April 2007 Stundie Nominations

Unsecured Coins said:
I went through a grand total of 22 weeks of armor training to be certfied as a crewman on the M1 tank. This was in 1998, and to this DAY I am still learning how to utilize it.

But sit a conspiracy nerd in front of an X-Box for 2 hours and apparently my 72 ton steel tank is negated by the hardend couch combatant with a plasma cannon and photon torpedos.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing. People who play Counterstrike and think because they beat so many other people, that they actually have real skillz, and could do the same with a real weapon. They don't realize that they are playing with other ametuers, in a game... They'd be in for a hell of a wakeup call if they actually went out with real weapons against trained soldiers. It would be tragic.
 
Unsecured Coins said:
I went through a grand total of 22 weeks of armor training to be certfied as a crewman on the M1 tank. This was in 1998, and to this DAY I am still learning how to utilize it.

But sit a conspiracy nerd in front of an X-Box for 2 hours and apparently my 72 ton steel tank is negated by the hardend couch combatant with a plasma cannon and photon torpedos.
Click to expand...

I got Quantum torpedoes, so feh!
 
The Legend has been prolific!

In response to a lesson in structural dynamics. I've highlighted the nominated section, I left the next line in just because:

Stundie @ SLCF said:
Newtons Bit said:
Bazant and Zhou still over exaggerate the resistance of the columns, as they allow plastic hinges to develop plastically that are never seen in the real world.

Those hinges would fracture long before they bend so much. They also use a plastic bending strength of those plastic hinges, Mp, which is based on a bending member having a very small unbraced length.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'm not an engineer and I confused here....If they over exaggerate the resistance of the columns would this in effect mean there is more resistance to the collapse process.

I understand what you are saying about the hinges, but would they also frac
Click to expand...

...ture a sentence?


Nomination # 2, a lesson in self-debunking:
Stundie @ SLCF said:
Not all explosives burn in flames....and I'm no expert on explosives so again, this doesn't disprove a CD.
Here is an example of an explosive which doesn't BURN IN THE FLAMES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)#Advantages
So there is an explosive which could survive the flames.
Click to expand...

He tried using this from the Wikipedia page to support his claim:
It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire.
Click to expand...

But further down the same page it said this:

Because C-4 burns slowly if simply ignited with a flame...
Click to expand...
1193535L.gif
 
Last edited:
This utterly inane brilliant theory was proposed by a genius over at the Screwloosechange blog who goes by the name SwingDangler:

SwingDangler said:
If it were unstable, then it makes complete sense that they would CD it so it wouldn't collapse into other buildings and cause more damage and loss of life considering they had no idea in the manner it might fall.
CD for the benefit of all!
Click to expand...

Yes, he's talking about clandestinely CDing WTC7...while it's a blazing inferno with massive structural damage...to prevent the expected natural collapse...because murdering a few more than 2,973 innocents would be unconscionable to the NWO.

And a little further down in the comments:

SwingDangler said:
The key is being able to control the fall to avoid loss of damage etc, or allowing a fall that can't be controlled.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the witnesses publically stated they thought the thing would fall straight down into its footprint. I've read lean, tilt, "afraid it was going to fall into another building" the last one from an interview live on the scene, etc.

CD would be a much safer and predicatable rather than allow the unknown to occur.

Why cover up the noble aspect of CD? Foreknowledge brings up a whole host of questions now doesn't it.

1. Pass the cost off to insurance.
2. Avoid questions like: who wired it? How did they do it? Who paid them? etc.
3. Why didn't you save all the SEC files?
4. "You mean the taxpayer has to pay for those destroyed Fed. offices now?
Click to expand...

:boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom