• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

January Stundie Nominations

minnemouse said:
I dont know if it counts; but I almost fell of my chair when reading this in a Norwegian forum, hosted by the largest newspaper in Norway about wtc1&2 collapses:

"Angående kreftene, så vet vi at tyngdekraften på bakken er veldig lav. Og under bakken, flere tusen ganger lavere enn over. Hva fikk tårnene til å kollapse flere etasjer under bakken da? (skal du dra inn flybensin her og? Så må det snart være tomt i tanken..) Men allikevell så ble flere etasjer knust, under bakkenivå. Ingen har noen forklaring på dette.. Utenom vi som betviler det tullet dere tror på :)"

Translation:
"Regarding the energy; we know that gravity on the ground is very low. And underneath the ground, several thousand times lower than above ground. So what made the towers to collapse several floors under ground? (I am sure you are gonna drag plane fuel into this discussion too! But arent those tanks empty yet.....) But still, several floors were crushed under ground level. No one has an explanation for that. Except us that doubts the ******** you believe in."

When I first read this .... eh.... idiot, I thought that he was kidding; but his about 2400 posts showed me that he is deadly serious.
Click to expand...


That's amazing. So, I can dig a hole in my back yard and experience micro gravity?

I am sorry that most of you guys cant read Norwegian, but for those that can; here is the thread; and the author is sheldon cooper:
Click to expand...


Irony of ironies if he got that name from The Big Bang Theory.
 
minnemouse said:
I dont know if it counts; but I almost fell of my chair when reading this in a Norwegian forum, hosted by the largest newspaper in Norway about wtc1&2 collapses:

"Angående kreftene, så vet vi at tyngdekraften på bakken er veldig lav. Og under bakken, flere tusen ganger lavere enn over. Hva fikk tårnene til å kollapse flere etasjer under bakken da? (skal du dra inn flybensin her og? Så må det snart være tomt i tanken..) Men allikevell så ble flere etasjer knust, under bakkenivå. Ingen har noen forklaring på dette.. Utenom vi som betviler det tullet dere tror på :)"

Translation:
"Regarding the energy; we know that gravity on the ground is very low. And underneath the ground, several thousand times lower than above ground. So what made the towers to collapse several floors under ground? (I am sure you are gonna drag plane fuel into this discussion too! But arent those tanks empty yet.....) But still, several floors were crushed under ground level. No one has an explanation for that. Except us that doubts the ******** you believe in."

When I first read this .... eh.... idiot, I thought that he was kidding; but his about 2400 posts showed me that he is deadly serious. I am sorry that most of you guys cant read Norwegian, but for those that can; here is the thread; and the author is sheldon cooper:

http://vgd.no/kultur-og-fritid/ufo-...tne-ingen-passasjerfly-traff-pentagon/side/19
Click to expand...


I wonder if he's confused "gravitational potential energy" with "gravity". If so he's still not correct, but his claim is at least comprehensible.
 
Spitfire; this dude is confused most of the time....

What he meant I think.... was that if a building falls down, it will hit more resistance when it hits ground, than what it would above (where its air, and not solid ground, i.e stones, eartth and stuff). I at least THINK thats what he meant, but judging from his other rantings , who knows....? Hehehehhe

ETA; perhaps he actually meant density (air is less dense than earth). Cause when it comes to density; he`s got a master in it :D
 
Last edited:
we know that gravity on the ground is very low. And underneath the ground, several thousand times lower than above ground. So what made the towers to collapse several floors under ground?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah... That would explain all the zero gee coal mines? If nothing else, he's got the concept reversed, gravity is less further out from the surface of the Earth because of the distance from the mass. Unless he thinks the WTC had 110 story deep basements?

minnemouse said:
What he meant I think.... was that if a building falls down, it will hit more resistance when it hits ground, than what it would above (where its air, and not solid ground, i.e stones, eartth and stuff).
Click to expand...

I've run into truthers spouting similar claims that the undamaged building below the fires should have been able to support the (entire) building above it. They seem to be missing the concept of "40 story of unsupported mass falling onto fire weakened floors below."
 
It's time we stopped drilling for oil. We're killing Mother Earth.



"SOMETIMES We do THINGS we DON'T UNDERSTAND.
We have a BODY, and we have BLOOD running threw our VAINS which GIVES us LIFE. Everything which has a SPIRITUAL Purpose we don't KNOW, if we would later FInd OUT that the OIL was the EARTH's LIFE LINE, to Move its ENERGY all over its BODY, WHAT Would you say.

SEE what I mean, You did not KNOW what would you say to her (EARTH), WHEN you KNOW the TRUTH?"

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=196912
 
Went to NYC mid September this year, and what folks that havent been, dont seem to realize is that it was several floors underneath the towers (We stayed at World center Hotel, and from our terrace, we looked straight into the "abyss" of the WTC´s. Having been to NYC whilst the towers were still there, I never realized that there were these underground levels.... But anyone that has researched the buildings a wee bit after 911, should really know the constructions; especially those that considers themselves the "experts" of the towers - the twoofers. So how come these "experts" can actually utters such nonsense? It must be a "density" problem :D
 
Supermac said:
It's time we stopped drilling for oil. We're killing Mother Earth.



"SOMETIMES We do THINGS we DON'T UNDERSTAND.
We have a BODY, and we have BLOOD running threw our VAINS which GIVES us LIFE. Everything which has a SPIRITUAL Purpose we don't KNOW, if we would later FInd OUT that the OIL was the EARTH's LIFE LINE, to Move its ENERGY all over its BODY, WHAT Would you say.

SEE what I mean, You did not KNOW what would you say to her (EARTH), WHEN you KNOW the TRUTH?"

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=196912
Click to expand...

Argumentum Ad Capslocktogglium?
 
reasons, we don't need no freaking reasons.

Clayton More

To pronounce that the savage attack on a meagerly armed, unescorted communications ship of its most trusting ally was intentional requires freaking reasons?


Apparently the IDF flew around attacking at random.
 
MrBouskila from YouTube

BUT WROTE BY YOURSELF AT [PIXAR email] AND SPOKE THEIR TO MISTER RICHARD BOUSKILA A GUY SCREWED BY THEIR PARALEGAL SERVICES WITH MY STUPID LAWYER DOESN'T NECESSARY TO THE SUCCESS FOR DESERVE THE COMPENSATION THAT I SHOULD HAVE AT THIS TIME AFTER ANY EFFORT SUPPOSED TO PROVE INSIDE THE CONSUME BY YOUR'S FANS DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE THAT YOU THINK.

BY CONSEQUENT IF NOBODY WILL BE FIRED CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHAOS FROM 2012 THE YEAR OF END OF WORLD A COMPLETE DISORDER INSTALL.
Click to expand...


http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=TEHWDA_6e3M
 
Last edited:
100 said:
MrBouskila from YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=TEHWDA_6e3M
Click to expand...
But wait, there's more!
************** Pixar E-Mail System Warning ************** Please be aware that your message has been blocked  by Pixar's mail servers and did not reach the intended recipient. The recipient has requested that you cease and desist any further communication via e-mail. ******************************************************

TAKE A LOOK PIXAR BLOCKED MY EMAIL ADDRESS TO CONTINUES BAD THINGS AND CONFIRM THE CONSPIRACY THAT I SPOKE YOU AND I ASK YOU TO ACCEPT IT
Click to expand...

It's the CAPSLOC that makes it extra "Teh Crazy!"
 
Last edited:
Skool is over rated

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060541262&postcount=1106

"Funny you should ask, let's start with your calculation for the return containers volume.
Are you sure that the volume of the return container is 0.03 cubic meters ?

that would give the empty sample return container a volume of 3 cubic cms
I'm no rocket scientist but that seems a little small considering its width is 48.28 cms. "


:eye-poppi
 
Erock said:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060541262&postcount=1106

"Funny you should ask, let's start with your calculation for the return containers volume.
Are you sure that the volume of the return container is 0.03 cubic meters ?

that would give the empty sample return container a volume of 3 cubic cms
I'm no rocket scientist but that seems a little small considering its width is 48.28 cms. "


:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Umm, actually I think the guy he is quoting is the stundie. The person you quoted actually uses logical thinking which makes him doubt what he was told.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom