March Stundie Nominations

jammonius tries his hand at physics (regarding a photo of WTC2 tilting just as it begins to collapse):

jammonius said:
Here's a photo that calls into question whether "vertical forces" can be said to even be a factor at all. After all, a structure that is tilted such that it is not then on top of the underlying structure cannot exert force upon that which it is not then on top of, correct?
Click to expand...

post #49: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170152&page=2
 
I know what each of those words mean but not when they're put together in that order.
 
Rolf Lindgren responds to the revelation that one of his political heroes, Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) supports President George W. Bush's anti-terror policies:

Galileo said:
He's just saying that to get elected. That's why I support the Paul's, they are people of principle.
Click to expand...

Yeah... he really said that. :jaw-dropp
 
I just spotted this little gem on the Prison Planet forum (not something I'd normally read but I followed a link).

"Re: Thats No Moon, thats a Space Station - David Icke's new book.

I posted this in the pinned satanism thread.

I'm very suspicious of this, I don't really doubt that Icke is genuine, however posts on the internet from people in contact with him believe that he is being lead to info by TPTB as they know he'll believe it and write about it.
It just seems weird to me that here is the Truth Movement in 2010, we are on a roll, had some very big wins lately and are waking up more people by the day, when all of a sudden along comes this entirely new perspective from nowhere 'no wait we were all wrong, it wasn't the world leaders, or the reptillians, its the people up there in the moon! look over there!'
Just something to be weary of."

Chock full of stundie goodness!!


Source: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162575.0
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Rolf Lindgren responds to the revelation that one of his political heroes, Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) supports President George W. Bush's anti-terror policies:



Yeah... he really said that. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Hey, that would be the principle of opportunism. Don't bash that. ;)
 
I'm not sure if this was nominated before or not, but AE911twoof posted Heiwas' letter to Bazant that is due to be posted in ASCE in July 2010. The whole article is one huge stundie.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/198
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

Some snips:
There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually the whole theory is complete garbage: Upper, structural part C would either bounce or get locally damaged (partly or completely) when contacting structural top part A after a gravity drop and would then get stuck up on top of what remains of parts A.
Click to expand...

No structure can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down and size does not matter.
Click to expand...

Actually no rubble could be produced at all by dropping upper part C, as the destruction should have been stopped up top due to all local failures developing, when part C contacts part A and friction between all partly damaged parts develops at floor 98 level.
Click to expand...

According to Heiwa, the upper part of the tower should be destroyed, the lower part marginally damaged, and the debris can't possibly continue the destruction, even though it says:

The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's a bit long for stundies, since it contains a months' worth of stupid. But it definitely deserves mentioning here.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
I love the bouncing building part...:D

Is there a rule against posting material from a banned poster?
 
Travis said:
Not for this.
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

This part is also cool:

Below this 119 m high pile, a storey of part A - floor 23 - is just being crushed. How the columns of part C - 66 m above floor 23 - can crush the columns there is not clear.
Click to expand...

Apparently the debris would insulate the lower portion of the building from the impact of the upper part of the structure and not exert any force on the lower portion by itself. What makes it even sadder is that Heiwa itself said that wasn't the case earlier on.

McHrozni
 
jammonius said:
And, by the way, I am happy to draw a line in the sand with you on this. Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.

Your reliance on that fallacy is not persuasive.
Click to expand...

Wisdom is a fallacy now?
 
TokenMac said:
Wisdom is a fallacy now?
Click to expand...


I'd wager that the fallacy he was thinking of was "appeal to authority". He's just not very educated. Perhaps because that would make him an authority and thus anything he says would be a fallacy.

Or something...
 
"Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied."

WINNAR
 
That last one lead me to this one:

jammonius said:
Here is, perhaps, the best still shot of the aftermath of the shadow thingy impacting the south tower. This is David Handschuh's photograph:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/911_FallingPlaneParts001_DavidHands.jpg?t=1269109340[/qimg]

To the extent debris can be seen, it looks like paper and certainly no discernible part or piece of a jetliner.
Click to expand...


Yep, from about 1000 feet below, it looked just like paper. Really freaking huge pieces of paper.....
 
I'd love to see a student write that on a math or physics exam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom