• 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.

August Stundie Nominations

I nominate the bit I quoted in this post. The original thread has a link to Facebook where this apparently first showed up.


Horatius said:
This boycott will end on December 30th, 2010 at approximately 12:00AM.

THE RULES:
* DO NOT visit the websites of FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC
* DO NOT watch the TV channels of these networks
* DO NOT watch videos sponsored by these networks

The ONLY way to END THE BOYCOTT is for FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC to individually come forward and:
1. Explain their silence over the subject of 9/11.
2. Begin fully investigating the unanswered questions of 9/11:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Click to expand...



Or, you know, they could just wait a few months......Killer Ultimatum, that one.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
New poster ergo is putting up a strong showing in the increasingly dull 9/11 sub-forum.
Click to expand...
My emphasis added. Even the moon can't crush a high rise, let alone fire and gravity.

ergo said:
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.



Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.
Click to expand...
 
Our "new" twoofer, ergo, analyzes photos of the Twin Towers' collapse and finds that rubble behaved strangely that day, not taking into account that the tower had dropped somewhat and that the wave of rubble below probably originated somewhere were his "ejected matter" is located.

ergo said:
Why are you talking about rubble from the core? Who said anything about rubble from the core being ejected horizontally in four directions? Although, while we're talking about it, there is obviously some matter being ejected upwards:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/10/nyregion/33302049.JPG
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/site1102_1.jpg
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6266360&postcount=697
 
That isn't stundies ergo's best. I personally LOVE this one... It reminds me of something Heiwa tried to pass off (you know, the dropping the top of the towers from 2 miles up level of stupid).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
Ergo said:
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Yes... a moon sized field of rubble wouldn't crush down the twin towers if it was just dropped from a height of 12 feet.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
That isn't stundies ergo's best. I personally LOVE this one... It reminds me of something Heiwa tried to pass off (you know, the dropping the top of the towers from 2 miles up level of stupid).
Click to expand...
All kidding aside, this is where people like Heiwa do actual harm. These poor truther kids read his fancy science talk (Or Harrit or Chandler) and they think he's dealing with reality.
 
Christopher7 said:
"Quote-mining" is a misleading, derogatory term meant to minimize research and selection of relevant quotes. It is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Yes, C7 actually defends quote miners from a "derogatory term".


Fallacy of quoting out of context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom