March Stundie Nominations

[Toke]

I wonder what he would say to a suggestion of a egg in a plastic bag being swung repeatedly to smash several trays of eggs.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, this is sort of a multi part stundie
The backstory:

Operatives disguised as maintenace workers would be the likely culprits and it is a well known fact that WTC maintenace was a 24 hour a day endeavour with rotating shifts which employed over a thousand individuals and with those kind of numbers it would be quite easy to infiltrate and plant explosives undetected and this could have occurred day or night due to the familliarity of the uniforms by those that occupied the buildings.

the maintenace workers were already invisible to most of the occupants on a daily basis before 9/11 because most of the occupants were focused on their own tasks to notice including security.

You don't have a real job, do you?

I gave you a plausible theory but just to test my theory have you ever worked in a building of thousands and if so did you know every contractor or maitenace worker by face or name?

I know that this is a difficult concept for some people to understand, but in any job there is a layer of personnel called management. Management means just that, you manage people. You know who is working for you and what they are doing at all times.

The Stundie:

So 'management' makes the business of all the other companies in the building its responsibility?

Yes, that is exactly what the building management does.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lovely. While unintentional irony is amusing, unintentional sincerity is precious and rare.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

The color is inconsistent with jet fuel. I know posters here will have physics and math and all sorts of other explanations that says that the color of the smoke is just exactly what it should be for a jetliner crash. I get it. However, in so doing, posters will be engaging in rationalization.

ra·tion·al·ize v.intr.
1. To think in a rational or rationalistic way.

God forbid that anyone should do that.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

ra·tion·al·ize v.intr.
1. To think in a rational or rationalistic way.

God forbid that anyone should do that.

Dave

You know, the real stundie is when he says "I know posters here will have physics and math and all sorts of other explanations..." in preparation for dismissing our posts. Yeah, heaven forbid anyone apply rigor to their analysis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You know, the real stundie is when he says "I know posters here will have physics and math and all sorts of other explanations..." in preparation for dismissing our posts. Yeah, heaven forbid anyone apply rigor to their analysis.

Oh, I agree that that bit's just as crucial, but I like the general impression produced by the whole; physics and maths are worthless, but so is rationality. Another classic moment of unintentional sincerity.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Keeping the streak alive.

Posters, it is time to concede at least a little bit here. It is the honorable thing to do. The no plane claim is supported by the video in question here.

Admit it.

Just concede a little bit that a highly skewed interpretation of one video proves that jammonius was right all along, even if every other piece of evidence makes it painfully obvious that he's totally Upminster.

Dave

 

[Matthew Cline]

ra·tion·al·ize v.intr.
1. To think in a rational or rationalistic way.

God forbid that anyone should do that.

Dave

I feel kinda weird defending jammonious, but when I read and use that word, I use these definitions:

1) to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes

7) to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.

So him using "rationalize" the way he did is far from stundiable. However, his "oh, you and your physics and math" definitely is.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Galileo's done it again.

Only a fool would believe everything that a politician says.

 

[joe911]

Everything is conciouness/imagination. Gravity is simply an idea that has developed a large pull/belief to it.

The stuff from which everything is made is highly mouldable and "sticky", so an idea imprints easily and once the imprint is made it starts to gain gravity depending upon how much awareness is focused on it.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058755156&postcount=2

 

[Nick Terry]

Keeping the streak alive.



Just concede a little bit that a highly skewed interpretation of one video proves that jammonius was right all along, even if every other piece of evidence makes it painfully obvious that he's totally Upminster.

Dave

When I was living in East London, my friends and I used Dagenham Heathway: three stops past...

 

[Athyrio]

can pink elephant become truth movement logo ???

this would give us additional strength

This is post #3 in this thread at LCF.

Is it just me or does anybody else see a difference between the phrases "elephant in the room" and "seeing pink elephants"?

Also, I think there may be more to the "pink collective" phrase than the poster realizes.

 

[sylvan8798]

This is post #3 in this thread at LCF.

Is it just me or does anybody else see a difference between the phrases "elephant in the room" and "seeing pink elephants"?

Also, I think there may be more to the "pink collective" phrase than the poster realizes.

How does "dealing with this reality" bring us a "more prosperous and peaceful world"?

Their "artwork" is a disgusting display. If I lived in Atlanta I would go out there with buckets of paint and splash paint all over it.

Absolutely disgusting.

All the worse that the idiom "seeing pink elephants" is a reference to drunken hallucinations or the hallucinations serious alcoholics get when they detox. Actually kind of ironic now that I think of it. Fitting?

 

[sylvan8798]

The guy on the WAC atlanta video also mentions white elephants, which is a term for something which is large and difficult to dispose of, but no longer useful. The abandoned factory falling to ruins on the waterfront is a white elephant. 9/11 truth doesn't qualify as a white elephant, since it was never useful to begin with...

Utterly typical of the truthers that they have no idea what they are talking about, even when it commons to the common usages of various idioms, and they don't bother learning anything before making fools of themselves.

 

[JohnG]

Disgusting but poignantly hilarious. No one does a better job of making the TM look stupid than the TM themselves. Sad, really because otherwise the people in the clip all seem like decent, likable people. They're like characters on The Office or a Christopher Guest mockumentary. Well meaning, earnest and likeable but completely clueless.

I just posted the following on their YouTube page. We'll see how long it stays up before the Constitution loving patriots decide it needs to disappear:

The "common idioms" "Pink Elephant" and "White Elephant" are not synonymous with the expression "The elephant in the room".

"Pink Elephant", or more commonly "seeing pink elephants" refers to a drunken hallucination.

"White elephant" refers to an object that the owner is having trouble selling of because it's more trouble than it's worth.

"WACATL" are subliminally saying that the TM are a bunch of hallucinating alcoholics who can't sell their wares to anyone. I call disinfo!

 

[JohnG]

My post appears to have been deleted from YouTube. No trace of any criticism or correction on the page. Just a lot of virtual high fives.

Just another bitterly silly irony of the Truth Movement: the supposedly evil Government "allows" the truthers say whatever they want, but truthers don't extend that same courtesy to anyone who disagrees with them.

Think they would have left my post alone if I hadn't added that last snarky line? No, neither do I.

 

[Elizabeth I]

YAY! I was so afraid someone would beat me to posting this. The first quote is only to give context:

Rory, are there any conspiracies you do NOT believe in?

yea probably, i dont know em all, infact probly only this one and 9/11/bush, nwo, Rothschild, society of Jesus, Illuminati etc. Haven't even looked in the conspiracy forum here lol.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hah. That's great. "Yes, there are conspiracies I don't believe in. The ones I'm not aware of."

 

[Longfellow]

Pink elephants and white elephants? Seems to me that flying pigs would be a better symbol of the '911 truth movement'.

 

[Mel Odious]

Point to Tomk on individual component specs here. It's actually immaterial anyway.

If my argument is wrong, it didn't matter anyways. That doesn't suggest that my premise might be flawed. Maybe eggs are a good analogy:

Go get a dozen eggs, and a clear acrylic tube they'll fit in. Load the eggs, and close one end. Put in ten eggs. crack the 11th egg slightly, and load that in. Then put the 12th egg in. Now push on the top eggs to start breaking eggs, and let me know HOW LONG THE FIRST EGGS LASTS, BEFORE IT BREAKS. Do you understand the model? Don't tell me it's not applicable, it absolutely is and more: You're not going to plow through eleven eggs with the top egg. Assuming they're all absolutely identical, the top egg would break when it broke the third one down. Ad if the eggs got STRONGER the further down you went, as did the WTC, FORGET IT, GAME OVER.

http://www.debatebothsides.com/show...for-Debunking-9-11-Conspiracy-Cultists/page18

Or not..

Ah, another version of the classic truther "egg tower" experiment. Check out Roscoe's winning entry in the March 2007 finals (#20):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78410