, apparently, his nephew are intelectually challenged. A shovel has a handle and is used as a hand tool so the only way to accellerate it to speed is to use one's hands. It never crossed their minds to use an automobile to take the shovel up to speed.
That in itself speaks volumes to Kt's ability to reason.

 

[Gaspode]

Jimd3100 sounds like it has been quoted out of context.

I would like to see the rest of that sentence.

I'm inclined to agree. I also can't help feeling that the comment by jimd3100 was taken out of context.

He/she was responding to the comment just before which refers to people working for the government - but in the sense that they're government agents who were paid to give false eyewitness testimony.

So when jimd3100 said "government workers" he/she was also refering to the same governments agents, not the ordinary people who worked at the Pentagon.

It's still a stupid thing to say but I'm not sure it's Stundie worthy.

 

[Elizabeth I]

All this is just irrelevant chatter. The important thing is that jmd's post must win. Not only is it Stundie-worthy in its own right, it also spawned a new Stundie nomination.

 

[Blender Head]

Voted for JMD because it's hilarious.

Also, nice to see another thread where a point flew right over theauthor's head.

 

[Horatius]

I'm inclined to agree. I also can't help feeling that the comment by jimd3100 was taken out of context.

He/she was responding to the comment just before which refers to people working for the government - but in the sense that they're government agents who were paid to give false eyewitness testimony.

I'm not sure how you get "government agents" out of the previous post:

But Jon, Griffin is explaining that there were no real eyewitnesses -- they all either worked for the government or saw something very different from a Boeing -- and that none of the DNA evidence can be linked back to the scene and the victims.

Interesting how all the government workers on patriotsquestion911 are never questioned, but because the government workers who saw AA77 aren't reporting what the no-Boeing theorists want they now "don't count."

I think you're reading more into this than what was said. There is no suggestion that they are "Agents". It seems to me that he's just assuming that anyone who works for the government is automatically untrustworthy. Still evidence of their fundamental paranoia, and thus Stundieworthy.





Ah, I feel like it's the good old days with Billy Rea again!*









*Not that I'm saying you're like Billy. It's just been a while since I've debated a Stundie nom!

 

[Gaspode]

I think you're reading more into this than what was said. There is no suggestion that they are "Agents". It seems to me that he's just assuming that anyone who works for the government is automatically untrustworthy. Still evidence of their fundamental paranoia, and thus Stundieworthy.

I don't get government agents but I can see how someone with a bad case of CT on the brain might read it as such. Saying 'government workers at the pentagon' is like saying 'shop workers at a shop' or 'bank workers at a bank'. It seems too stupid - unless it's just a lack of reading comprehension. Both of which truthers are well known for, but not really Stundie material.

Ah, I feel like it's the good old days with Billy Rea again!*









*Not that I'm saying you're like Billy. It's just been a while since I've debated a Stundie nom!

I remember William. Always seemed to be whinging about something.

 

[gumboot]

Throwing a shovel into dirt... uh, yeah, that is a really reasonable approximation of (I presume) an aircraft smacking the ground at 400-500 mph. Ok.

The best part is that the main body of his experiment was not to throw a shovel into dirt, but to simply thrust it into the dirt. The whole throwing thing was simply meant as a "deal sealer" piece of excessive experimentation that grossly exceeded the parameters of the real world situation and proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that an airliner crashing into the ground at 500 MPH will be totally unharmed.

 

[Horatius]

I don't get government agents but I can see how someone with a bad case of CT on the brain might read it as such. Saying 'government workers at the pentagon' is like saying 'shop workers at a shop' or 'bank workers at a bank'. It seems too stupid - unless it's just a lack of reading comprehension. Both of which truthers are well known for, but not really Stundie material.

So your whole argument boils down to, "this is too stupid, even for a twoofer"*? Good luck with that!







*Isn't the "I can't believe he said something that stupid" reaction the whle point of teh Stundies?**





**And why is it, the only time I don't mis-type "the" as "teh" is when I mean to?!?

 

[jimd3100]

Uh...gee, what an honor. Do I get a trophy or something? If so, I'm not sure it would be fair to accept your award, since you are not bright enough to give a closer look at what I was talking about.

I believe this was back when CIT was on Air America discussing their retarded Flyover BS. The comment about government workers being at the pentagon is sarcasm. I wasn't posting it for the sherlocks in here. I posted it on 9/11 blogger where it would be known it was sarcasm since I had already banned CIT from the forum I moderate on.

In summation.....I was making fun of the preposterous claims that the many witnesses who saw what happened at the pentagon(a big plane flew into it)were actually Gov agents. They were not, and non gov witnesses also saw what happened.

If you saw the actual quote you'd see I linked to a video of a civilian who also watched the plane fly into the pentagon, and I was saying how sneaky they were, to pose as civilians...again sarcasm,... because I was posting on another forum where they knew where I stood on the issue.

However--I will be looking forward to my award, and will use it as proof of your horrible research abilities.

Get your facts straight.

 

[theauthor]

Uh...gee, what an honor. Do I get a trophy or something? If so, I'm not sure it would be fair to accept your award, since you are not bright enough to give a closer look at what I was talking about.

I believe this was back when CIT was on Air America discussing their retarded Flyover BS. The comment about government workers being at the pentagon is sarcasm. I wasn't posting it for the sherlocks in here. I posted it on 9/11 blogger where it would be known it was sarcasm since I had already banned CIT from the forum I moderate on.

In summation.....I was making fun of the preposterous claims that the many witnesses who saw what happened at the pentagon(a big plane flew into it)were actually Gov agents. They were not, and non gov witnesses also saw what happened.

If you saw the actual quote you'd see I linked to a video of a civilian who also watched the plane fly into the pentagon, and I was saying how sneaky they were, to pose as civilians...again sarcasm,... because I was posting on another forum where they knew where I stood on the issue.

However--I will be looking forward to my award, and will use it as proof of your horrible research abilities.

Get your facts straight.

Welcome to the forum. As you can see I have been trying to argue in this thread that you couldnt possibly have meant that.

Don't worry about all the resident idiots here. They are just obsessed with truthers.

 

[Horatius]

Uh...gee, what an honor. Do I get a trophy or something? If so, I'm not sure it would be fair to accept your award, since you are not bright enough to give a closer look at what I was talking about.

I believe this was back when CIT was on Air America discussing their retarded Flyover BS. The comment about government workers being at the pentagon is sarcasm. I wasn't posting it for the sherlocks in here. I posted it on 9/11 blogger where it would be known it was sarcasm since I had already banned CIT from the forum I moderate on.

In summation.....I was making fun of the preposterous claims that the many witnesses who saw what happened at the pentagon(a big plane flew into it)were actually Gov agents. They were not, and non gov witnesses also saw what happened.

If you saw the actual quote you'd see I linked to a video of a civilian who also watched the plane fly into the pentagon, and I was saying how sneaky they were, to pose as civilians...again sarcasm,... because I was posting on another forum where they knew where I stood on the issue.

However--I will be looking forward to my award, and will use it as proof of your horrible research abilities.

Get your facts straight.

Well, you haven't won yet.


As for "horrible research skills", perhaps you should take a moment to read the entire thread, where you'll see someone who did link to the original post.

As for it being sarcasm, well, it's been noted before that some twoofer beliefs are indistinguishable from parody. Perhaps this should make people think twice about what they believe.

 

[Horatius]

Welcome to the forum. As you can see I have been trying to argue in this thread that you couldnt possibly have meant that.

Don't worry about all the resident idiots here. They are just obsessed with truthers.

Well, now, let's be honest. You started out claiming we had misrepresented his post:

Jimd3100 sounds like it has been quoted out of context.

I would like to see the rest of that sentence.

It was only after your, what was that term, oh yeah, "horrible research skills" were demonstrated that you decided he couldn't have been stupid enough to actually mean it*. And even then, you were mostly using it as a cheap attempt at another dig at the people here. So don't go acting like you're better than us here.





*And I'll point out, we only have his word that he isn't that stupid. Really, why should we trust him?