December Stundie Nomination Thread

[gtc]

Silly statements by truthers are common but I think these are quite funny.

But with 911 there is no evidence that it was an inside job, and there's also no evidence that it wasn't. So bleating "It definitely wasn't an inside job" is just as deluded as bleating "It definitely was an inside job!"

No one is saying that there's evidence of 911 being an inside job.

But then there's no evidence of it not being an inside job either. All there is, is a confession coerced under torture and who is about to be tried in a kangeroo Military court.

Whether or whether it wasn't an inside job is down to BELIEF....
.

Both dewunkers AND twoofers are working on subjectivity. Those who believe 911 had no involvement by 'Western' groups are no different to those who firmly believe that 'Western' did have some invovlement

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I fully stand by them, but by all means enter them into the competition. by doing so it just reinforces my points about both you and the similarities between dewunkers and twoofers

 

[Drudgewire]

I fully stand by them, but by all means enter them into the competition. by doing so it just reinforces my points about both you and the similarities between dewunkers and twoofers

Keep reaching for that rainbow.

 

[gtc]

I fully stand by them, but by all means enter them into the competition. by doing so it just reinforces my points about both you and the similarities between dewunkers and twoofers

You are not allowed to nominate yourself.

However, maybe the rules should be changed as it would save time.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You are not allowed to nominate yourself.

However, maybe the rules should be changed as it would save time.

Bad idea. A lack of self-awareness on the part of the nominee is a big part of what makes the Stundies so damn funny.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Found one on GFAQs.

This comes from WebEffect:

Just like that reputable Chief of Emergency Services of New York City (can't remember his exact title) who was inside Building 7 on 9/11 and said he saw and heard premature bombs going off in several columns in the bilding when descending the staircases, a few hours before anything happened that morning.

Never had a heart condition in his life, 50 years old. He dies of a heart attack 3 days before the NIST report whitewashing the collapse of Building 7 comes out earlier this fall. (It of course denies everything the guy said he saw and blames an unprecedantant "architectural miracle" on the collapse.)

How convenient that he's dead just in time to not sue and be a reputable witness, isn't it?

Gotta admire the sense of justice in those posts.

7 years since 9/11....and they want to SUE.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=214&topic=47225179

 

[Bell]

Linked to in this post.

Original post here.

Its obvious by the first paragraph that the person who wrote this article is out to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, rather than to debate key points of the 9/11 truthers argument. He uses big words and vague refrences to try and sound credible. I wouldnt be suprised if he/she is on the governments payroll. And the website "counterknowledge.com" is higly suspect. Has anyone heard of it before? Why would we need a website to debunk "conspiracy theories" when our governments are so conspiratorial? Remember what president bush said about not tolerating "outrageous conspiracy theories"? Yeah, I usually just take whatever that guy says and do the opposite. To the author of this article: Good luck debunking 9/11 truthers. You are not the first to try.

 

[Blender Head]

From RKO's YouTube channel comment section*:

This shill's videos are so weak and have been debunked multiple times over.

Don't watch this video account, it's fascist propaganda.

How's that for "open-mindedness"?

*Screengrab upon request.

 

[332nd]

Gulf War anyone?

Some of these videos wills were taken after 911, obviously. Proof? A few of them say they are attacking because we are invading Muslim lands. I dont remember our forces invading till after 911, do you?

 

[TriskettheKid]

Ready for some more CT math?

This one's from Mega man Forever over on GFAQs:

I basically proved that we lost our right to privacy. That includes a lot of our rights.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=214&topic=47244050

 

[TriskettheKid]

Just found another one from Mega man Forever.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here:

In public your conversations have privacy but what I'm saying is that aside from that there is no way of knowing of whether your conversations are private or not. Like for instance, what way would you have of knowing if your email was on the NSA's supercomputer or not?

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=214&topic=47244050

 

[Klimax]

Just found another one from Mega man Forever.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here:





http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=214&topic=47244050

I think it parses like this:In public you know what privacy you have(none),while conversation on-line (ICQ,email,etc...)can be intercepted,so you cannot be sure if somebody is not reading it.Unless you use encryption... (Yes even AES can be theoretically cracked,but AFAIK it was not done)

Maybe I filled in missing things from quote...

 

[Bell]

Just found another one from Mega man Forever.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here:





http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=214&topic=47244050

In public your conversations are private?

Muwhahaha!! [/evil NWO laugh]

 

[Slayhamlet]

I agree, with the caveat that scientific consensus is sometimes wrong, and some people treat it as just another form of faith in authority.

Galileo looking though his telescope at the moons of Jupiter is the 17th century equivalent of people today watching videos of WTC 7.

There's just nothing I can say to this.

 

[Travis]

I suppose if Galileo had looked at those moons and then concluded they were giant honeybees the analogy might work.



By the way, there is no rule against self nomination. It's not as funny but whatever floats someones boat.

 

[1337m4n]

No, I think I will take TFT off Ignore. He is just too bloody entertaining.

By the way, there is no rule against self nomination. It's not as funny but whatever floats someones boat.

Technically, he didn't nominate himself. All he did was pull the "you're-only-proving-my-point" card, which is generally a sure sign that it got to his feelings. Maybe it wouldn't be so nice to nominate him after all...

 

[Mel Odious]

This is the first time I've seen a "twin towers had working nuclear reactors" hypothesis before. I've quoted the entire section for context; the part I'm nominating is in boldface.

Posted: Dec 12 2008, 11:27 PM

One author, though, (I forget now, but can dig it up if anyone wishes) claims that there is strong evidence of a China Syndrome at ground zero.

Now, a China Syndrome is not at all a nuke-in-the-basement-blows-the-Towers-to-smithereens theory.

Instead, a China Syndrome theory would indicate that there was a nuclear reactor of some sort at GZ. And, that the deconstruction of the Towers *caused* a melt-down of that reactor, i.e. a China Syndrome, or Chernobyl.

We know that nuclear reactors can be made small enough to fit inside long thin tubes called nuclear submarines.

We, also know, that most land-based nuclear reactors are usually wrapped in concrete.

We see a long, thin, vertical, concrete-like thing in the Zafar photo and in the wind-tunnel simulation.

Why would a nuclear reactor be placed at G.Z.? Same reason as why they are put into nuclear subs - autonomy. Off-the-grid energy. Energy consumption that cannot be tracked and registered.

Maybe "asbestos" was not the WTC's main problem. Maybe it was time to retire the reactor?

(Wow, sometimes I even impress myself with my ability to follow out-of-the-box reasoning and not shutting it down too early. I don't buy this theory, yet, but if the China Syndrome evidence is not B.S., we might need to consider this idea).

So the next time you need to "retire" a nuclear reactor, now you know what to do. Just collapse a huge ****ing building on top of it.

Source. - The 9/11 Truth Movement Forums.

 

[Drudgewire]

So the next time you need to "retire" a nuclear reactor, now you know what to do. Just collapse a huge ****ing building on top of it.

With airplanes.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

So the next time you need to "retire" a nuclear reactor, now you know what to do. Just collapse a huge ****ing building on top of it.

Reminds me of the Robot Chicken Star Wars where Han Solo winds up talking to Darth Vader over the intercom who then suggests that they "might as well put one in."

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"Helikaon" at the World of Warcraft Off-Topic forums dropped this steaming pile today:

You could have crashed 100 Planes into the top of the World Trade Centers and they wouldn't have fallen down the way the did on 9/11.

Yes, I'm aware his entire post is a fountain of stupid, but it's obviously that the 100 planes is what will get him the monthly stundie booby-prize.