December Stundie Nominations

From the comments on an article about voodoo priests being lynched over the cholera epidemic in Haiti, EYESAREOPEN clues us in to the evils of the UN

The U.N., and the soviets in the past helped fund an African communist Patrice Lumumba he moved the people of the Congo with speeches about gaining independence and no longer being a Belgium colony. Within a week after the Congo was no longer under Belgium protection or authority he ended up massacring his own people with the assistance of U.N. troops.

After railing on about the UN in Africa for a bit he ends with:

It's unfortunate that the earthquake that was caused in Haiti by HAARP, put it's people in such devastation that they are resorting to killing each other instead of fighting the real causes of this tragedy.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_new...to-halt-lynchings-of-voodoo-priests#c50311101
 
chrisv25 on the Blackvault
http://www.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25&p=71731#p71731

Bolds mine
lastly i find it hard to believe that a firefighter with a type 3 fire cert wouldn't know the difference between the sound of falling rubble and an explosion. there are very big differences in the report of a shape charge and the thud of rubble... also some of the firefighters reported explosions before the building began to collapse.

and lastly they reported WT7 fell BEFORE it actually fell...combine that with an interview of the owner of the building saying that he told them to pull it...and that is enough to provide reasonable doubt that a NUCLEAR BOMB SHELTER(which is what WT7 was) and the EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER FOR THE CITY just fell down...which is ludicrous and shows a little lack of reality on your part.

Hmm, a nuclear bomb shelter on any floor above ground would seem rather odd. Then again the poster had two 'last' points he had to make
 
First stundie nom from my science board...someone clearly didn't think this plan fully through. ;)

Are there any reasons why runways for airliners should not be roofed?

Huge open ended hangars, allowing planes to fly in and out, making all weather airports a possibility?

It would have covered bays off the hangar also for (dis)embarking. The roof could even be retractable into the ground either side of the runway during good weather.

Sides of the roof could be shuttered and openable to allow for cross winds during landing /take off.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=105663
 
Today we learned a portion of WTC did not reach free fall, as reported by NIST:

Nowhere in NIST's final report does it say only a portion of WTC 7 reached free fall. They measured WTC 7's collapse using video from the north, and they note that the north face descends at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

But the north face did. I stand corrected.
 
I fail to see any stundie-material here.

What part of this is incorrect?

BTW,, link?

A burning human body releases net heat rather than consuming any. The problem is to initially cook away the water in the bodies, which takes some external fuel and makes burning single corpses inefficient. But once you have dried the first corpses in a larger pile and gotten them to burn, the process becomes mostly self-sustaining, you only need to provide ventilation.​


The first sentence sounds like a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, although I might not be understanding what Oystein is saying.

The rest of what he says is nonsense. Boiling off the water in our bodies will not leave a fuel source that can create a self-sustaining fire for burning more bodies. Theoretically, if there is sufficient wicking material, a burning body could consume itself except for the bones and teeth. In the real world you'll need an external fuel source to create a very hot fire to completely consume a body. There are no economies of scale. You will never create a fire from burning corpses that will sustain itself to burn more corpses.

Saggy's mistake was presenting this quote from Oystein as an answer to a holocaust denier. Pretend Oystein said this in support of spontaneous human combustion and you'll see the problems.
 
A burning human body releases net heat rather than consuming any. The problem is to initially cook away the water in the bodies, which takes some external fuel and makes burning single corpses inefficient. But once you have dried the first corpses in a larger pile and gotten them to burn, the process becomes mostly self-sustaining, you only need to provide ventilation.​


The first sentence sounds like a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, although I might not be understanding what Oystein is saying.

The rest of what he says is nonsense. Boiling off the water in our bodies will not leave a fuel source that can create a self-sustaining fire for burning more bodies. Theoretically, if there is sufficient wicking material, a burning body could consume itself except for the bones and teeth. In the real world you'll need an external fuel source to create a very hot fire to completely consume a body. There are no economies of scale. You will never create a fire from burning corpses that will sustain itself to burn more corpses.

Saggy's mistake was presenting this quote from Oystein as an answer to a holocaust denier. Pretend Oystein said this in support of spontaneous human combustion and you'll see the problems.

.
Well, lookit there -- DZ just nom'd zirself...

Free hint: check into how entire herds of cattle were destroyed when they contracted mad cow disease...
.
 
A burning human body releases net heat rather than consuming any. The problem is to initially cook away the water in the bodies, which takes some external fuel and makes burning single corpses inefficient. But once you have dried the first corpses in a larger pile and gotten them to burn, the process becomes mostly self-sustaining, you only need to provide ventilation.​


The first sentence sounds like a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, although I might not be understanding what Oystein is saying.

You probably do misunderstand.

The rest of what he says is nonsense. Boiling off the water in our bodies will not leave a fuel source that can create a self-sustaining fire for burning more bodies.

Wrong. If you had looked at my full posts that Saggy wanted to stundy, including references, you would know that this is the entire point of my argument: The body contains more fuel than necessary to cook off water, and therefore, once you cooked of the water, there will be fuel left.

Theoretically, if there is sufficient wicking material, a burning body could consume itself except for the bones and teeth.

In the real world you'll need an external fuel source to create a very hot fire to completely consume a body.

Exactly. Theoretically. In practice, as I already posted myself before Saggy came along, you'd probably need a little extra fuel to account for inefficencies, and that's why the indented quote above contains the word "mostly self-sustaining"

There are no economies of scale. You will never create a fire from burning corpses that will sustain itself to burn more corpses.

Wrong. There are economies of scale.

Saggy's mistake was presenting this quote from Oystein as an answer to a holocaust denier. Pretend Oystein said this in support of spontaneous human combustion and you'll see the problems.

No. There will be no spontaneous combustion because you initially need external fuel to cook away the water. Again, that was the basic premise of my argument, and you managed to miss it. Human tissue is not easily set aflame without prior drying.




Slowly, again, for you: The body, being wet, doesn't burn by itself, as evaporating body water will keep temperatures too low to sustain a fire. So for the first body (or bodies), you need external fuel to cook away enough water. Once you have accomplished this, the body will continue burning on its own, and release more energy in the process than you put in externally to cook away the water. Now that you got your first body (or bodies) burning, you can use the heat of their fire to cook away the water of additional bodies, without adding any more (or at least much) additional external fuel. The process becomes (mostly) self-sustaining after you dried your first layer of bodies sufficiently to make them flammable.
Why is this? Because the fuels of the body (fat, dry organic tissues) release about 10 times as much energy by burning than you need to cook away (evaporate) the 40kg of water in an average body.



Could you please acknowledge that you got it now?
 
It may be the beer, it may be that I agree with communism socialism, it maybe that it's 03:30 or it's maybe that I can walk into an ER with a busted anything, and not get charged that I nominate;

Socialized Medicine is not necessarily in the best interest of American human beings or American society as a whole.

I could laugh or cry at that line but that'd mean crying into my beer and that never tastes right.
 
This is a wonderful piece of confused thinking from tempesta29. Any arguments as to whether it's likely that somebody chose to use thermite in demolishing the WTC are completely invalid, because decisions involve no random element.

When you're talking about the conscious decision-making of individuals, in this case using thermite in demolition, probability has little relevance, because that occurrence did not take place as the result of seemingly random events; someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition.

So, apparently, there's no actual reason why anyone chose to use a method of demolition that had never been tried before, but the lack of a reason means it wasn't a random event. :confused:

Dave
 
While we're at it, the same poster responds to a demand for numbers by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the principle that 0=0.

I don't have a background in engineering or physics. I know what I know, and from what I know, the collapses don't make sense.

Apparently engineering and physics aren't what you need to know.

Dave
 
chrisv25 on the Blackvault
http://www.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25&p=71731#p71731

Bolds mine


Hmm, a nuclear bomb shelter on any floor above ground would seem rather odd. Then again the poster had two 'last' points he had to make

We got ourselves a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ winner right here!!

Wow!! You mean to tell me that the ENTIRE 7WTC was a nuclear bomb shelter. Must have been some wicked thick windows!!

It was above ground so they'd be shielded against air blasts.

:boxedin:

Same poster now replies;
the power sub-station below WT7 was declared a bomb shelter by the atomic energy commission in 1987 (look it up). It was stocked with fresh water and supplies and they even had one of those neat fallout shelter signs on the front of the building.

Sooooo, apparently the belief that the building could fall down is ridiculous because there is a bomb shelter in the basement.
What this then has to do with the Emergency command center , ....?
 
Same poster now replies;


Sooooo, apparently the belief that the building could fall down is ridiculous because there is a bomb shelter in the basement.
What this then has to do with the Emergency command center , ....?


Have you pointed out to him that a "bomb shelter" isn't exactly the same thing as a "fallout shelter"?



A fallout shelter is a shelter designed specifically to survive a nuclear war, with thick walls made from materials intended to block the radiation from fallout resulting from a nuclear explosion. Many such shelters were constructed as civil defense measures during the Cold War. A blast shelter protects against more conventional bomb blasts. It differs from a fallout shelter, in that its main purpose is to protect from shock waves and overpressure, instead of from radioactive precipitation, as a fallout shelter does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_shelter
 
A lot of the quotes from tempesta29 are problematic because they are true statements when taken out of context. I had to go and read the surrounding posts to understand what was actually being claimed or defended.

That's a real issue for me, because at that point I'm reading a Truther thread and my brain starts trying to kill itself to stop the stupid from getting in. I prefer my Stundies to be safely sealed in a quote box so I can get a nice neat dose of crazy - like going to the zoo rather than on safari.
 
My favourite paranoid CTer at the Blackvault writes:
Simple enough---the technology required to send man to ANY PLANET in 1969 didn't exist---only those who were connected to incomes dependent upon such BS would ever believe it, while a few are too gutless to even consider it.

Dave McGowan has done great work in this regard, as have many others--be careful the plants--those who willingly guide you into the abyss in hopes of branding you a NUTTER
http://www.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5107&p=71786#p71786

Has anyone ever been to another "planet"?
However the purity of the paranoia is what makes the post so juicy for me, particularily because I believe that Cole has me, among others, in mind as one who guides unsuspecting persons in to the abyss of nutterdome.

Thread topic is 'breaking' :rolleyes: news about NASA erroneously losing/erasing videos of the first Lunar landing. The OP also qualifies as a Stundie.
 

Back
Top Bottom