• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

November Stundie Nominations

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Here, and only here, is where you will post your nominations for the best, most hilarious posts related to conspiracy theories. Make sure they are thorough abortions of logic.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Ergo continues to wage war on the laws of physics.

ergo said:
They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.
Click to expand...

Brilliant stuff.

Dave
Click to expand...



Quoting the follow-up to this, just so you know he's really that clueless.


ergo said:
Dave Rogers said:
Enlighten us, ergo. Here's an example for you to work through for us. What is the useful work available from an intact object weighing 1kg suspended at a height of 10m above ground level, and what is the useful work available from a 1kg bag of sand suspended at a height of 10m above ground level?
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust: Another twoofer who doesn't believe in math.

WTC Dust said:
Calculations, smalculations. You don't believe your own eyes, so why would calculations do anything?

You can do calculations with the wrong assumptions and nothing real is accomplished.

You didn't answer my question, either. What horizontal force threw those beams hundreds of feet?
Click to expand...
 
Wow. Just... wow. :eye-poppi
3bodyproblem said:
Hehe, common sense tells us that the secret group of hundreds worked tirelessly for weeks on end to rig up the first ever silent controlled demolition on 2 of the largest buildings in the World and one ugly one fooling thousands of eye witnesses and millions watching on live television.
Click to expand...
Quiproquo said:
So you are assuming it is impossible?
Click to expand...

I mean... wow.
 
Just read this
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142608

The real reason why the judge leaves a court and comes back in

We are dealing with magic and curses

Money is cursed (judgements) until it is matured (until substance comes back into commerce); this is why they have to always be in bankruptcy because if the curse matures, it will rebound and they get it all back with interest. So when they send you a judgement it is a curse. Money is the currency of curses and as long as money exists, their curses can never mature. Time to stop using their cursed debt notes, I say.

Blue laws - blue is an ecclesiastical colour that’s why court papers and police use it.

Maxim – One who does not establish their rights has none.

Truly standing in court

When you appear in court, the judge is using the jurisdiction of the Bar Society. We must assert that we are a living being, the blood flows; the flesh lives. So we say:

Sir, I’m here to establish, for and on the record, that I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives and I humbly ask for remedy.

At this point, it is remedy we seek.

The judge now has to offer remedy or he is in dishonour; to avoid providing remedy and his own dishonour, he will leave the court. Whilst he has gone he does something in the background (In all likeliness a Masonic Ritual Prayer) When he comes back into court, he comes back in honour to regain jurisdiction under Maritime Admiralty Law.

Our first statement must be to reiterate our standing:

Sir, to reiterate, for and on the record, I’m here to establish I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives, I humbly ask for cure and maintenance.

At this point it is cure and maintenance we seek.

The judge now has to offer you cure and maintenance. (Admiralty), or he is in dishonour under this law; to avoid his dishonour again, he will leave the court for the second time. (Secretly changing identity to Ecclesiastic Minister) when he reappears, he is now an ecclesiastical priest, under Canon Law. (Vatican)

Again, we must reiterate our standing:

Sir, to reiterate, for and on the record, I’m here to establish I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives, I am Sovereign and nothing stands between my self and the Divine.

It is only at this third standing that Sovereignty can be declared. As the judge has tried and failed at getting jurisdiction over you 3 times, he is in dishonour and his magic and can no longer work as a judge, The game is over for him. FOREVER.

Ecclesiastical Dishonour is the only way to stop the judges and to assert our Sovereignty. We cannot assert this until the third standing.

With this knowledge it is GAME OVER for all of them. They are dead in the water.

If we do not declare our living flesh status by the time we are 7 (the age of reason
declared by the government) we are declared lost at sea, or dead.
We didn’t tell them
we are living and breathing.
This is why they can create a trust and charge anyone
who identifies themselves as this name.
So all the talk of ‘identity theft’ is because
you are identifying yourselves as the name on the birth certificate but you have not
declared yourself living so the government take it that someone is fraudulently using
that name.
So we are responsible for the draconian measures the government take to
counteract this.
If we do not assert our living status, why would the government see
your sovereignty?
They don’t know you from Adam.
‘I see dead people’
‘Where’
‘They’re everywhere, they walk around like regular people – they don’t know
they’re dead!
Click to expand...

I dont really know where to start with that.
 
Horatius said:
Quoting the follow-up to this, just so you know he's really that clueless.
Click to expand...

And, amazingly, it continues to get worse.

ergo said:
Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?
Click to expand...

The formula for gravitational potential energy of a solid is different to the formula for gravitational potential energy of loose material or a fluid, apparently. That's one piece of physics they didn't teach me at university. Should I ask for a refund?

Dave
 
This one is I think a classic example of crank rage against academia and those pesky requirements imposed by universities which get in the way of woos' fantasies:

Jewish and Zionist mass media did and still doing a lot of noise about D.Lipstadt book:"History on trial".

The propaganda has one aim:convince us that so called "holocaust' was debated in independent court and the Madame Lipstadt won the debate against David Irving , proving -at the same time that holocaust did happened .

Well...
That's lie.
few years ago David Irving outraged by the label"holocaust denier" stack on him by m-de Lipstadt and other professors of holocaustianity challenged Madame Lipstadt at court.
And lost.
Court decided that David Irving is a "holocaust denier".

But it was not a "history' on trial but David's Irving case against something he considered as a slander.
Full stop.
Of course reading the Jewish propaganda (incl.a book by D.L.) we should have the impression that during the court procedure the existence of gas chambers ,electric chambers,vacuum chambers etc was proven once and for all beyond any reasonable doubt.

I observed (and still do) Mrs..Lipstadt holo-convulsions since several years.
I forced myself to read her books .
After 25 years of studying the holocaustianity is don't have any doubt that holocaust is a myth and Mrs..Deborah Lipstadt is a liar enjoying the reputation build on lies and propaganda.

After considering the fact that I spend 25 years studying the subject,considering the fact that I published on internet the result of my studies ,considering that Mrs..Lipstadt is using a "professor' title I decided to award myself with exactly the same scientific status.
I,Jerzy Ulicki-Rek call Madame Lipstadt a liar .Today,on 4.11.2010 I-professor of holocaustianity,challenge my learned colleague DEBORAH LIPSTATD to present us with a proof that the theory she is supporting has any merit.
I challenge her arguments and her statements.
I state here -officially and under my own name that professor Lipsatdt is a pathetic fake and liar.

I demand to be presented with scientific arguments which will support Mrs. Lipstatdt theory.

Those arguments have to be in accord with the laws of chemistry,biology,physics,nature and common sense.

I give professor Lipstatd ONE month to respond to my friendly challenge.
If this appeal will be left unanswered I will considered that Mrs. Lipstatd lost by walkover.

I ask every person reading those words to do her/his best in forwarding my challenge to Mrs. .Lipstadt to make sure that she will be aware of the challenge presented.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Wolna Polska zaczyna sie tutaj
Click to expand...

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6224
 
I really think we should consider banning nominations from the Icke forum. Fish? Barrel? Target practice?

On the other hand, the nominations are funny. Let them be nominated HC?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I really think we should consider banning nominations from the Icke forum. Fish? Barrel? Target practice?

On the other hand, the nominations are funny. Let them be nominated HC?
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with allowing nominations from the Icke forum. They're never going to flood the awards totally, if only because most of the posters over there are too incoherent even to look ridiculous.

Dave
 
Nick Terry said:
This one is I think a classic example of crank rage against academia and those pesky requirements imposed by universities which get in the way of woos' fantasies:



http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6224
Click to expand...


Wow.

A Polish Holocaust denier? Any theories on where three million of his countrymen went? Still in hiding to help the Jews make the Nazi's look like bad guys?

But I'm happy that he awarded himself a title in Holocaustology. It's a cool job and you can do it from your mom's basement.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Wow.

A Polish Holocaust denier? Any theories on where three million of his countrymen went? Still in hiding to help the Jews make the Nazi's look like bad guys?

But I'm happy that he awarded himself a title in Holocaustology. It's a cool job and you can do it from your mom's basement.
Click to expand...

Actually he lives in Australia. But yeah, the conceit is definitely a hoot.

He has since been advised by a slightly more rational denier to tighten up his paragraphing to avoid accusations of being a spambot, which is almost Stundie-able in itself, as that amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, putting lipstick on a pig, etc...
 
I love it when conspiracy theorists get so mixed up over their contradictory claims that they start conflating them. Poster cmatrix has been arguing for a long time that WTC7 couldn't have fallen at freefall acceleration unless the supports were removed by explosives, and that it couldn't have fallen without tilting unless they were removed simultaneously. He's now got himself so wound up, he's forgotten which claim is which.

cmatrix said:
If the remaining building supports were not removed simultaneously there would be no free fall. There was free fall. That means the remaining supports were removed simultaneous not progressively.
Click to expand...

Apparently, it's not enough for an object to have no support for it to drop in freefall; the support has to have been removed in the right way.

Dave
 
I don't know whether this works out of context. In context, it's utterly, utterly stunning. Quiproquo (who, I notice, can't even spell his own username) is denigrating the technical knowledge of Architect, who has actually designed high-rise buildings. Ove Arup is a major global firm of consulting engineers who conducted an independent survey on the WTC collapses.

Quiproquo said:
I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.
Click to expand...

A brilliant example of giving a clear, concise summary of his complete lack of credentials.

Dave
 
Eddie Dane said:
Wow.

A Polish Holocaust denier? Any theories on where three million of his countrymen went? Still in hiding to help the Jews make the Nazi's look like bad guys?

But I'm happy that he awarded himself a title in Holocaustology. It's a cool job and you can do it from your mom's basement.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Poland was, and still is, rather anti-Semitic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom