September Stundie Nominations

[Jontg]

Er, hate to break this to you, Bedouin, but that makes perfect sense. The audio record pretty much proves that there weren't any explosives involved--anything capable of severing any part of the structure would have been picked up before the tower began to collapse.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Humor ur doing it rong.

I agree that logical fallacies generally aren't very funny. But Cuddles criterion is stupity.

The Stundies are not limited to any particular group, they are open to any stupid statements made related to conspiracies.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The audio record pretty much proves that there weren't any explosives involved--anything capable of severing any part of the structure would have been picked up before the tower began to collapse.

NIST pretty much said the same thing-
I.e. An explosive capable of taking out the key support column would have made an unobserved noise.
But you can not conclude from this that explosives played no role in the collapse- perhaps there was a seperate contributing factor.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seconded. Have we ever had a nominee come from the Stundie nominations thread before?

If we haven't, William Rea's entire stay here was wasted.

Oh, wait...

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Scholar" SDC enlightens us on the meaning of "historical revisionism":

Although it's not funny or particularly stupid, I'd agree that SDC was actually wrong there - in fact, since Holocaust denial is a subset of historical revisionism, it's an example of affirming the consequent. Keep trying, TLB, and at the rate you're currently making nominations you might come up with a promising candidate some time next year.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

But you can not conclude from this that explosives played no role in the collapse- perhaps there was a seperate contributing factor.

But that wasn't lapman's claim. The claim, if you go back and read your own post, was that "There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were present". This is a distinctly different claim from the claim that there were no explosives present. Therefore your nomination is in itself a logical fallacy.

Dave

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

But that wasn't lapman's claim. The claim, if you go back and read your own post, was that "There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were present". This is a distinctly different claim from the claim that there were no explosives present. Therefore your nomination is in itself a logical fallacy.

It is still a fallacy. He was refering to NIST's audio record which did not support the minimum dB needed for collapse of the towers. This in no way proves that no explosive-induced explosion of any magnitude occurred. Furthermore, you cannot prove that there is no evidence for something. It would be like saying, the fact that the fruit was not red proves that there was no evidence of it being an apple.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I Nominate Nist

Nist- Logical Fallacy (Invalid Argument)

(Note:The step from "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse" to "explosions played no role whatsoever in the collapse" is not supported by Nist's premises, and hence, is an invalid conclusion.

See this thread).

 

[Brainache]

So TLB are you saying that there may have been tiny little explosives going off? What kind of damage do you imagine they caused?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is still a fallacy. He was refering to NIST's audio record which did not support the minimum dB needed for collapse of the towers. This in no way proves that no explosive-induced explosion of any magnitude occurred.

You seem a little confused as to what you're criticising here. Are you trying to say that NIST committed a logical fallacy, therefore lapman's logically correct statement was a Stundie?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/noevidenceblastevent.jpg
Nist- Logical Fallacy (Invalid Argument)

Still not quite there. Note that the quote states NIST's conclusions independently from the comments on the sound levels. Since NIST did not claim the recorded sound levels were the sole premise from which the conclusion was drawn that no blast events occurred, the logical fallacy is unproven.

Dave

 

[Horatius]

I didn't expand anything. SDC was replying to a post by GregoryUrich about historical revisionism in general.

That was itself in a thread that dealt with Holocaust denial, not other historical events. SDC restricting himself to a narrower subject than GregU isn't itself a Stundie level statement; it's not even a logical fallacy.

Cuddles' criterion required stupidity, not necessarily humor.

And where is it written that Cuddles is the sole arbiter of what is required for a good Stundie?

If you want to have a post actually make it into the finals, and have a chance of winning, you've got to bring the funnies.




Unless of course you're hoping none of your noms make it into the finals, so you can play, "Gotcha! Teh Stundies are Biased!" In that case, keep up the good work.

 

[uk_dave]

Has a stundie nomination ever been nominated for a stundie?

Or even the nominated stundie nomination, nominated for a stundie?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've been trying to explain basic, first year high school chemistry to Christopher7. Here's how far I got.

OK, so what is "a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide". If not liquid iron, then what is it?

There's simply no place left to go but here.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

And where is it written that Cuddles is the sole arbiter of what is required for a good Stundie?

Hey, you heard him. I'm in charge now. Worship me, dammit!

 

[Horatius]

Hey, you heard him. I'm in charge now. Worship me, dammit!

I'm trying to come up with a way of worshipping someone named "Cuddles" that can't be interpreted as sexual harassment, and I'm coming up empty. May I simply revere you instead?

 

[1337m4n]

I nominate TheLoneBedouin

I nominate TheLoneBedouin for this post:

Nist- Logical Fallacy (Invalid Argument)

(Note:The step from "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse" to "explosions played no role whatsoever in the collapse" is not supported by Nist's premises, and hence, is an invalid conclusion.

See this thread).

TLB puts words in NIST's mouth! NITS does not say "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse"! NIST says right from the beginning that "hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC7". They prove this by stating the decibel level of an explosive required to destroy even A SINGLE COLUMN is higher than what was observed on 9/11! This proves explosives played no role! TLB puts words into NIST's mouth because he is unable to refute NIST; it is hilarious and Stundie-worthy.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I Nominate You for Nominating me for...

I nominate TheLoneBedouin for this post:
NITS does not say "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse"!

I don't think nits can speak, much less about structural engineering.

Nits- The egg or young of a parasitic insect; lice.

 

[Metullus]

Not facetious at all. Whether or not AFP is anti-semitic is not the point. Does citing an anti-semitic source in any context make you an anti-semite?

Given that your post said:

According to CHF, an example of anti-semitism.

LC cited the "American Free Press,"

without any other context, and given that the American Free Press could fairly be described "as an example of anti-semitism", there is nothing in your post to suggest that CHF posted anything stundie worthy.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You seem a little confused as to what you're criticising here. Are you trying to say that NIST committed a logical fallacy, therefore lapman's logically correct statement was a Stundie?

Dave

No, his statement is logically incorrect whether NIST committed a fallacy or not (and they did). Again, according to lapman:

[Nist's] audio proves there is no evidence of explosives.

There are two problems with the above:

1)NIST only claims that the audio rules out a 140 dB-producing explosive.

2)You can't prove something doesn't exist.