April Stundie Nominations

Comparing the WTC's to that of trees. LMAO!

Here's a little gem from a retarded Truther:

http://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/139305342806959

James Wanzer:

No, I will NOT STFU, and you can't make me:) You demand 'proof' from us without backing up your story??? All you have to do is open your eyes for the proof you're looking for. Example: The south tower leaned over at approx. 20 degrees and ...then went straight down. The fact that the building leaned over means that it COULD NOT have had a symentrical pile-driver effect on the lower floors. Not only that, but the tower stopped leaning (rotating) and went straight down. IT would have taken an opposite and equal force to stop the top of the south tower from falling OVER NOT DOWN. My proof is Newtonian physics that DO NOT LIE. Your turn.
Click to expand...

Another hit piece from same person:

That only tells me you don't comprehend the concept of... torque and rotational force. The south tower falling straight down is the whole bread and butter of my arguement, it should NOT have fallen straight down, it should have tipped over and fallen off. Again Newtonian physics do not lie.
Click to expand...

That's just retarded! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Im going to nominate a double stundie
Firstly the idiotic yozhik wrote on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831558&postcount=21
To not believe in God necessitates that you do believe in the existence of God.
What you are expressing is a choice; believe in God or not believe in God.

Whichever choice you make, both are premised on the existence of God.
Click to expand...
So to not believe something exists you must actually believe it exists?????

then we have stratty who wrote in another thread commenting on another of Yozhiks posts
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059832104&postcount=11
Kin ell Yozhik!

Got to hand it to you, you know how to use reason, logic and argument. Amazing piece of work. It's no wonder micklemus and rumpey act like little trembling fairy-bitches when they (don't) debate with you. Always enjoy your posts, and to be honest you are one of the very few, and I mean very few, that I truly learn from.

Regards,

Stratty.
Click to expand...
Stratty, you really need to aim a little higher.
 
sts60 said:
What's amazing is how they can get random amateur astronomers, like Rob Bullen of England, to participate in the hoax. He took, I mean faked of course, this image on 26 Feb. (From NASA Image of the Day gallery.)
Click to expand...

Of course it's faked. There's no stars!

After 30 years and they still haven't learned to put stars in their fake photos.
 
Java Man, in between claims of molten steel and other chicanery.

Java Man said:
carlitos said:
Misspelled Godwins totally rock!
Click to expand...

Who's Godwins?
Click to expand...
carlitos said:
Java Man said:
Trying to pull a Goebbles there?
Click to expand...

Godwin's LawWP

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Java Man said:
No, I actually meant Goebbels. I didn't misspell anything.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 is back among us, demonstrating the breathtaking scope and depth of his lack of understanding.

Christopher7 said:
Extracting sulfur dioxide from drywall requires a very specific set of conditions including an atmosphere containing nitrogen. These conditions are only attainable in a kiln where the atmosphere is controlled.
Click to expand...

Nitrogen, eh? Not much of that stuff in the atmosphere normally, then.

Dave
 
Heh. Reminds me of that botched creationist argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
Click to expand...
 
It was a pretty standard argument against evolution a fair while ago, back in the Henry Morris days, but many of the more "scientifically respectable" Intelligent Design proponents don't associate themselves with it any more. It often still has traction on the periphery, many of the in-the-wild unglossed true believers might still use it as an argument. I'm not sure if Matt is paraphrasing or if he has a particular poster that he's quoting.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, the "not believing in God requires believing in him/it" one still has my vote.

My suspicion is that the originator is horribly misremembering arguments that many "traditional" forms of Satanism, the ones that have black masses that are a deliberate perversion of the traditional mass, are still defining themselves by contrast with the orthodoxy and are thus part of the same memetic complex. But boy howdy, that's still an illogical leap I can't quite wrap my head around.
 
Oh noes!!!!!!!!!!!! The NWO has started putting nitrogen in the atmosphere. We'll all get the bends now for sure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom