September Stundie Nominations

[IMST]

Had the following exchange (possibly still in progress) with zaphod2016 over in the August Stundies Finals starting here





Nice little demonstration of this person's knowledge of the ad hom fallacy b/w taking people to task for using it!

Please do not consider the nomination quoted above. Total failure to read between the lines on my part. I blame the lack of coffee I exibited at the time.

 

[zaphod2016]

*headdesk*
Saw your response in while in a lousy mood and it didn't occur to me to consider humor. Nomination withdrawn.
Whoops.

Awww shucks, I thought I had earned my first "hater".

Have a great weekend. No hard feelings.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Unfortunately the mighty NWO couldn't allow you to succeed at a nomination:

NWO fails- I have audio!

@2:30 If they have no hard evidence...
@3:25 You want to distract...
@4:00 You think we should just...
@4:25 Have you read the 9/11 commission...

The humor comes through a lot better in the audio- especially the "its cool" quote.

Stay on-topic in the future.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[eromitlab]

Okay, I know my nominations from reddit come and go... but c'mon, this one is genius. No, wait, the reverse of that. A redditor doubles down on dumb here, with real tr00th about those pics of WTC 7 with all the damage, and why he can't produce images of 7 with minor damage.

That "missing" piece of #7 was photoshopped. There are pictures of the building showing very minimal damage. I had one, but the file got corrupted and shut down my machine every time I tried to open the file. More's the pity.

 

[CptColumbo]

Okay, I know my nominations from reddit come and go... but c'mon, this one is genius. No, wait, the reverse of that. A redditor doubles down on dumb here, with real tr00th about those pics of WTC 7 with all the damage, and why he can't produce images of 7 with minor damage.

It is interesting that many in the TM depend on photos and video, yet if it disagrees whith their pet hypothesis it must be faked.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

At the Screwloosechange blog, James B. tries to take a pedantic jab at Steven Jones, while at the same time showing us his amazing google-research skillz.

Yes, although the number is open to dispute, there are a large number of Afghan refugees (not Afghanis as Jones terms them, Afghanis refers to their money) in Iran and Afghanistan.

Afghani
n., pl. -ghan·is.

A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan; an Afghan.

[Pashto afghānī, from afghān, Afghan.

Source
(Not exactly laugh out loud, perhaps, but you gotta love the amazing research skills and weird attempt to discredit everything a 9/11 skeptic says).

 

[Wildy]

At the Screwloosechange blog, James B. tries to take a pedantic jab at Steven Jones, while at the same time showing us his amazing google-research skillz.

Source
(Not exactly laugh out loud, perhaps, but you gotta love the amazing research skills and weird attempt to discredit everything a 9/11 skeptic says).

I don't really understand how exactly it's Stundie worthy, considering that Afghan and Afghani are synonyms.

But technically you could be nominated again for this nomination because you have done the exact same thing.

 

[TJM]

My Nomination. I'm at a loss for words.

i didn't think momentum needed addressed here and that everyone could get the answer just by reading the question but lets try.......


object a [attached to ] and object b are both traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a [smaller and lighter] is seperated from object b but both are still traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a lands in the same trajectory as object b but the smaller light object lands 500+ yards ahead of object b and not in the same spot.

momentum is what enabled onbject a to carry on the path it was heading when it was attached still to object b. seperating them wouldn't cause it to drop off like a stone and nowhere did i say it did.

that's why i repeatedly stated it landed ahead of the plane. because it continued with its forward momentum.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

A commercial jet liner with people on it was purposly crashed into the Pentagon. This is not in question. Any theory suggesting otherwise is based in fantasy and is debunked.

Firecoins believes the official story is unfalsifiable.
Wonder how many "debunkers" believe the same thing...

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You're too clever for me TLB! You caught me.
I haven't read the page, only the parts quoted in this thread.

Brainache sums up the spirit of "debunking" almost as well as firecoins. JREF can't be bothered with actually reading what they "debunk"- and why should they? The OCT is unfalsifiable!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

After being shown the lack of sources for Beachnut's claim that Sami Yli-Karjanmaa has been debunked:

I will not be lured into doing your ****ing research for you.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So for you to prove this guy has merit, you have to prove his conclusions. You can't so try some other stupid failed conclusions.

Beachnut agrees that the OCT is unfalsifiable.

 

[Horatius]

I nominate TLB:

Firecoins believes the official story is unfalsifiable.
Wonder how many "debunkers" believe the same thing...

Beachnut agrees that the OCT is unfalsifiable.

TLB demonstrates his misunderstanding of the term "unfalsifiable".


Here's a hint, TLB: just because someone you haven't falsified a theory, doesn't mean they think the theory is unfalsifiable.


I'm also considering reporting the last few posts of yours as being off-topic, as at least one of them completely misrepresents the post, which is a violation of the guidelines for Stundies. I'll give you a chance to own up to that, however, before I do that.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

10% is the same as multiplying a number by .1

1% is the same as multiplying a number by .001

and so and and so on.

understand now...truthers?

This comment was made after admonishing me for "truther math".

(Note to JREF apologists: Typo or not- Parky is unclear about the math. See this post.)

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I nominate Horatius for his inability to comprehend the english language.

TLB demonstrates his misunderstanding of the term "unfalsifiable".


Here's a hint, TLB: just because someone you haven't falsified a theory, doesn't mean they think the theory is unfalsifiable.

Both posts state clearly that the theory cannot be falsified.

Any theory suggesting otherwise is based in fantasy and is debunked.

He clearly states that, any theory in which "a commercial jet liner with people on it" does not impact the Pentagon is automatically debunked.

So for you to prove this guy has merit, you have to prove his conclusions. You can't so try some other stupid failed conclusions.

Again, Beachnut doesn't say I haven't debunked the OCT, he says it would be impossible for me to do so.

 

[Jontg]

I vote that we ban this dingus and start a new Stundie thread.

 

[CptColumbo]

Dude, you made a simple math error while being arrogant and were called on it. Let it go and it will probably be forgotten (you're not even ahead in the Stundies last time I checked). Your constant projection will only make us remember it more.

 

[Confuseling]

You heard of flooding TLB? You realise it's against the rules in most forums, including this one, don't you?

 

[Brainache]

YAY! I've finally been nominated for something.
Thanks TLB!

Getting a Stundie nomination from you is like getting a language award nomination from Dr Adequate.

 

[Horatius]

I nominate Horatius for his inability to comprehend the english language.


Both posts state clearly that the theory cannot be falsified.


He clearly states that, any theory in which "a commercial jet liner with people on it" does not impact the Pentagon is automatically debunked.


Again, Beachnut doesn't say I haven't debunked the OCT, he says it would be impossible for me to do so.

Falsifiability (or "refutability") is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

If they state it "clearly", then show where their comments indicate that the "OCT" cannot be shown false by observation or experiment.

A commercial jet liner with people on it was purposly crashed into the Pentagon. This is not in question. Any theory suggesting otherwise is based in fantasy and is debunked.

Saying that something is "not in question" implies he believes it has been well established by evidence. Having evidence implies that there can be evidence to show that a plane did not crash, therefore, the theory that a plane crashed is falsifiable, but he does not believe it is false. Based on that conclusion, he further asserts that any other theory is based on fantasy and is debunked, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the "OCT" being falsifiable or not.



As for Beachnut, let's look at that statement in context:

His conclusion is total garbage.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.)

The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.

What an real dumb guy, he posts to a web site with aircraft parts proving a 757 was flown into the Pentagon. What a dolt, the photos show thousands of parts from 77! (but this has a story, maybe... )

A 757 did crash into the Pentagon, this guy is pure fiction. Read his work as much as you want, even if there are errors in the Pentagon Report, the idiot conclusions by this truther are false and pure anti-intellectual claptrap.

So for you to prove this guy has merit, you have to prove his conclusions. You can't so try some other stupid failed conclusions.

Debunked due to stupid conclusions. This case is closed, and your lack of evidence will not stop you from spewing more hearsay and junk ideas. 1 2 3 spew

Now we see that Beachnut has rejected the conclusions of the person you quoted, and based on that, he indicates that if you want to claim this fellow has some merit, you must step up and explain why he has merit, by proving the fellow's conclusions. That you have failed to do this indicates to Beachnut that you cannot do it. Again, he makes no statement that it is impossible, in theory, to do so, he simply indicates that you haven't done so.

And of course, this whole discussion is about the other guy's theories, not the "OCT", so even if we were to read this argument as you would have us do, it doesn't address the question of whether or not Beachnut considers the "OCT" to be falsifiable or not.

And now I'm off to report you for being off-topic, as I think I've shown that you have misrepresented these two posts, and there are others as well.