he claims to have revealed the "deception" of the guy who posted the video (by showing that he has mark loizeaux as his avatar) but if you read the profile (of the guy who posted the video) there is no deception at all, hes clearly not a truther and isnt pretending to be
for some reason it gives me an image of am onty python-esque sketch that may or may not actually be a monty python sketch
I believe the poster's point was that the poster of the video had Mark Loizeaux's face selected as his own personal avatar, but the poster of the video is not Mark Loizeaux. I honestly don't see how that's Stundie-worthy. Yes, it's stupid to think that an avatar must depict yourself rather than another person, but to call someone for using someone else's image as your avatar is hardly stundie-worthy, IMHO.
What's so funny about this? They're the first two comments on a post that Pat made where he simply embedded a truther video and nothing more. (comments)
The Truth Movement is in such bad shape that the Screw Loose Change blog is "infantile" and engaging in "smug sliming" simply by posting truther videos.
I believe the poster's point was that the poster of the video had Mark Loizeaux's face selected as his own personal avatar, but the poster of the video is not Mark Loizeaux. I honestly don't see how that's Stundie-worthy. Yes, it's stupid to think that an avatar must depict yourself rather than another person, but to call someone for using someone else's image as your avatar is hardly stundie-worthy, IMHO.
I believe the poster's point was that the poster of the video had Mark Loizeaux's face selected as his own personal avatar, but the poster of the video is not Mark Loizeaux. I honestly don't see how that's Stundie-worthy. Yes, it's stupid to think that an avatar must depict yourself rather than another person, but to call someone for using someone else's image as your avatar is hardly stundie-worthy, IMHO.
Anyway, hopefully this won't abuse Gumboot's Always Rightitude about the Stundie nomination process:
chrissup19 said:
What evidence have you given me? Seriously, what evidence other than your mathematical equation of the amount of thermite that needed to be used have you given me? Nothing! You haven't proven anything at all.
"A lot of people say that NORAD is to blame, and that is actually true... all the Air National Guard pilots and all the planes were over the Dakotas and the mid western states for training exercises in domestic terrorism and practise runs, and that was not planned, that just fell into place for Bin Laden like a jigsaw"
"Getting to the World Trade Center collapse, unfortunately we now live in a world where people now believe that a 747 going 800MPH into a skyscraper, rupturing fuel tanks and setting fire to everything on those levels, is not enough to make a building fall down."
"The plane was going 800MPH with a full fuel tank. Can anyone guess how many gallons of fuel the average 747 can hold? Can anyone guess? A hundred and twenty thousand gallons of jet fuel. But they say "well jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". Well guess what, last time I checked it's fire, and fire, last time I checked also, is hot. And 120,000 gallons of gasoline on fire is pretty hot."
"There's nothing in the world than can stand [a 747 going 800MPH], there's nothing in the world that could handle that kind of pressure. So that is why the World Trade Center collapsed; because fire burning everywhere at 13,000 degrees."
"A recent report on BBC says the hijackers are still alive and well [my note: this YouTube video was uploaded in July 2008 - 7 years and 10 months after the BBC report aired]. Well guess what, it's the friggen BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The most liberal, the most anti-American news outlet on the planet."
Well, the twin towers weren't real controlled demolitions. They were blown up from top to bottom. My original question was if the towers were blown up top down, how would the destruction of each tower look different from what was actually observed?
And now for something completely different. Here's a nom from a non-CT forum post, but it seems tio deal with the whole "Evolution as a plot of the scientists" theory:
You guys must be getting really bored with the abject lameness of the conspiracy theorists and their alleged arguments if you're going to start fights over the momma-humpingstundies.
Not a Troofer qoute, but I felt it was worthy of a Stundie by virtue of the misunderstanding of what is meant by freedom of speech in regards to political speech. Meaning this is a Stundie nomination that is put here by a debunker who, while not agreeing with Troofer ideas, is defending their right to posses them.
I am not trying to change my argument. Back on page 1 of this thread I brought up the CPUSA as a precedent. How am I changing my argument? The CPUSA was running a candidate in each election until 1952 when they were outlawed in 1954. They didn't run another candidate until 1968 and essentially after 1961 they were not anything like they were pre 1954. Eventually, after the 1984 election they never ran another candidate again. Now how does not allowing them to run as a political party mean free speech was stifled? You are wrong...
(emphasis added) This was in response to someone asking him to source a supposed letter written by a retired cop about the police captain, or something... I just find it funny that they're ignoring the fact that they need to support their theories with evidence. *LOL*
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
