February Stundie Nominations

[CDRM]

According to one Dereck Wince on Facebook, two commercial airliners hitting two of the busiest buildings in the world (then having them collapse), is by no means devasating enough for one to assume a reasonably high deathtoll.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...211830485&aid=-1&id=1355335902&oid=2211830485



"Also, how did Silverstein know there was "terrible loss of life" at the time the decision was made "to pull IT"? Obviously, he knew there was an incredible loss of life AFTER THE FACT when doing the particular interview, but not at 5pm on 9/11. NOBODY knew how many people had died by that point, they could only make a guess..." -Derek Wince

 

[Travis]

Hey, that's good. That would have gone over well.

"I'm assuming no great loss of life--based on the theory there was a secret matter teleporter in the towers that the jumpers were ignorant of--and I am instead assuming this is merely a matter of real estate vandalism."

 

[Klimax]

Mackey, I must assume since you put up Bazant's bio, that you realize that Bazant is very familiar with nano-thermite research and applications? Wouldn't someone that was trying very hard to come up with new physics look to something he is more familiar with? Something, like perhaps, spray on nano-thermite that he was privy to in the nineties? Come to think of it, weren't the cores sprayed with 'fireproofing' not too long before 9/11? Couldn't the fireproofing had been something else? Something that would still be reacting with the steel beams in the debris piles for days, or even weeks afterwards?

Spray-on nano-thermite makes no sense? Why not? If you were going to deceptively destroy the WTC you would have to disconnect the cores in a manner that didn't look like a nuclear weapon. You would need something that wouldn't require two hundred guys carrying in massive amounts of explosives. Something that could be masked quite easily as a 'fireproofing upgrade'.

I suspect we have here Stundie the second... and soon to come Heiwa-type experiments version 2.0.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Daniel Ganser, author of NATO's Secret Armies, has interviews linked to here, where he spends some time discussing 911.


Although I don't know where Ganser gets this figure from, it seems wholly credible, and if that's the case, it just goes to show you how much work needs to be done to reverse the 'brain washing' - i.e., internalized belief systems and frames that have been deliberately inflicted on the masses - to achieve an honest government. (Honest governments don't murder their own citizens, nor allow them to be murdered, nor do they kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the name of "freedom and democracy", when that is hardly the real goal.)

[bolding mine, and the Stundie nomination]

 

[Travis]

Ha! I guess figures from nowhere are considered credible if they confirm your beliefs.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Ha! I guess figures from nowhere are considered credible if they confirm your beliefs.

That's what I thought..."Sources? Sources? We don't got to show you no stinkin' sources."

 

[Travis]

That's what I thought..."Sources? Sources? We don't got to show you no stinkin' sources."

I should have tried that in college. "Sorry Professor but these figures seemed entirely credible to me so I see no reason to divulge their origin to you."

 

[Horatius]

I should have tried that in college. "Sorry Professor but these figures seemed entirely credible to me so I see no reason to divulge their origin to you."

metamars should have tried that in College too. Then maybe he would have learned why it's a bad idea.

 

[Travis]

metamars should have tried that in College too. Then maybe he would have learned why it's a bad idea.

But...but then we wouldn't have the Stundie Nomination!

In fact the entire continued existence of the Stundies is predicated on Conspiracy Theorists continuing to be ignorant of what is evidence and what is rational.

 

[Mel Odious]

BUT, everything is a conspiracy theory. It just depends if you believe the governments' (who are notorious for lying) theory... or the logical theories that we all cling too.

DI Forums.

Well, it's nice to see one of the loons actually come out and say it point-blank ...

 

[Travis]

He gets points for honesty. It's still sad and funny though.

 

[Horatius]

Why would one have to "Cling" to a logical theory?

 

[240-185]

A false CT is a right CT, according to Old Bob:

Canola oil causes sight damage? Please link me.

here's a link to start with, http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp

 

[Horatius]

Teh Winnar!

ETA: And it just gets better:

What a mob of ungreat full b------ Keep on taking canola it's so good. Weather the link is all correct or not the fact is it's G.M. rape seed plant that made mustard gas. Do a bit of hunting yourselves and one day the truth might dawn, I was going to say "will dawn" but in your cases I don't know.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Old Bob is such a treasure. I think of him as the Gabby Johnson of conspiracy theorists.

Dave

 

[Horatius]

Here's one from KreeL, responding to R.Mackey. I include the entirety of the post R.Mackey made, just so you get the full effect of how ironic it is:

It's like driving past a dog with a broken leg on the side of the road. You just can't without wanting to do something. All right, one last chance for education, and then you're done.


First, take a look at the significant digits in the measurement. We have 2.1 and 2.3. Two significant digits. This means a minimum error of +/- 0.1 is implicit in the measurement itself. So it is possible that both collapses were identical, registering 2.2, but we measured 2.3 and 2.1 due to random error. This would be a valid explanation no matter what we were measuring, be it shaking intensity, length, distance, mass, or the number of people remaining in the Truth Movement.

Next, read this. It tells you how Richter magnitude is actually calculated. Marvel at how inexact the process is.

Then click below:

Did you see where it said the following?

Or, later:

If you didn't, go back and read it again.

And to clarify, that's plus or minus 0.2, or up to 0.4 between two events, at only one standard deviation.

Do you also understand that chaotic events, like collapses coupling to the ground, don't always behave exactly the same way each time? I explained this to you before.

Next, what do you make of the fact that the impacts were also 0.2 M_R apart (WTC 1 0.9, WTC 2 0.7)? And that the lesser of the two was WTC 2 in both impact and collapse? Vaguely possible systematic error, maybe terrain effect, that's what you should make of it, though I imagine you have some fantastic excuse for that as well.

And finally, the researchers at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, who computed those estimates, don't see anything suspicious about them at all. What does that tell you? Are you a million times smarter than they are, despite being off by a factor of five in your initial boasts just two days ago?

Learning is not easy. Otherwise, everyone would do it. Give it a try.

Your answer is lame.

Try again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

KreeL's the latest bright star in the Stundie sky, isn't he?

The south tower explodes, but hardly scratches WTC7. The north tower explodes, and from a further distance it nearly knocks WTC7 over by raining thousands of tons of steel onto it.

Someone claiming to have studied 9/11 in detail doesn't know where WTC7 was. And he's trying to lecture us.

Dave

 

[Travis]

I have high hopes for KreeL. Things have been quiet since Ultima1 got out of Dodge.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think he's ruled himself ineligible for the north/south tower one by actually admitting he was wrong.

Dave

 

[Travis]

Yeah, I saw that. Oh well, there are plenty of other good ones.