Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

[OMGturt1es]

yes, i'm referring to that whack job alex jones. unfortunantly, a number of my online "friends" have bought into his crap. i don't have time to go around gathering enough evidence to prove to these folk that alex just makes **** up. it'd be great to set up a website that simply documented everyone of his lies...

i've been utterly shocked by the amount of folk who seem to buy alex's crap. i guess many just don't think he'd... uh, just lie.

[Gravy]

I just joined (after lurking for a day or two) and found out what is well-known around here - that GRAVY is Mark Roberts. My hat is off to you on your Loose Change Guide - a very impressive job and an important service to the families of the victims. I loved reading every word of it!Just catching up with this thread. Welcome to the forums, Jimbo, and thanks! Happy birthday!

[Gravy]

Dylan,

You know this ends badly. It's already begun to unravel. What are you gonna do when the money dries up? What will you say to your kids 15 years from now when they learn dad was a crack-pot who hurt a lot of people...will you say "I was an internet star at one time" or "We had a good run - Dad was just having fun" ?

You can't put out enough editions of LC to correct everything. You can't say enough "I'm sorry's" to all the people you've smeared, politicians you've slandered and victims you've mocked. And you can't get back what you've lost: the good name we are all born with.

You rationalize it all with the many people who buy your story - people who believe in Bigfoot. People who believe in Martians. And people who YOU HOPE NEVER EVER GET EDUCATED ON YOUR ERRORS because then the Emperor will be found to have had no clothes. The fact is though you've become comic relief for the level-headed masses who will now enjoy the next act in this play.

Here's to hoping you get what's coming to you.

Jim Malmstrom
Damn.

What Avery didn't say in reply, but wanted to:

What will I tell my kids? I'll say, "Like hey, man, life's one big do-over."

[Gravy]

gravy and others, it's time for you to expand to a fresh target: jones! destroy him!Hey, I've done my part. There's a section of my WTC 7 paper devoted to him: (download) http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf or here: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

yes, i'm referring to that whack job alex jones. unfortunantly, a number of my online "friends" have bought into his crap. i don't have time to go around gathering enough evidence to prove to these folk that alex just makes **** up. it'd be great to set up a website that simply documented everyone of his lies...Perry Logan has just the site for you (caution: it's a bumpy ride if you're a right-winger!) http://perrylogan.org/

[OMGturt1es]

Hey, I've done my part. There's a section of my WTC 7 paper devoted to him: (download) http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf or here: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc


oh yeah! i've actually already read your WTC 7 paper (most of it, that is), and i've certainly enjoyed it! i do appreciate all the work you've done, and i loved the inclusion on alex jones in your latest work.

but what i'd love, if you are taking requests, heheh, is a "terrorstorm guide", and some other major alex jones video guides. of course, it's easy for me to be demanding of YOUR time, hahah, especially when i don't have the time to even offer any sort of help.

but yeah, regardless, i've certainly appreciated all your work. i've noticed a number of posters in these CT forums citing your work as reason for ditching the CT sites, and i've referenced your LC guide many times in the past to prove my case. it's wonderful to have all that evidence so organized!


Perry Logan has just the site for you (caution: it's a bumpy ride if you're a right-winger!) http://perrylogan.org/

thanks for the link! i've breifly gone through that site before, but i'll try to give it a better look.

[Gravy]

but what i'd love, if you are taking requests, heheh, is a "terrorstorm guide", and some other major alex jones video guides. of course, it's easy for me to be demanding of YOUR time, hahah, especially when i don't have the time to even offer any sort of help.Heh. I'd like to formally announce that I am absolutely, positively not taking requests, especially when they involve anything related to Alex Jones! :D

Hell, I never even finished my revision of the LC Guide. I only had about 3 weeks of 9/11 conspiracy experience when I wrote the current version. I have so much more info now, that a revision is a daunting task. For instance, LC only briefly discusses WTC 7, but when I started writing about it for my LC Guide revision, I wound up with over 100 pages. So I made a separate paper out of it. It's that way with many of the subjects that LC touches on.

I hate doing this stuff. It's so unpleasant, and as I've said before, I don't find most of the conspiracy claims interesting at all. They're so absurd that they shouldn't merit a response. But since a lot of people seem to accept those absurdities, I guess it's somewhat necessary to respond. The most interesting thing to me in all this is the psychology of the conspiracy believers, and I despair of ever fully understanding that.

thanks for the link! i've breifly gone through that site before, but i'll try to give it a better look.I should have mentioned that you have to scroll way down on the first page to get to the long list of AJ's claims.

[~enigma~]

I should have mentioned that you have to scroll way down on the first page to get to the long list of AJ's claims.
I knew AJ was a loon but after reading some of that I will say that somebody should lock him (AJ) in a padded cell for a few decades.

[Garb]

Perry Logan has just the site for you (caution: it's a bumpy ride if you're a right-winger!) http://perrylogan.org/

Does he really think that all republicans are bigots and nobody likes them?


That isn't very nice...

[Kiwiwriter]

Holocaust Deniers bother me much, much more. They have a vested interest in perpetuating fascism, racism, genocide. It's not just a Conspiracy Theory, it's "denial" in the deepest sense of the word.

The Loosers are just a bunch of paranoiacs who need help.

Loosers: Thousands of people at the highest levels of fifteen governments. Explosives lying in wait for over three decades. Holograms and anti-gravity devices. Planes from secret bases. The prize, hundreds of billions in gold, wars in foreign lands, the Patriot Act, world domination. I mean, it was the perfect plan...
... and you would have gotten away with it too, except three punk kids just happened to overhear Rumsfeld mumble the wrong word at a press conference!! I mean, you can't explain that, now can you? I mean, it all just unraveled, like ripples across a pond.

Make-Believe Cabal: I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

They both upset me, but for different reasons. The Holocaust deniers' real goal is to rehabilitate Nazism and make it a viable political movement again. Then they hope to take power and make Hitler look like a nice guy.

The Loosers' political theories are a little more diffuse, but they come down to the same thing...the government is lying and it's run by a shadowy cabal, and only putting the Loosers in power can bring down the cabal and make a perfect world. They aren't as certain about what this world is going to be and how they're going to run it, whereas the neo-Nazis do...even if their ideas are so wacko, like shipping all the Jews to Israel and blacks to Africa in leaky boats, or putting up a big wall in the middle of the country to separate the races.

What the Loosers succeed in is fraying the already strained fabric of civic discourse and give legs to conspiracy theories and ideas that, when spouted by neo-Nazis, would get shot down simply because of who bears them.

They both bother me, for different reasons. Which is worse? Hard to say. They both offend me viscerally.

But I do agree with the above comment about the Loosers being mostly paranoids who need help.

[Kiwiwriter]

Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...


And the best part its...the girls on the web don't know that the guy at the computer has never bathed, doesn't have a job, never left his parents' basement since graduating from high school, and his entire life revolves around his internet discussion groups on:

1. Conspiracy theories
2. Who's cooler? Jim Kirk or Jean-luc Picard? Prove it.

And aren't the girls lucky for not knowing that! :D

[JAStewart]

And the best part its...the girls on the web don't know that the guy at the computer has never bathed, doesn't have a job, never left his parents' basement since graduating from high school, and his entire life revolves around his internet discussion groups on:

1. Conspiracy theories
2. Who's cooler? Jim Kirk or Jean-luc Picard? Prove it.

And aren't the girls lucky for not knowing that! :D

They need to get a girlfriend who name doesn't end in .jpg.

[Gravy]

They need to get a girlfriend who name doesn't end in .jpg.Oh, snap! Mind if I use that? I will always give you credit – in my mind.

[Kiwiwriter]

They need to get a girlfriend who name doesn't end in .jpg.

Cold, but true...

Actually, a real example of this is that Timothy McVeigh actually went on a date during his misspent military career, and the girl soon realized she did not want to have a second one...apparently he talked for most of the evening about what a great and misunderstood fellow Adolf Hitler was...

There's a great way to win a girl's heart! :boggled:

[OMGturt1es]

Heh. I'd like to formally announce that I am absolutely, positively not taking requests, especially when they involve anything related to Alex Jones! :D


BOOOOO!! BOOOOOO!!

bah! bahhhH!!!


I hate doing this stuff. It's so unpleasant, and as I've said before, I don't find most of the conspiracy claims interesting at all. They're so absurd that they shouldn't merit a response. But since a lot of people seem to accept those absurdities, I guess it's somewhat necessary to respond. The most interesting thing to me in all this is the psychology of the conspiracy believers, and I despair of ever fully understanding that.


i agree completely.

i've been saddened by the amount of folk i "know" online that have been buying into this 911 CT crap. i think that for those that don't trust the government, and are too lazy to do proper fact checking, 911 CT stuff is especially potent. the problem is that these folk don't realize that extraodrinary claims don't just require extraordinary evidence, but evidence that has been subjected to extraordinary scrutiny! to many of these folks, it seems the default that the government would lie, but it seems unlikely that "documentaries" like "loose change", or "terror strom", would simply, well, make **** up.

that's why someone needs to just destroy alex jones! i'd help, but it would just piss me off. and i'm trying to finally graduate from college. and i'm lazy. so yeah...

[OMGturt1es]

BTW, just thought i'd mention that i just had an online friend change his mind over 911, thanks in part your loose change guide, gravy.

after reading my intial arguments, and checking out the viewer guide, he started to question the accuracy of the evidences used in loose change. after spending some time researching, he's come to the conclusion that loose change is just a bunch of "bullsh!t".

thanks again for your hard work. it really does pay off.

[...JR]

could someone please point me to Gravy's actual critique pdf or DOC file? A few more friends just jumped on the loose change bandwagon and I need to help them off. Thank you.

[chipmunk stew]

could someone please point me to Gravy's actual critique pdf or DOC file? A few more friends just jumped on the loose change bandwagon and I need to help them off. Thank you.
Here you go:
http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
Also, html:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/

And don't miss his work on WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Or his Loose Change Creators Speak:
http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Which inspired MarkyX's 9/11 Deniers Speak:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/videos.html

[Chaos]

They both upset me, but for different reasons. The Holocaust deniers' real goal is to rehabilitate Nazism and make it a viable political movement again. Then they hope to take power and make Hitler look like a nice guy.

*snip*

Sorry, but it´s the other way around. They hope to make Hitler look like a nice guy, so they can take power.

After all, with the Holocaust a historical fact, and all the other atrocities of the Nazi regime, there´s maybe a snowball´s chance in hell for a Nazi fanboy party taking power in a Western country.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust can be successfully denied, and they can blame a conspiracy of the usual suspects (jews, capitalists, communists etc.) for it, they can also blame the rest of the Nazis´ bad image on them, and start over in politics with a martyr´s bonus, or at least a blank slate.

[The Doc]

Gravy's work shows up in Digg comments all the time :)

http://www.digg.com

Always gets "Dugg Up" in comments too. Which is basically a sign of approval for those unfamilliar with Digg :)

[...JR]

Here you go:
http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
Also, html:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/

And don't miss his work on WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Or his Loose Change Creators Speak:
http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Which inspired MarkyX's 9/11 Deniers Speak:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/videos.html


you are awesome

[chipmunk stew]

you are awesome
That's what the guy in the mirror is always telling me.

If you need more quick and easy access to resources, check out the Conspiracy Theories section in the Links menu (next to the "User CP" menu up there ^ on the black toolbar) I have a direct link to it in my sig, too.

[eddyk]

I was just reading 'screw screw loose change' on loosechange-911.blogspot or something,
LC attack only like 5 points made by Gravy in his film, and the close with the statement

'Bottom line, Loose Change is backed by facts, Screw Loose Change does not debunk Loose Change'

They didn't mention anything about gravys debunking of the Pentagon/missile thing, or flight 93 or even the WTCs.


In their debunking of SLC it's all about who did the investigating.

In LC Dylan says FEMA didn't get to see GZ, Gravy says they did...
In dylans debunking he shows an article that they didn't get to GZ for a few months later.
Effectively debunking himself.


P.S
It was gravy who made SLC lol?!

[Firestone]

It was gravy who made SLC lol?!No. It's Mark Iradian, active here as MarkyX. ;)

[eddyk]

Sorry Gravy and especially sorry MarkyX

I was writing all that out and thought 'wait a sec...who did make SLC!?!?'

[eddyk]

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Here is a list of apparently victims and survivors of 9/11 that support the truth movement.

But a close look at the list reveals it to be quotes of 'bangs' and 'pops' by firefighters and employes made on the day.

Dylan Asks 'Are they all delirious?'

To try and insinuate we're against the survivors of 9/11, and also that they're on their side of course.

[Gravy]

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Here is a list of apparently victims and survivors of 9/11 that support the truth movement.Actually, many of those "supporters" died on 9/11. That's a pretty lousy thing to do, to mix the living in with the dead like that.

Additionally, several of the living "supporters" have expressed their displeasure for how their words are taken out of context by the press and the "truth movement."

How low can these creeps go?

[Darth Rotor]

How low can these creeps go?
As low as whale crap in the North Atlantic.

Naaaah, that isn't right. Sunken cetacean feces is still miles over their pointed little heads.

DR

[The Demon's Head]

Gravy, since you are a master debunker, I have a question regarding a very short video that appears on conspiracy sites. I'd like to know if you could offer some insight and debunking of the video.

[Mike Stephens]

You know, Robert, if it wasn't for that pages like 911myths.com already exist, I'd suggest your next project should be to go after the Loose Change people.
"A place to discuss skepticism, the paranormal and science in a lively and friendly way" HA!!!

[delphi_ote]

"A place to discuss skepticism, the paranormal and science in a lively and friendly way" HA!!!
"Go after" in the same sense as he "went after" Kaz (http://www.stopkaz.com/) and is currently "going after" Sylvia Brown (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/). Exposting frauds and lairs is Mr. Lancaster's hobby. He's damn good at it.

[Hawk one]

You said it, Delphi. And RSLancaster's creating a lively and mostly friendly discussion about his work here in the forums as well. Certainly more friendly than the SB-fan forums are.

First rule of being able to debate properly: Consider the full context of a statement. (OK, I'm not sure if it's the first rule, but it's a pretty damn important one.)

[Whiplash]

*deleted*

[les raphael]

From the author of the Naudet essay [To : Loose Change forum (P.8)]
Thu 26 Apr 07
Let me explain something : the conveniences in my list are not INDIVIDUAL proofs of the proposition. The proposition is COLLECTIVE - CUMULATIVE. You don't take one point - like the time it happened - and say that's my case. If it was, you'd be quite right - I wouldn't HAVE a case. But I wouldn't be saying anything as stupid to begin with. Some of the individual circumstances are stronger on their own than others, but the general proposition is that there are 69 of these things, and THAT'S what proves the case - it's the multiplicity. It's incredibly unlikely that as many as 69 circumstances would happen, all at the same time, in the same place, to the same person - most of them things he had no control over - that made it easier for him to do what he did : and what he did, let's remember, nobody else in New York did - nobody else filmed that plane impact. Maybe I didn't spell that out in the article - because I assumed most folk would get the point - the list was CUMULATIVE. Would it help if I put the word "AND" at the end of every entry ? Or would you still think they were all meant to be taken individually ?
Do conveniences ever happen like that in YOUR life - by the dozen ? In my life, it tends to be the INconveniences that pile up all at the same time - like the inconvenience of finding out folk can't get their heads around the concept of cumulative circumstantial evidence. As for that other proposition, that Orphia Nay seemed to be selling - that circumstances don't matter : is she seriously suggesting that if Naudet had filmed the plane (to paraphrase my article, because I anticipated the argument) standing on his head on a bicycle, juggling three camcorders, she'd still accept it as authentic ? Or maybe she's just another one who thinks the conveniences are all separate, individual proofs. I never claimed they were anything of the kind : talk about missing the point. You take them ALL TOGETHER : it's the COLLECTIVE, CUMULATIVE LIST OF - SERIES OF - STRING OF - connected, simultaneous conveniences that makes the case. Have you got it yet ?
Here's a challenge : check out Picture 20b in Appendix 4 in my new (April 2007) edition, and explain to me why Captain Dennis Tardio of Engine 7 is asking us to believe the Twin Towers were at the end of Church Street that morning, and every other day since they were built. This picture doesn't prove Tardio or the Naudets were complicit in 9/11 - not on its own, as above - but what it does prove is that their film contains examples of fraud and absurdity, and this is one of them. This is definitely Tardio, it's definitely Church St, and we know for a definite fact that he can't see the Twin Towers where he's pointing not because they were destroyed by hijacked jets that day, but because they never WERE where he's pointing.
Picture 17a shows where the towers were from the Canal Street end of West Broadway, away over to the right - West Broadway leads down to the left of the red arrow. Where would they be in a picture taken from the next street to the east of this one, more than 100 yards further LEFT ? Not remotely where Tardio's pointing, that's for sure : I'd be amazed if they even made it into the picture. This is a guy with years of experience as a Manhattan fireman : he knows the Trade Center towers were never at the end of Church St. So why is he doing this ? What does he think he's playing at ? If he wanted to make a serious point, and show us where the towers used to be, all he has to do is walk up to the end of the next block, West Broadway, and show us from there, and it would make sense, and be perfectly valid. Why are we getting this nonsense instead ? Is he too lazy to walk up the street ? Is West Broadway cordoned off or inaccessible ? What's this stupidity doing in an award-winning documentary ? Did nobody notice ? Or do they just think "Who cares" ? Who cares about FACTS ? They were "somewhere down there" : isn't that good enough ? Not for me, it ain't : Tardio isn't saying they were "somewhere down there" - he's saying "the end of this street is where they used to be" - and I want to know why he's LYING saying it. That's the only word for it.
Just like the alleged firemen in Picture 20a are LYING suggesting you could see Trade Center No. Seven by looking west down Duane Street : any of you geniuses got an explanation for this one ? Do you deny this is Duane Street ? Do you deny it was never possible to see WTC 7 by looking west down that street ? Do you deny that's exactly what this picture leads us to believe ? Do you deny that this is totally dishonest and fraudulent ? Tell me why this rubbish is in a supposedly authentic film. Why would ordinary, straight-talking, salt-of-the-earth New York firemen take part in a charade like this, pretending to be able to see something they know they can't ?
My explanation for these things - aside from the idea that these are probably NOT ordinary firemen - is that we are having two fingers stuck up to us. We're being laughed at, by folk who know that most folk are mugs, as PT Barnum used to say : and he's right, about anybody who thinks nothing in my article has the slightest merit, and nothing in the Naudet film is remotely suspect. They wouldn't even notice Tardio was in Church St : if they did, it would never even occur to them to question what he was saying. They believe what they WANT to believe - not what's there in front of them, staring them in the face and laughing at them. That's the "meaning" of these pictures : they were produced by folk who just enjoy proving how stupid the public is, and how easy it is to con them, and get them to believe nonsense - and I don't mean the Naudets - they're just a pair of bit parts. And then some folk turn round and say I'M the con artist, for trying to point out who the REAL conmen are.
Incidentally again, that interjection allegedly from me that includes the word "turkey," I never said. I'm British - I don't use that expression, and never have done. For the record.

Les Raphael
From : the author of the Naudet essay
Thu 26 Apr 07
A mathematical point, for those numerate enough to understand. If I have 30 packs of cards, and I pick one from each at random, what are the chances of all 30 of my selections being of either a red or black suit ? No, not 2 x 30. It's 2 to the power 30, which comes to 1 in 1,073,741,824 - say one in a billion, roughly. By comparison, the odds of throwing six double sixes in a row with two dice is one in two billion (2,176,782,336, to be precise). If there were only 30 conveniences involved in Jules Naudet's film of Flight 11, and each one had only ONE alternative which would have made it impossible or very difficult, that would make what he did equivalent to 20 times the odds of throwing five double sixes in a row, or picking 30 cards that were all either hearts or diamonds from 30 packs of cards. I give at least one alternative for most of my list of 69 conveniences. That's a minimum of 2 to the power 69 : want to work it out ? Use a BIG calculator - one with a lot more than 10 digits.
Here's an example of how probability theory works with just ONE of them - No. 32 in my list of Conveniences. What are the odds of the plane hitting the only side of the North Tower Naudet can see ? He has a 1 in 4 chance of only being able to see the north face. The plane also has a 1 in 4 chance of hitting the north face, either at random or because of the decision of whoever was flying it. The odds are not 1 in 4, however, that the plane hits Naudet's side : there are two separate factors involved, and you have to multiply them. The odds are an absolute minimum of 1 in 16 of both options turning out to be north. But the odds are actually a lot higher than that, because Naudet can only see the top third of the north face - and the plane hits the top third of the north face. Assuming that neither the plane nor Naudet could see the lower third of that face because of the No. 7 building in front of it, and assuming that the 11 other sectors of the exterior of the tower (both towers were divided into three parts, inside and out) were theoretically accessible to both Naudet and the plane, what are the odds of the plane hitting the only sector Naudet could see, or vice-versa ? Naudet might have been able to see N1 and N2 (the top two sectors of the north face), or only N1, or E1E2E3 or E1E2 or only E1, or S1S2S3 or S1S2 or only S1, or W1W2W3 or W1W2 or only W1; the plane could have hit N1, N2, E1, E2, E3, S1, S2, S3, W1, W2 or W3. Eleven options in each : the odds, put in these terms, are 1 in 121. You could increase the figure further by calculating the odds of the plane conveniently hitting almost the exact midpoint of that top third sector, or by taking into consideration that Naudet might have had a corner view, and been able to see two faces, but 1 in 121 is enough to demonstrate the point. And that is just ONE of my 69 conveniences. You can double it by considering that Naudet ALSO was facing towards the plane, when he could quite easily have been standing with his back to it - to minimise the options ; double it again factoring in that he was ALSO on the east side of the street, when the towers weren't visible from the west side - again, minimising the options ; already we're up to almost 1 in 500. One relative improbability multiplied by the next one to make it even more improbable, multiplied by the next one, multiplied by the next one, and so on, and so on - like throwing double six after double six after double six. Do you get the picture ? If you don't understand how the process works, don't just abuse someone who does.
Of course, not all Naudet's circumstances were totally random : he did have some control over some of them, but not much, and even less when the plane appeared, and that assumed control over events. Or, at least, that's YOUR version - that it was mostly just random. The guy who suggested there was some analogy with DECIDING to get up at 8.30 in the morning - hmmm, suspicious - why not 8.45 ? - has to explain to me how Naudet DECIDED Duane St was going to get an emergency call at 8.30, for a gas leak at a crossroads with a perfect view of the Twin Towers - if you stood on the right side of the road - which he did. Did he DECIDE all those as well ? Did he DECIDE he was going to be facing the plane's closest approach to him - before he knew there was going to BE a plane ? Did he DECIDE he was only going to have a proper view of the one-twelfth of the North Tower the plane hit ? Did he DECIDE there wasn't going to be any traffic - or enormous helmeted firemen - blocking his view of the tower ? Your case is that NONE of these things were decided - they were all just luck. What does that have to do with DECIDING to get up at a certain time ? None of you - and nobody anywhere else - has ever offered one serious argument against my proposition that the gigantic series of pieces of individual "luck," cumulatively combined - you don't take them separately, you don't even add them, you multiply them - that produced the Naudet film of this plane's last two seconds had nothing to do with luck, because it's just so astronomically improbable that prearrangement is several million times more credible. I want to hear arguments against, if there are any. If there aren't, I won't ask for apologies - just join the effort to get the truth out of the Naudets and the folk around them. If you're meant to be sceptics, start directing some of your scepticism at the lies pouring out of the White House for the last five years - and the nonsense in the Naudet film.

Les Raphael

[Gravy]

Les, we are in agreement that your argument is logical, unbiased, and supported by evidence.

As a parting gift, here's a funny plane:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790462efe778f861.jpg

Best wishes,
"Loose Change forum (P.8)"

[beachnut]

That plane is the perfect prize for a self critiquing essay that makes an elephant visible.

[tabouere]

I'm in the process of doing a decent HTML version right now. I saved the DOC file as HTML, which as you know produces horrible results, then used a regular-expression text editor to strip out all of Word's verbose formatting, except for the hyperlinks and image tags, which I've kept. Now I'm going through and tagging Gravy's notes and his third-party quotes with separate tags, using CSS.

You can get a preview of the work in progress:

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.

Hey Dude, first of all, forgive me for my bad english.

I've read in your pseudo debunking text that you are sure the Flight 93 wasn't blown in the air, but it crash like they told us?

How can you explain that then?


Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash

Thursday, September 13, 2001


By Tom Gibb, James O'Toole and Cindi Lash, Post-Gazette Staff Writers

....

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.



What a windy day uh?

In fact, almost all of you, the one that defend the official version and the other of the truth movement are believer. And with my experience, I will says that the believer of the version sell by the media are worst, because they are sure they KNOW.
There's one thing that I know, they hide us something and something big and the story did'nt match the facts.

I'm sorry, I can't post the link of this news but i take it from the post-gazette.

[Slayhamlet]

Hey Dude, first of all, forgive me for my bad english.

I've read in your pseudo debunking text that you are sure the Flight 93 wasn't blown in the air, but it crash like the told us?

How can you explain that then?





What a windy day uh?

In fact, almost all of you, the one that defend the official version and the other of the truth movement are believer. And with my experience, I will says that the believer of the version sell by the media are worst, because they are sure they KNOW.
There's one thing that I know, they hide us something and something big and the story did'nt match the facts.

I'm sorry, I can't post the link of this news but i take it from the post-gazette.


Print the web address with a space between http:// and the rest of it.

[tabouere]

Why put a rule like that if it so easy to break?

here it is without the http

post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


Just notice how the FBI agent want to avoid the "theory" of the shot down plane

[Slayhamlet]

Why put a rule like that if it so easy to break?

here it is without the http

post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


Just notice how the FBI agent want to avoid the "theory" of the shot down plane

It's to prevent spammers from dropping links.

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

[tabouere]

Oh, I see, for sure a forum is always a good place to make pub with a bot ;)

Btw, thx a lot for the help.

And you, do you think that human remain and pieces of metal fly in wind?

[Gravy]

Hey Dude, first of all, forgive me for my bad english.

I've read in your pseudo debunking text that you are sure the Flight 93 wasn't blown in the air, but it crash like they told us?

How can you explain that then?
What a windy day uh?

In fact, almost all of you, the one that defend the official version and the other of the truth movement are believer. And with my experience, I will says that the believer of the version sell by the media are worst, because they are sure they KNOW.
There's one thing that I know, they hide us something and something big and the story did'nt match the facts.

I'm sorry, I can't post the link of this news but i take it from the post-gazette.Welcome to the forums, tabouere. Keep in mind that because something appears to be something else, doesn't mean that it is. No major crash debris or human remains were found far from the crash site.

Flight 93 wasn't shot down. What happened to it is confirmed by many different kinds of evidence. There are many, many threads and posts about this, including this one of mine from Saturday: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2560141&postcount=31

You can use the forum search feature to find more.

[tabouere]

Welcome to the forums, tabouere. Keep in mind that because something appears to be something else, doesn't mean that it is. No major crash debris or human remains were found far from the crash site.

Flight 93 wasn't shot down. What happened to it is confirmed by many different kinds of evidence. There are many, many threads and posts about this, including this one of mine from Saturday:

You can use the forum search feature to find more.


I'm sorry, but it is really not convincing, human remains and debris dont fly 6 miles away, have you ever shoot a 22 caliber long rifle? With the wind with you, u can shoot a bullet at max 2 kilometer. 6 miles is realy far away. The "tape" of the voice recorder were never release, we have only a transcript of it and nowhere we "hear" the "hero" breaking in and talk. Nowhere.

But i'll be kind, i'll give to you an alternative that could support the official story.

The inexperienced pilot do a quick turn and the G-Force break the plane in pieces.

[Gravy]

I'm sorry, but it is really not convincing, human remains and debris dont fly 6 miles awayOnly conspiracists claim that this is part of the official story. It isn't. The only debris found 6 miles away was a few small scraps of paper and nylon. They were found downwind. No debris was found upwind or along the plane's flight path.

Again, please use the forum search function. These issues have been discussed ad nauseum here. There is no evidence to support the conspiracist claims.

[tabouere]

For sure there's no evidence because the local take debris, put them in a garbage bag and give them to the investigator, that's why we have no photo of that, but it's not because we have no photo of the debris 6 miles away that they don't exist

[Gravy]

For sure there's no evidence because the local take debris, put them in a garbage bag and give them to the investigator, that's why we have no photo of that, but it's not because we have no photo of the debris 6 miles away that they don't existPlease stop making things up.

[tabouere]

Please stop making things up.


Are you begging me?

Let me think..... No way, I like to debunk what's the debunkers of debunkers does.

The fact is simple, many locals find metal pieces and human debris at at least 6 miles away of the plane crash. It was reported the very same days of the attack..... And no one repeat that in major media. Fact that don't match the official story is buried.

[Gravy]

Are you begging me?

Let me think..... No way, I like to debunk what's the debunkers of debunkers does.

The fact is simple, many locals find metal pieces and human debris at at least 6 miles away of the plane crash. Simple fact? Okay, then you won't have any trouble naming these locals "at least 6 miles away" and what they found.

Proceed, or withdraw your claim.

[WildCat]

Are you begging me?

Let me think..... No way, I like to debunk what's the debunkers of debunkers does.

The fact is simple, many locals find metal pieces and human debris at at least 6 miles away of the plane crash. It was reported the very same days of the attack..... And no one repeat that in major media. Fact that don't match the official story is buried.
Evidence?

Seriously, you will be found out here when you either make stuff up out of whole cloth or repeat the lies of other "truthers".

Back it up, or withdraw the claim.

[Slayhamlet]

Are you begging me?

Let me think..... No way, I like to debunk what's the debunkers of debunkers does.

The fact is simple, many locals find metal pieces and human debris at at least 6 miles away of the plane crash. It was reported the very same days of the attack..... And no one repeat that in major media. Fact that don't match the official story is buried.

The 6 miles figure is incorrect, tabouere. You can check it for yourself with Google Earth, as I did.

Look at the picture below. See the straight line from the crash site to the lake? That is a direct distance of approximately 1.38 miles. See the long, roundabout pathway? That is the route one would take to drive to Indian Lake from the crash site following the main roads. That distance is approximately 5.47 miles. This is where the inaccurate "nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash site" report comes from.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034637add4c5020.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5468)

[Slayhamlet]

Okay, new image with scale for tabouere.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1660346382c269bbd8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5480)

[Mike Stephens]

Wasting your breath Tabouere, the only thing they are skeptical about here are skeptics to the official lies.

[delphi_ote]

Wasting your breath Tabouere, the only thing they are skeptical about here are skeptics to the official lies.
Ah, the typical Truther response when an argument is completely demolished: a smoke screen of nonsense to cover a hasty retreat.

It's the truth. Your simple world view is allergic to it! Flee, little man!

[Hawk one]

So, Mike Stephens, where -is- the evidence that metal debris and human remains were found 6 miles away in airline?

[Slayhamlet]

Wasting your breath Tabouere, the only thing they are skeptical about here are skeptics to the official lies.

So, Google Earth is an official lie as well? Damn, the NWO sure does get around!

[beachnut]

Wasting your breath Tabouere, the only thing they are skeptical about here are skeptics to the official lies.
Do you have anything more on your stuff about the concrete in the WTC towers. And you never came back to fix your Payne Stewart interception time. Just look at your old posts and see where you left off. It has been 2 or 3 weeks, have you found some facts?

Mike, you need to read the this paper so you can learn about 9/11 and how CTs tell lies and make up information.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

[gumboot]

Oh wow,

Les Rapael joined us. I've missed arguing about the Naudets with whatshisname.

Tabouere, your articles doesn't say that debris was found nearly six miles away from the crash. It says two related statements:

1) Debris was found in Indian Lake
2) Indian Lake is nearly 6 miles from the crash site.

From this is built the conclusion:

3) The debris in Indian Lake was nearly 6 miles from the crash site.

The problem is, if either 1 or 2 is false, 3 must be false also. And 2, in this instance, is demonstratively false. Indian lake is nowhere near 6 miles from the crash site.

Have you evidence of any other debris being cited to have landed 6 miles from the crash site? Or will you withdraw your claim.

Finally, what does this prove?

When Pan Am Flight 103 broke up over Lockerbie, Scotland, it spread debris over a corridor over 80 miles long and covering over 800 square miles. Other aircraft that have broken up in mid flight routinely scatter light debris hundreds of kilometres away.

-Gumboot