December Stundie Nominations

This one doesn't have quite the in your face stupidity of many of the others, but is notable for who it's coming from.

Sarah Palin('s ghostwriter) said:
"Climate-gate," as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle – the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The emails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicised science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the US Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits – not pursuing a political agenda.
Click to expand...

link
 
triforcharity said:
Here is a nice little gem from Ian over at the TruTV forums.



WHAT????????????????????????

http://boards.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=5764&page=9
Click to expand...

Strong contender here. I'm a sucker for a post that contains "ergo, ipso facto, furthermore, here unto referred as, in addition to but not excluded by, thusly". There's something poetic about proving you have a big enough mouth before you put your foot in it.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Strong contender here. I'm a sucker for a post that contains "ergo, ipso facto, furthermore, here unto referred as, in addition to but not excluded by, thusly". There's something poetic about proving you have a big enough mouth before you put your foot in it.
Click to expand...



And he just keeps going....

wargord said:
Ian said:
I would suggest that it is best to ignore posters like reconmarine. Not because disagreement with alternative theories is not acceptable - reasoned, supportable debate is always appreciated. But rather because he engages in ad hominem attacks (always a sign of someone grasping at straws) and offers "statements" of "fact" without a single shred of support (no links, no photos, no sources) which he wants others to accept at his word.
Click to expand...

If you could then please post your links, photos and sources so we don't have to accept you at your word.
Click to expand...



Ian said:
To Wargord

When I talk about citing sources, etc., I am not suggesting that every sentence of every post requires "proof." Some things are axiomatic (e.g., the laws of physics), some are obvious (we all saw the fireball created by the impact of the second plane), some things are intuitive (a pyroclastic cloud of dust and a corrollary lack of large chunks of concrete), etc.
Click to expand...
 
"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits – not pursuing a political agenda."


Does she not know what politics is?
 
bwinwright said:
:rolleyes:Those who claim 9/11 was not an inside job, that WTC Building Number 7 simply somehow just got tired and fell, perfectly at the speed of gravity, directly into its own footprint are either naive or in on the crime.

These truth deniers refer to the findings of government paid engineers and to the likes of Rudy, the criminal, Giuliani as proof that 9/11 was not an inside job.

These truth deniers are either naive in the extreme or paid disinformation agents because they can so easily brush off the consensus professional opinion of close to 1,000 engineers and architects, active members of Richard Gage's Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

I asked a man named Mark Roberts, one of the leading truth deniers/truth debunkers, how Giuliani and his Fire Chief managed to make WTC Building Number 7 appear to be a perfect controlled demolition, having only 3 hours or so to make all the preparations? Of course, neither Mark nor any other truth denier can answer that question.
Why? Because Rudy Giuliani, along with his fire chief, were clearly involved in the commission and cover up of this crime.

In our fast paced electronic world, the truth spreads much faster than ever before. If I was one of these criminal or naive truth deniers, I would make a statement as soon as possible reversing my bogus and destructive position.

Currently, all of these truth deniers only enable the criminals to get away with this crime. It is so easy to determine who you are too. If you are just naive that's one matter. However, if you are willingly serving the criminals as a disinformation agent, you are committing treason. And, we all know what traitors deserve.

If you truth deniers happened to be physicians who knew as little about medicine as you do about this 9/11 matter, you would be judged incompetent and have your license revoked.

When the revolution takes to the streets I believe the truth deniers who refuse to tell the truth will be hunted down and dealt with rather harshly, deservedly so.
Click to expand...

I particularly like the highlighted part.
 
Horatius said:
And he just keeps going....
Click to expand...
If there were pyroclastic clouds then I don't understand why they are all whiny about their being molten metal. The whole, 'there were pyroclastic clouds of dust' argument is a pet peeve of mine. How stupid can you get?
 
knife fight colobus said:
If there were pyroclastic clouds then I don't understand why they are all whiny about their being molten metal. The whole, 'there were pyroclastic clouds of dust' argument is a pet peeve of mine. How stupid can you get?
Click to expand...

Hmm well according to Wikipedia they can only get as hot as 1000 C...those Truthers got every angle!
 
Someone has a problem with scaling...

Consider a #16 common framing nail: Generally, a 24 ounce hammer is used to drive a #16 nail into dimentional framing lumber. A #16 weighs about .3 ounces therefore the hammer weighs about 80 times more than the nail. According to the building codes where I come from a #16 is required to withstand 50 lbs of force in order to get it to begin to move once set into framing lumber. Therefore it must take more than 50 lbs of force to drive it into the lumber and set it in the first place.

So, I have shown that a steel shaft can withstand forces from very much larger transiting masses at high velocity and maintain dimentional integrety; they will still hold there shape and compressive strength.

It's fairly easy to bend the nail with a crooked hit. But if the hammer were smaller it would become more difficult not only to drive the nail but also to bend it. A 10 ounce cabinet hammer is 33 times heavier than the #16 nail but it's very hard to drive the nail with such a light hammer. It is also a lot harder to bend the nail with a crooked hit. Imagine using a hammer which weighs 2ounces. Although the hammer is better than 6 times heavier than the nail I doubt anyone could drive the nail or bend it with a strike.

Basic Iron Frame Construction

The frame of a skyscraper is steel, which is predominately iron, like a nail. The weight is supported by load bearing vertical steel shafts. The shafts are held plum (90 degree angle from ground) by steel cross members and lots of them.

Progressive Collapse Scenario

Vertical support becomes weak due to fire and collision damage so the weight above the damaged support comes down. It gains momentum as it falls breaking loose more of the structure which begins to fall, also, adding to the momentum. This process continues until there is no frame visible and the whole structure, over 400 meters high, is in a heap no higher than 25 meters. (25 meter figure from Bazant/Zhou; Why Did The Towers Fall. It has been contested. Many have said that the "pile' wasn't quite that tall.)

So, the top of the building became like a hammer and struck with destructive force the lower part of the building.

Consider the south tower. According to the NIST it broke off at around 2/3 up the length of the building. So the “hammerhead”weighed less than ½ the “nail” below.

Imagine striking a #16 common with a hammer that weighed .15 ounces! Would you expect to bend or break the nail with such a small hammer?
Click to expand...

From McCob at 5:04 PM
 
Slayhamlet said:
Lol at the "intuitive" pyroclastic cloud.
Click to expand...
Ian said:
Re pyroclastic, you are wrong again. While it is true that the prefix “pyro” means “fire,” a pyroclastic cloud (or pyroclastic surge) need not have any “fire” within it: only superheated gases, dust, rock, or other materials. And the main “behavior” of a pyroclastic cloud/surge is EXACTLY the same as what we saw after the buildings collapsed. I invite everyone to watch videos of the immediate effects of a volcanic explosion, then watch the videos of the (heated) dust cloud rolling through lower Manhattan.
Click to expand...

So strange how there were no reports of people in the "cloud" emerging with their skin burnt off...:(
 
Last edited:
Sweet. It's almost encouraging to see that some things are too ridiculous to believe, but still.
 
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that one? It has to be a translation error right? Or is the US left with unemployed bombs and no money to feel up new buildings
?
 
3bodyproblem said:
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that one? It has to be a translation error right? Or is the US left with unemployed bombs and no money to feel up new buildings
?
Click to expand...
the really difficult part is for self employed bombs to afford health insurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom