Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux [Archive]

View Full Version : Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

Pages : [1] 2

Gravy

28th April 2006, 08:53 PM

Sorry for the new thread, but now you can download the higher-res Word file of my critique as a BitTorrent file. I've tested the download and it worked fine. This file is easier on the eyes, has working links where they should be, less sarcasm, and incorporates content changes suggested by JREFers. I would reformat it, but that's a big job and I'm working on a different critique for this weekend.

Those of you who know how BitTorrent works, download the torrent file by right-clicking here: http://www.prodigem.com/torrents/download/itmatters/itmatters-9-11_Loose_Change_2_Viewer_Guide.torrent, then open the torrent with your BitTorrent client to download the Word file.

If you're not familiar with BitTorrent, it's a peer-to-peer way of sharing large files that divides the bandwidth amongst user computers. When you download a file, you also are uploading bits of it that others need.

You need free BitTorrent client software to download torrent files. I use Azureus. (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=84122) There's a good FAQ for beginners here. (http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Azureus_FAQ)

If you're using a firewall, you need to change its settings to open a port for your BitTorrent client to use, otherwise downloads are very slow. The FAQ above tells you how to do this. My download took about 4 minutes.

Suggestions for changes to the critique are always welcome. I did this thing in 6 nights and it's far from perfect.

CurtC

28th April 2006, 10:14 PM

Gravy, do you need someone to host the DOC file for you? I just think there are a small proportion of people here who would have BitTorrent. I have extra space on my server.

Gravy

29th April 2006, 12:55 AM

Gravy, do you need someone to host the DOC file for you? I just think there are a small proportion of people here who would have BitTorrent. I have extra space on my server.

That would be wonderful, CurtC. I think I'll make those formatting changes over the weekend, and let you know by PM when it's finalized.

Dr Adequate

29th April 2006, 05:16 AM

Let me know when it's hosted somewhere accessible, please.

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 11:38 AM

Gravy, have you considered uploading a .ZIP versio of the Word Doc somewhere?

It should be considerably smaller, and so not need BitTorrent or anything similar.

Gravy

30th April 2006, 11:45 AM

Gravy, have you considered uploading a .ZIP versio of the Word Doc somewhere?

It should be considerably smaller, and so not need BitTorrent or anything similar.
It's not that much smaller zipped. Once I do some formatting I'm going to take CurtC up on his offer of hosting. The proper thing to do would have been to correctly size the graphics to begin with, but I just didn't have the time. It was a rush job. I did come up with a snazzy addition to it today, though.

Did you watch any of the video?

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 12:04 PM

Did you watch any of the video?Sorry, which video? Loose Change?

Gravy

30th April 2006, 12:05 PM

Sorry, which video? Loose Change?
Yes.

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 12:46 PM

I have only seen parts of it. I have to watch my blood pressure. :mad:

Hawk one

1st May 2006, 02:19 PM

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.

RSLancastr

1st May 2006, 02:21 PM

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.They're definitely a worthy target, but yes, it looks like it's already in capable hands, including those of Gravy.

Manny

2nd May 2006, 07:21 AM

hellaeon

2nd May 2006, 08:14 AM

I can host it on my bands site as a zip if you like, that way its a link you can use for future reference on a web site etc.

will be a good read - you rule mate.

kookbreaker

2nd May 2006, 12:41 PM

Your critique made it to 911 Conpsiracy Smasher blog (http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com) today.

Not the lone rather pathetic attempt at criticism. He seems to think that if he puts the word 'refute' in quotes that makes it unrefuted.

JLam

2nd May 2006, 03:21 PM

Gravy,
Excellent work. I haven't been able to read all of it, but you do such a good job carefully and methodically tearing down each argument...it's great.

Gravy

2nd May 2006, 05:33 PM

Hang on tight, G. The Loosers have discovered the first version (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360) and want to drop you an email.

Know any psych grad students? Bet s/he could earn a PhD going through those emails.

Good! That's why I put my email on there. They know about on theUnited 93 forum, also. But guess what? No emails except from people who liked it and had suggestions for additions.
:(

Manny

2nd May 2006, 05:43 PM

Maybe that's a good sign. Even some of the Loosers are all like, "well, he's got some good points..."

Looks like the new fallback position is going to be <>popol vuh's (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360): "So a couple of young men barely out of high school... It's not the Bible, it's an amateur film... I don't pretend to know who did it, what their motives were." Which is all a tortured way of saying, "well, we know it's full of crap but it ASKS QUESTIONS!!!!!" And that from a super-mod over there.

HidariMak

2nd May 2006, 06:12 PM

I'll be keeping an eye open for that DOC or ZIP link. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of relatively few people in my work group who doesn't believe in the various Loose Change conspiracy videos. Perhaps your document will do a better job at countering such stupidity than my attempts have.

WildCat

2nd May 2006, 06:15 PM

Gravy, that is really fantastic, incredibly well done! :clap:

kookbreaker

3rd May 2006, 08:00 AM

Hang on tight, G. The Loosers have discovered the first version (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360) and want to drop you an email.

Interesting. I would have expected that they would have been all over this article with complaints. I would have expected it to be on page 4 by now. Instead they seem stunned and are merely making feeble objections. The usually vile complaints on 911conspiracy have been limited to a minor complaint that Gravy didn't debunk something that was nothing but allegation to begin with.

I don't get the 'vibe' at LC forum, have they been slowing down of late or something?

Manny

3rd May 2006, 08:17 AM

They have been having more and more people who have been saying things like, "well, I agree that not all the questions are answered but (fill in particular crap) is just not true." I think LC is being chipped away rather than being demolished. Gravy's piece is perfect, because it is a billion chips rather than a single blow.

Also, Dylan has basically said that he doesn't read the message board (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/04/and-if-you-dont-know-now-you-know.html). He hasn't undertaken to correct even the painfully obvious stuff like the tarp/tent. So I think his me-too corps is feeling left without a captain.

chipmunk stew

3rd May 2006, 08:40 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd May 2006, 08:43 AM

I got suspended yesterday after asking a newbie to look at the PDF:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3366&view=findpost&p=4046773

Oh, the irony. Those that are claiming the truth is being covered up are taking actions to surpress views other than the one they wish to promote.

chipmunk stew

3rd May 2006, 09:01 AM

On Dylan's blog (http://http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/04/and-if-you-dont-know-now-you-know.html), he points out that Loose Change is on the front page of AOL (http://http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074909990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001).

I posted the document on the discussion board (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074909990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001), in a thread called "Loose Change debunked! (http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=6639&rating=1&boardId=561793&check=49ee67c92a05d6161230421ad0b6aed4f7bcb5cb&func=6&channel=News+AOL+Managed&rate_art=1;)" and then I came across this excellent list of links:

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=561793&articleId=6529&func=5&channel=News+AOL+Managed

bjb

3rd May 2006, 12:43 PM

Here's a nice link about breakaway light poles:

http://www.transpo.com/Transpo_Sheets_PDF/Pole_safe.pdf

Here's my post about it on the Loose Change forum:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3444

Kevin_Lowe

4th May 2006, 12:01 AM

I've started an account over there and I'm pointing out the obvious here and there.

There are some serious loonies over there though.

Ramooone

7th May 2006, 06:00 PM

heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it

Its too late about the contact info. Its already readily available even off my site so Ive been dealing with the harrassment for years now.

I am kind of tired of recounting the event over and over again but I will reitirate that it was indeed an American Airlines 757 that hit the pentagon and not a missle.

Steve

this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!

Gravy

7th May 2006, 09:00 PM

heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it

this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!
Thanks for doing that Ramooone.
By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.

pgwenthold

8th May 2006, 06:44 AM

I haven't had a chance to look at the new treatise yet, but was wondering, is it indexed?

Yeah, it would be a major task, but with an index, this could be a great general and easy to use source for all matters 9/11.

Just wondering...

CurtC

8th May 2006, 07:49 AM

Another question I have - what is the best format? I know Gravy considered PDF, but couldn't get the hyperlinks to work in it, so stuck with DOC. I'm not crazy about DOCs because you get all the red squiggly underlines where Word tries to correct the grammar, and I'm not crazy about PDFs for computer viewing - PDFs are good for documents that you plan to print.

Would a conversion to HTML be better? I tend to think it would, and it would make hyperlinks very straightforward.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th May 2006, 08:10 AM

hurdygurdy

8th May 2006, 09:17 AM

By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.

Thanks, Gravy. I'm sharing it on Emule as well.

Gravy

8th May 2006, 11:38 AM

WildCat

8th May 2006, 06:22 PM

Ha! In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3787) chucksheen claims your paper has been debunked already... :roll:

He must have forgot to include the link! :D

jond

9th May 2006, 05:30 AM

Gravy

9th May 2006, 07:13 AM

Gravy-

Just getting through your excellent work, and I must say: you've got WAY too much time on your hands, and we're all better off for it! It's efforts like yours (and many others on this forum) that make this such an enlightening place to hang out. Thanks.
Thanks, Jond, but blame delphi, Randfan and Chipmunk Stew for all of this. In fact, here's what I wrote in one of my first posts on the subject, a month ago
The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.
Oops. Guess I failed at that!

Regnad Kcin

9th May 2006, 03:12 PM

The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.

Blue Mountain

9th May 2006, 09:51 PM

Good idea. Also Word should do the HTML conversion w/o issue.
Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.

If you do use Word to convert the document to HTML, please find someone who can run the result through HTMLtidy to clean it up. (I could do it; I have a copy on my computer here at home.)

hellaeon

10th May 2006, 12:53 AM

CurtC

10th May 2006, 07:26 AM

Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.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: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

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

chipmunk stew

10th May 2006, 07:51 AM

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: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.Nice! Are you planning on making the index navigable?

Arkan_Wolfshade

10th May 2006, 08:12 AM

Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.

If you do use Word to convert the document to HTML, please find someone who can run the result through HTMLtidy to clean it up. (I could do it; I have a copy on my computer here at home.)

I didn't say it would be elegant, just easy. :p

Manny

10th May 2006, 08:18 AM

CurtC

10th May 2006, 08:47 AM

Nice! Are you planning on making the index navigable?Yes, I think that would be a requirement. As I'm making edits, I'm preserving the index info in the text as anchors, and will have to link them later.

For whatever it's worth, the aircraft which the FAA remote-controlled in a fuel experiment was a 727, not a 720.I'm not sure whether the voice in LC says "720" or that's just in the transcript that Gravy copied, but the plane is an old 707.

rwguinn

10th May 2006, 08:52 AM

For whatever it's worth, the aircraft which the FAA remote-controlled in a fuel experiment was a 727, not a 720. I can't see the document from work, but it's pretty early in.

Also, I might put together a bit on options trading with an eye toward making that section easier to understand.

727's do not have engines on the wings....
and to make more of a point, the remote pilot was Fitz Fulton, one of the best pilots I have ever known, with many thousands of hours experience in all kinds of aircraft, including the Blackbird.
He missed the landing by quite a bit. Remote piloting is not as easy as one would think

Anders W. Bonde

10th May 2006, 09:01 AM

The B720 was a medium range version of the B707 with a slightly different wing and a slightly shorter fuselage - so if it looks like a B707 off-hand (4 wing-mounted engines), then it could very well be a B720. BTW, I'm sure that test sequence is out there on the Web somewhere...

Manny

10th May 2006, 09:01 AM

Yeah, sorry for the brain fart. I substituted the wrong discontinued Boeing jet. Seen that thing a thousand times, too.

orphia nay

12th May 2006, 11:55 PM

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: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

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

Great work, CurtC, and of course, Gravy! The HTML version comes just at the right time - I was wanting to link to either the pdf or the doc (in another forum) but wasn't sure which one, but this is better because the links and pics both work. Many thanks.

contra

13th May 2006, 04:35 AM

Gravy

13th May 2006, 05:31 AM

Its pretty awesome :D
Its not a blow by blow counter, its sentence by sentence...

I bet they will still try to say it is fact in places. Saying you have wrong info, or it is misinformation... you know.. the usual

If you don't mind i'll post it in a few places, whenever someone brings up LC.
Thanks. Yes, please spread it around. The Loosers are working on a new "Final Cut" version, which I assume will be out before 9/11. Dylan Avery says he wants it to be "100% accurate," which I guess means he'll only use the opening and closing credits from the current version.

CptColumbo

13th May 2006, 09:58 AM

If someone wants to do a counter video, I'm available for voice over work.

Earthborn

13th May 2006, 06:52 PM

Gravy, pretty good work so far.

I suggest checking the claim that a Richard Wagner of Convar actually made the claims he made, by dropping that company's press officer (http://www.press.convar.com/pressesprecher.asp?language=1) an email. Ask whether they helped recover data from harddisks found at Ground Zero, NY after 9/11, whether a Richard Wagner actually works there and if so he said the things he supposedly said.

I'm not saying that no German today could possibly have the name "Richard Wagner" but I do find it funny that the guy has the name of a world famous composer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner) and that this name only appears in relation to data recovery on 9/11 conspiracy sites but not on the website of the company he supposedly works for. Sounds to me like some joker at Unknown News used a famous name to pull an obvious prank.

Blue Mountain

13th May 2006, 06:58 PM

Minor nit in an otherwise superb document: In Canada (don't know about the rest of the world) the abbreviation for kilometres per hour is km/h, not kph.

"k" is simply "kilo" and leaving out the "/" implies multiplication, not division. So kph would logically expand to "1000 units of <any word that beings with p> multiplied by one hour" ... such as "thousands of page-hours" (=10 people reading 100 pages each over 60 munites) or "thousands of phosphorus-hours" (=1 kilogram of phosphorus consumed in one hour, or 250 g/hr consumed over 4 hours, assuming you're measuring your consumption in grams.) :)

CurtC

15th May 2006, 04:38 PM

I have finished the conversion of Gravy's paper to HTML. It's at http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 .

I just added the hyperlinked index at the front. Now I guess it's time to make updates.

Pardalis

15th May 2006, 05:14 PM

This is potent stuff! Thanks CurtC and Gravy!

orphia nay

2nd June 2006, 02:32 AM

OK, hold on to your hats...

As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for:
"gravy" AND "loose change" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=gravy&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=loose+change&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)
produces 'about 25,200 results'.

About 6 hours ago the same search produced 'about 24,500 results'.

This thing has got legs like a millipede!

Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...

moflicky

2nd June 2006, 03:15 PM

Hey all, new to your forum.

The other night, I spent a couple hours (that I'll never get back) going through many of the pages of the previous thread on 9/11 CTs. It just amazes me how so-called critical thinkers like Alek (what a piece of work) can similtaniously believe contradicting theories without thier heads exploding.

You all showed extreme patience with guy who clearly didn't deserve it, and you should be commended.

I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.

Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:

1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.

a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?

b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.

2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.

anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work.

Kiwiwriter

2nd June 2006, 03:20 PM

It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.

The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature.

Even guys who did the Holocaust talked about it...yes, they rationalized, evaded, sometimes lied...but in the end, they did not resile from the proven narrative...the Nazis massacred millions of people in a systematic manner. Ohlendorf, Hoess, Eichmann, all spouted their stories, and they match the evidence and the other narratives. Just like 9/11 in that regard.

Of course, deniers and CT theorists just say all the books are fakes, created at the same place. But nobody has been able to present the alternative narrative by which the fakery was done. Nobody has been able to produce an actual conspirator to admit, "Yup, I'm the guy who faked the Holocaust records," or "Yes, I'm the fella who wired the World Trade Center with C4 to blow it up."

Why not? Because they don't exist. :)

Regnad Kcin

2nd June 2006, 05:31 PM

The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature...
Right.

Plus, as I've opined before, if such a massive inside job were conceived and executed in the service of the globalists' critical goals...

1) Where was a follow-up "attack" or "attacks," necessary to ensure the continued support of the American public for the present administration?

2) Would it not be, by comparison, the easiest thing in the world to plant WMD in Iraq, post-invasion?

R.Mackey

2nd June 2006, 06:01 PM

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!

Hutch

2nd June 2006, 06:10 PM

First, welcome to the Forum, moficky; feel free to look around the other sections of the Forum; lots of good stuff here.

I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.

And that is how it goes; pin them down on one item and they squirm towards another--and another--and another. There is not enough time in the universe to pin down ecery factoid they demand, and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you." You can't win; but you might plant the seed.

Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:

1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.

a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?

b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.

2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.

Covered many, many times and the reply is always another picture or another video showing puffs of smoke and the CT'er saying "See, See??" They are a very visual species, which make me think that many of them are young, in that visual images are more important and truthful to them than dry reading and hard math.

We shall see.

Again, welcome.

XXX

2nd June 2006, 06:14 PM

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

CptColumbo

2nd June 2006, 06:45 PM

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?

XXX

2nd June 2006, 06:50 PM

I doubt it. He can't even respond to their limited "attacks" on his guide right now.

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 07:42 PM

OK, hold on to your hats...
Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...

Thanks! It's really due for an update, but I wanted to wait until this copyright stuff was resolved. I'm told by one of the sites hosting it that my critique was downloaded almost 3,000 times in a little over 3 weeks. That's only counting the .doc file downloads, not the HTML views, so that's very encouraging.

My emails have been about 80% favorable, and they come from around the world. I've had lots of people email that they saw "Loose Change" and didn't know what to think of its claims, but didn't have time to look into it themselves, and were very grateful for finding my work. Nice!

steve s

2nd June 2006, 07:49 PM

...every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

And each "What about..." becomes more and more trivial and inconsequential. So we eventually get nonsense like "What about the fact that a pentagon official canceled a flight for Sept. 11," not realizing that on any given day of the year you can always find someone somewhere in the government who canceled a flight.

...and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you."

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 08:03 PM

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?
No need. They aren't going to come up with much that's factually wrong. In the introduction to my critique I ask people to email me with any well-researched corrections and I'll incorporate them. AAFIK, not a single Looser has done so.

There are plenty of things that can be improved, plenty of places where I researched stuff but didn't cite references, etc.

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.

Manny

2nd June 2006, 08:12 PM

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.And that, at its core, is the difference between skeptics and the Loosers. When confronted with a factual correction, a skeptic's proper response is "Thanks! I learned something today and as a bonus you've helped me appear more credible because I've got my facts more straight. How's about a beer? If you find another error I'll buy you a nice one." A Looser calls you a shill and bans you from the forum.

ktesibios

2nd June 2006, 09:09 PM

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio... ;)

kookbreaker

2nd June 2006, 09:09 PM

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

XXX

2nd June 2006, 09:12 PM

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I actually made the exact same comparison in an earlier post, that it would probably end up like the pathetic debunking attempt of 9/11 myths.

XXX

2nd June 2006, 09:19 PM

On the subject of "debunkings", don't know if you;ve seen this one, but it's not that great either... http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/urbanlegends.html

Or this one...http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/paulboutin.html

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 09:22 PM

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio... ;)
Say, how about emailing them and offering your technical expertise? Wouldn't you like to be a "Scholar for Truth?"

I also think we should start making daily "press releases."
Day 1: The "Scholars for Truth" promoted lies about 9/11 today.
Day 2: Ditto.

orphia nay

2nd June 2006, 10:43 PM

You're welcome, Gravy.

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

The site that hosts that 'debunking' has some freaked-out stuff. They host an article alleging that the Naudet brothers' 9/11 film was staged. One of my extra-curricular 'unoffical ninja' forays into the LC forum revealed links to the page, so after posting a few times there about it (in the Naudet threads in Investiagte 911), winding a few people up and getting DJLegacy to post an after-the-fact disclaimer about his own allegations, I mustered my monkeys and penguins and lobbed a poo grenade at the source.

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Dear Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz,

I strongly appreciate your efforts in causing the removal of footage from the Naudet Brothers' film from the abominable film "Loose Change".

I would like to draw your attention to some possibly libellous statements made about the Naudet brothers by Leslie Raphael. An essay entitled, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged" appears at the following websites, to name but two:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/911/staged.htm

I have seen links to the essay at the "Loose Change" discussion forum. As of today's date, a Google search for all words, "raphael naudet 9/11" gives 400 results, while "staged naudet 9/11" gives 890 results. (Serendipity.com's contents are advertised 'as available on CD-ROM' on the article's webpage, however, the details reveal the CD-ROM is received 'free' upon purchase of the webhost's other website on CD-ROM for US$186.00, €155.00 or £109.00.)

Many of Raphael's comments are suppositions, questions, and theories, but the article contains a number of possibly libellous statements, which I quote below.

"Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
6 February 2006
by Leslie Raphael
lesraphael@hotmail.com
Leslie Raphael, 15 Belmont Crescent, Kilmaurs, Kilmarnock KA3 2SH, UK.

"The point of the exercise is to establish that the Naudet film must have been staged by people who knew about the attacks in advance"

"I am making an accusation of complicity in mass murder, based on the few seconds of film of Flight 11 that I think prove the case."

"But there are reasons for optimism. I say the Naudet film is one of the keys to 9/11, that will expose the true perpetrators. It is not just a documentary record of a crime, but an integral part of that crime. What can we do about it? For one thing, we can call for the issuing of an international warrant for the arrest of the Naudet brothers and everyone else involved in the filming of Flight 11."

"I say that both Naudet and Hlava knew what was going to happen that morning, and were told how to film it by controllers working for one of the US intelligence agencies. Their attempts to explain how they managed to capture their films are obviously contrived, and both photographers are frauds and liars."

Although, as I pointed out, many of his/her comments are suppositions and questions, the author adds this statement that possibly negates that tenuous neutrality:

"...you have to be totally brainless not to see the pattern, but that description would suit the millions of Americans, the shame and laughing stock of the civilised world, who all along have dutifully swallowed every word of the Evil Terrorist Mastermind story, straight from a Superman comic or a Hollywood schlockbuster, because they are incapable of handling anything more complex, like the real world around them."

I would like to see action taken to remove the article from the internet, and that the author and host websites are sued for making and publishing libellous statements. I would appreciate it if you could draw Jules and Gédéon Naudet's attention to this article.

Yours faithfully,

etc.

[bolding added in this post]

Please note that proceeds from the Naudet's film have contributed millions of pounds to the firefighters' and victims' families.

WildCat

2nd June 2006, 10:57 PM

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:
Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

RandFan

2nd June 2006, 11:24 PM

I took a break from work today to lurk a bit and I've been all day looking at the screw loose change video and Gravy's file. Cool (not cool that I'm not working but screw it. My son can always go to state school).

Good luck on the debunk Loosers.

orphia nay

3rd June 2006, 02:53 AM

Nice!

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome. Any chance of a recommendation for an official "Ninja Wave" title? :D Or do I have to wait to be banned from the LC forum? Actually, that mightn't be long, after my last posts, and the reaction to my other posts.

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits. My intention is to continue to seek possible sources of libel/slander and take action against it. And, of course, to keep debating, and disseminating Gravy's Critique as widely as possible. I've put the link to it in my signature in two woo forums of which I'm a member.

Shrinker

3rd June 2006, 04:30 AM

Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.) Therefore, no damages. Now if the Naudets were having difficulty finding employment because of these claims, or were suffereing harrassment, then there'd be a case worth pursuing. As it stands the CTs are really just a bunch of ineffectual loudmouth cranks.

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

kookbreaker

3rd June 2006, 06:31 AM

A couple of conspiracy cranks have been sued in the past. The secret service agent accused of accidently firing his carbine into JFK's skull sued the author of FATAL ERROR. But overall, the lack of naming a real conspirator is what keeps CTs safe, not their crankiness level.

Gravy

3rd June 2006, 10:39 AM

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Great job, Orphia!

Pardalis

3rd June 2006, 09:08 PM

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.)

Exactly. If our democracy was so much in jeopardy, as they are saying, wouldn't they be out on the streets manifesting, everyday? Wouldn't they be demanding directly to their representatives for answers, instead of through the internet?

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

Exactly (again). That's why if Avery thinks he can get LC3 to the mainstream distribution, he's up for a world of hurt. I guess he's going to learn about life the hard way...

Pardalis

3rd June 2006, 09:38 PM

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome.

Then let me add my appreciation to the others. Nicely done.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits

You know how, when people talk about pollution, we often hear that nature will eventually regain control? Well, this time it's reality fighting back. When too much woo and nonsense is generated, you eventually get an equal and opposite reaction. Reality always gets the last word (let's hope).

What you did is exactly what the truthseekers should be doing if only they trully believed anything they are saying. Wich is to take action, directly forward their questions and worries to the ones concerned, and to the proper authorities. You were trully sickened by the awful and gratuitous libel that was directed at the Naudet brothers (as all of us), and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it. This is a great example of integrity.

And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it? That's because, as Shrinker said, they know they are wrong, and they are just fondling with the idea (no matter how dangerous the idea is), and they have NO integrity.

Once again, nicely done.

Regnad Kcin

3rd June 2006, 09:54 PM

...And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it?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...

Pardalis

4th June 2006, 12:40 AM

and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it.

It should have read "and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and did something about it."

Sorry for my english.:o

orphia nay

4th June 2006, 01:37 AM

Thankyou very much, Gravy. And thankyou, Pardalis - your post brought a tear to my eye. I've been having a bad day, but both posts made me smile. I then visited the Looser Forum, and I find I can claim a small victory.

I've been following the 2 recents LC threads "Naudet brothers sue Dylan" and "Questions about the Naudet brothers" (in the "Investigate 9/11" section). In the first thread I'd posted the names of Loosers who'd said elsewhere that they'd sent emails (that may have been threatening) to the Naudets' lawyers. I'd also listed the names of people who'd expressed beliefs that the Naudets were complicit in the 'cover-up' and asked them whether Dylan had 'capitulated to conspirators'. This prompted DJLegacy2k1 to post a statement in the "Questions about the Naudet brothers" thread saying (I have to paraphrase) "we have not taken a stance". He had started the thread, posting links to the Raphael article. I quoted his statement, then quoted one of his posts made half-way through the thread where he said ~"Don't worry guys, the Naudets' reputation will be finished after this [legal action]", then I wrote: "This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

So, links to the Raphael article have been removed from the web, as have 3 pages of speculation and malicious allegations. OK, so my victory over DJLegacy2k1 is also gone, but that's no skin off my penguins' beaks.

Gravy

4th June 2006, 04:44 AM

"This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".
Oh, I like the cut of your jib, Orphia. And the snap of your jab! I'm constantly amazed that the Loosers can make it through a day without "Darwin Awarding" themselves out of existence. Where else can you find a whole group of people who need to be reminded not to send threatening letters to lawyers? I feel like I'm watching a race of beings who have inhabited human brains but haven't found the owner's manual.

Ducky

5th June 2006, 01:13 AM

orphia nay

5th June 2006, 01:32 AM

Two words:

Google cache.

Someone should archive those threads from it.

Thanks, fowlsound. I tried that, and managed to find page 1 of the thread ("Questions about the Naudet brothers") which I've saved.

I might try some web archives next.

Cheers.

les raphael

10th June 2006, 04:53 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
You've written to the Naudet lawyers, have you ? I beat you to it - I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ? I haven't heard back ; have you ? As for getting in touch with the Naudets themselves, I have been writing to them and others involved in the making of their film - as well as MPs, journalists, film-makers, MI5, CIA, FBI, DoD, Bloomberg, Pfeifer, Hanlon, etc etc - for nearly four years now. If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay - but you seem to have some kind of problem articulating your criticisms of it, apart from the personal abuse. I have what's known as the courage of my convictions - I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets. The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed. What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ? The justification is in the essay, if you're remotely interested in reading it - and I'd advise having a copy of the DVD to hand, to see that everything I say about it is accurate. Your claim, incidentally, that the film has raised "millions of pounds" for victims' families - what's your source for that ? How much, precisely ? My understanding was that they gave the entire proceeds, bar personal expenses, to the UFA Scholarship Fund - period - but I've never seen a figure quoted. I like to get my facts right, and I'd advise you to do the same, if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one. What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ? The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise. If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right. How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

Gravy

10th June 2006, 05:04 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?
No special kind. Just a regular idiot.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 05:13 AM

To Raphael in regards of copyright:

There is a difference between "fair use" (your two stills) and "blatant violation of copyright" (the loosers vid).
You may want to research it.
The rest is just....idiotic.

Gravy

10th June 2006, 05:34 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

...it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

Fair enough. Let's give your masterpiece of reasoning another perusal:

How probable is it that not only did Naudet (or whoever) capture Flight 11 - as if that were not enough on its own - but that he and his brother Gédéon then went on to record the rest of that day's events ? Who else could be almost simultaneously inside the towers, out on the streets and back at Duane Street firehouse, eight blocks away, than a pair of miracle workers like these ? They even managed - by "pure accident" - to record the totally unexpected collapse of No. 7 World Trade Center, seven hours after No. 1 fell.

1 The photographer is outside, not - like most people in Manhattan at any given time - in a building (like the firehouse he was in 15 minutes before) or a vehicle (like the car he was in 5 minutes before), where filming a plane would be far more difficult.

Okay, that's plenty. I retract my previous email. Les, I'm sorry to tell you that your idiocy is at an advanced stage, and we may not have caught it in time. PM me and I'll refer you to a hospidiotce that gives great palliative care.

Seriously, Les, get some help. Medication, education, recreation: whatever helps you to think more clearly. Please.

eta: By the way, the collapse of WTC 7 had been expected for hours. You accuse others of not doing their research, but you haven't done your own.

MarkyX

10th June 2006, 05:35 AM

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...

No it isn't :P

Learn to get rejected buddy!

orphia nay

10th June 2006, 05:49 AM

"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,,790864,00.html)", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.

Les,
You must have some problem recognising personal abuse. It is rampant in your post, whereas there is none in my email. I said your article was possibly libellous, which is not a criticism of you personally. Can you see the difference?

Here some examples of personal abuse:

...they must be blind and deaf. So must you...

if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one

a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday

If I state what I believe, I'd be here until I die. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. Actually, no, I'm not sorry.

It would be more expedient to state what I do not believe. I do not believe you have provided proof to back up your allegations that the Naudet brothers are liars and frauds. Questions are not evidence (as Regnad Kcin has succinctly put it in this forum).

Thankyou, The Fire, for your apt words.

chipmunk stew

10th June 2006, 06:07 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
....
I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ?
....
If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay
....
That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why.For the "and others" out there who, like me, have been blind and deaf this whole time and have no idea who this guy is or what this essay is:
http://911foreknowledge.batcave.net/

Apollyon

10th June 2006, 07:36 AM

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:15 AM

I haven't heard back
Maybe because you're obviously a loon?

I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets.
I don't doubt that at all.

The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed.
Unfortunately your deductions were 100% wrong.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?
:whistling:

What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ?
"Gospel" truth? No. Most likely scenario offered by far? Absolutely!

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ?
Short answer, yes.

I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ?
Skepticism must be accompanied by critical thinking skills, otherwise, well just look at your essay.

If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right.
And this may well be the heart of your problem - Bush Derangement Syndrom. If Bush says it's true, it must be false.

How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.
We've all spelled out why in this and several other lengthy threads. Perhaps you should read some of them.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:24 AM

To Les Raphael:

Have you actually done any research on the film yourself? And by this I don't mean surfing conspiracy web sites. Have you gone to NYC and talked to any of the firemen involved in the Naudet documentary? Have you obtained any of the 911 calls about the gas leak (obtainable by a FOIA request if you encounter problems)? Did you contact anyone in the FDNY about normal procedures when investigating gas leaks (maybe the street is blocked off, especially since people are entering manholes in the middle of said streets)?

This would be the least you could have done before you go off accusing the Naudet Bros. as well as the FDNY and 911 call center operators and managers of complicity in the deaths of nearly 3000 people.

delphi_ote

10th June 2006, 08:34 AM

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise.
We believe things based on evidence. So far, your side of this argument has produced nothing even close. We're not interested in things that make us "question the official version." We're not interested in vague hints. If you're going to make these wild accusations, you need to show some evidence.

When I say "evidence," I'm not talking about five frames of a video that look weird to you. I'm not talking about quote mining from official's speeches and local news reports. I'm not talking about interviewing people who believe what you say. I'm not talking about pages and pages of raving insinuation.

Even the weak evidence that I've seen presented from your side of the argument has proven to be false over and over again. In fact, there is now an instance we suspect is an outright forgery.

How dare you come over here and claim we'll believe everything we hear when you've bought all of this nonsense hook line and sinker?

kookbreaker

10th June 2006, 08:38 AM

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:38 AM

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...No it isn't :P

Learn to get rejected buddy!???

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:39 AM

...Questions are not evidence (as Regnad Kcin has succinctly put it in this forum)...You're very kind to cite me, however I'm not the first here to use the phrase. Can't remember who it was, unfortunately.

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:41 AM

delphi_ote's post #99 is spot on!

CptColumbo

10th June 2006, 09:50 AM

Are you charging people to look at your essay and the frames from the Naudet film?

If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 09:52 AM

Are you charging people to look at your essay and the frames from the Naudet film?

If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.
Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 09:58 AM

I believe avery and co. should have studied This site (http://fermat.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/) and this site (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/student.htm#fu) before they made the "doc"......

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 10:00 AM

Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.
Yup. At least around here. If I remember correctly, in Denmark you can show 45 seconds, or the equivelant of it in frames, of any given movie (AFAIK: This may vary depending on the length of the production otherwise commercials were screwed) under the fair use cover.

ETA: This probably different in the US.

ETA: Wordsquabble. I need to reboot my brain.....

CptColumbo

10th June 2006, 10:07 AM

Either way, I think this was a case of "post and run."

delphi_ote

10th June 2006, 11:43 AM

Either way, I think this was a case of "post and run."
I say you got no respect
Respect for authority
You're just playing your dirty tricks
And then come cryin' to me
Hit and run, hit and run
It's just a hit and run
Another hit and run

or...

And I'd like to thank mister death for what he's done
Cause I got to walk away from my hit and run
Mysteries are not so empty
Cause I saw you
At my hit and run

Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research." :D

bob_kark

10th June 2006, 12:02 PM

or...

Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research." :D

Ahhh, so that's how they found out about the Spanish Bombs in the WTC... Wait, maybe this doesn't work so well.

The Clash, BTW

kevin

10th June 2006, 12:55 PM

Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.

Depends mostly on the length and purpose of the segment. the documentary Outfoxed had no permission to use any of the video clips they showed from Fox News, but I think Fox (no matter what their public posturing is) learned from suing Al Franken that they can be laughed out of court too.

http://www.outfoxed.org/
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002023.shtml
(I haven't seen outfoxed yet so I'm not commenting on the contents, just the fact that you can use video segments under fair use, but be careful about it...)

Gravy

10th June 2006, 02:06 PM

Depends mostly on the length and purpose of the segment. the documentary Outfoxed had no permission to use any of the video clips they showed from Fox News, but I think Fox (no matter what their public posturing is) learned from suing Al Franken that they can be laughed out of court too.
I would think that the Naudets would have a much stronger case against fair use because of the unique and historic nature of their footage. It seems to me that the potential value of their footage is far greater than the potential value of any footage of FOX talking heads.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 02:13 PM

And then there's the fact that Avery is butchering the contents beyond recognition including twisting things people are saying completely out of context. Yaknow, the Cherrypicking? It's a no-no when doing a documentary. And could cause several civil lawsuits........*Sadistic grin* I wonder......

Gravy

10th June 2006, 02:15 PM

Ahhh, so that's how they found out about the Spanish Bombs in the WTC... Wait, maybe this doesn't work so well.

The Clash, BTW
Well, I'm back to the garage with my bulls**t detector, trying to get those jail guitar doors to go clang, clang on a certain lonely mother's son.

Happy Birthday, bob_kark! I hope you get that underscorectomy you asked for!

XXX

10th June 2006, 04:44 PM

I have what's known as the courage of my convictions - I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets.

Of that, I have no doubt.

The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed.

Seems more like data mining to me. Similar to the Gambler's fallacy, like if a roulette wheel came up red 10 times in a row you could look back and say that only has a 1-1024 chance of happining, so therefore the wheel must be rigged. Given that the first plane was caught on film, there will be a set of circumstances leading up to it that seem unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it was a conspiracy. Your same argument could be made against ANYONE who had caught the first plane on film.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ? The justification is in the essay, if you're remotely interested in reading it - and I'd advise having a copy of the DVD to hand, to see that everything I say about it is accurate.

I have read it. Still not convinced.

What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ? The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday,

We're not talking about all conspiracy theories, just this one. Why is it that the Warren Commission always seems to come up with these people? I don't remember anyone here saying that the official version is "gospel truth" either.

who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise.

I haven't read anyone here say that all politicians tell the truth. More straw man arguments. Along with the "gospel truth" comment from above, this is a common tactic amoung theorists. They make statements about how if you believe the official version you must also believe that the government never lies to us and that politicians always tell the truth, which is total BS of course.

If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right.

Another line that's meant to divide people rather than address the facts, similar to the lines above about "gospel truth" and politicians. Implying that if you agree with the official version then you are somehow alligned with Bush/Blair.

How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

I think people here has spelled out what they believe and why pretty damn well. I do appreciate that you have actually done that yourself. I have been working on a few 9/11 projects, maybe I will have to tackle your piece in a bit more depth.

kevin

10th June 2006, 05:11 PM

I would think that the Naudets would have a much stronger case against fair use because of the unique and historic nature of their footage. It seems to me that the potential value of their footage is far greater than the potential value of any footage of FOX talking heads.

I'm merely pointing out it is possible to use video clips under fair use. I'm not trying to claim the Loose Change people did so.

I haven't seen the loose change video with the bits in it (got way better things to do than that) but my understanding is they clipped entire segments (minutes at a time?) that still isn't under fair use.

Additionally the video clips of Fox that Outfox used were what they were commenting on. The Loose Change usage (again my understanding from not having seen it) was to support their own opinion, not criticize the film they took them from (there is also a clause in fair use for new reporting but I don't believe that would cover this either.)

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

bob_kark

10th June 2006, 05:36 PM

Well, I'm back to the garage with my bulls**t detector, trying to get those jail guitar doors to go clang, clang on a certain lonely mother's son.

Happy Birthday, bob_kark! I hope you get that underscorectomy you asked for!

Ah, I think I've figured out why they think WTC1, 2, & 7 didn't collapse due to fire. How can there be an inferno with no disco? Its just not possible people.

BTW, unfortunately there is no known cure for the underscore. Please donate now to the Hanson Underscore Home. With your help, we can make a difference.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 08:20 AM

From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
To Gravy, The Fire, kookbreaker, WildCat, chipmunk, Delphi Ote - Like I said, no arguments, just abuse, and I'm not going to dignify that kind of crap with a longer response. There was abuse in my reply only in response to yours.
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.
WildCat says I was accusing 911 operators and managers and the entire
FDNY of complicity - fairly typical : I did no such thing. SOME employees of
the FDNY are in on it, but not the whole department. And yes, I did contact FDNY spokesmen to confirm standard gas leak protocols - like the guy I named in my essay. As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident - but the essay invites anyone who is to do it. As for research, yes I have done it - and my entire essay was written without reference to one conspiracy site - I don't recycle other people's ideas, and a lot of the sites are the rubbish you take them for. I've written hundreds of letters and e-mails over the last four years, including to the FDNY and Duane Street - as stated in the essay - which you have obviously not bothered reading.
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
XXX, "Scholar" - no, I would not be making the same accusation against
ANYONE who filmed the first plane, and the circumstances wouldn't necessarily be unlikely. I'ld have bought someone out on the street, with a camcorder - but not with firemen, not getting the impact in the middle of the picture, not carrying on and filming inside the tower, etc etc. It's pure Hollywood - they just couldn't stop themselves overdoing it. You say you're going to have another read at my piece " in more depth" - thank you - please do. You're the only sensible person in the discussion - I don't buy your arguments, but you do seem to have some. Incidentally, there's no analogy with gambling : I list 69 circumstances in the film that are both
unusual and convenient - that combination, so many times, is what makes it suspect. I mentioned JFK and other conspiracy theories because none of the
contributors have mentioned that they buy some theories but not mine -
the presumption being they don't buy any. Am I wrong ? It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.

MikeW

12th June 2006, 08:24 AM

As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident
Does that matter? I've made FOIA applications to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defence & the Air Force, & I'm in the UK...

bjb

12th June 2006, 08:40 AM

It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.

If that's all you want, just go to the politics forum. For example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56909&highlight=bush+lies

There are actually a number of people here on the forum who believe the rest of the JREF forum members are ultra-liberal Bush haters! Only a few of us go so far as to accuse George Bush of being a war criminal, but many here feel he is breaking the law in other areas (security leaks, wiretapping). Can you tell us why so many people who dislike George Bush are so disgusted by you 9/11 conspiracy theorists? I think it's because we skeptics, conservative or liberal, don't like anyone who tries to fool us, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

60hzxtl

12th June 2006, 08:47 AM

: I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. .

Libel is a a tough one to prove; since you have to demonstrate damages.

Not responding is hardly conclusive - what could they gain? You can sue O.J. Simpson for $40.mil, but if he hasn't got $40.mil, you don't get it.

The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them

The_Fire

12th June 2006, 09:13 AM

Raphael:
What did you expect? A pat on the back? Some sort of recognition? From the lawyers point of view you are simply not worth it. And from mine you aren't either.
But your martyr complex probably tells you differently.

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 09:15 AM

Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Someone help me out here. I thought I saw a video clip of 7 with someone saying they were afraid the building would collapse.

MikeW

12th June 2006, 09:31 AM

Someone help me out here. I thought I saw a video clip of 7 with someone saying they were afraid the building would collapse.
It's probably the one I'm hosting at 911myths, the last one on your list.

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 09:47 AM

It's probably the one I'm hosting at 911myths, the last one on your list.Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.

Kent1

12th June 2006, 09:54 AM

Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.
This one?? "Watch that building it will be coming down soon."

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

If that link doesn't work try this....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 10:10 AM

This one?? "Watch that building it will be coming down soon."

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

If that link doesn't work try this....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results That's the one.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 11:53 AM

From : Les Raphael, Monday 12 June 2006
To Orphia -
"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.
Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.
My original post was addressed "To Orphia Nay and others" - the bit about abuse was aimed at "you" plural : but you're quite right - your own post didn't contain any. Just an accusation of libel, which I deny. I know my claims are distressing to some folk - I'm not exactly living a stress-free life myself because of it - but I think we have to face the truth, however ugly it
is, and I think my claims are the truth, or at least heading towards it. I could be wrong, but after all this time, and all the messages of support I've had, I don't think I am - generally - I may have some aspects wrong. Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ? I've written several times - and they never come back as undelivered - but he won't talk. Or at the William Morris Agency - or via the lawyers - or at the address for Goldfish Films. I've tried all of them - and a PO Box address for Goldfish that vanished from the net not long after I wrote to it in September 2002 - my first attempt to confront them, with the very earliest version of my convenience list - only a couple of dozen in those days. Still enough to make the case. I don't think you'll get any more response than I've had, but if you do, let me know, and it can be discussed.
To MikeW : I think the 911 calls would be c/o the NYPD, and I don't believe
that's covered by the federal FOIA. The New York State rules are different -
and I think you do have to be a resident.
bjb : I've no idea why folk who don't like Bush hate conspiracy theorists even
more - just as I can't understand Chomsky's position - I don't know what's
wrong with the guy. What are his arguments ? 1. Too many folk involved -
it always leaks ; Northwoods didn't. (Don't tell me they didn't do it - it was
still a conspiracy, and it stayed classified and unknown for nearly 40 years).
2. The one he offered me - "they wouldn't do it." Well, who could argue with
that pearl of wisdom ? Not me, for a kick-off.
The very reasons you give - being a sceptic, and hating being fooled, are the
reasons I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. But then, as I point out in my essay -
and I'm hardly alone in saying it - the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Heading for five years later, and how many convictions do we have ? ONE -
of a guy whose claims even the judge didn't believe - but she wasn't on the
jury. Hundreds locked up in Guantanamo, four years later, nearly all of them
not charged with anything, let alone 9/11. Not a shred of evidence Saddam
had anything to do with it. Isn't there rather a gigantic hole where all these
guilty and convicted fanatical Muslim conspiracists are supposed to be ? If
they didn't do it - and, legally, to date, they didn't - who did ? When does
KSM's trial start ? Aren't any of you interested ? When do we see the 9/11
"mastermind" in the dock ? Not a whisper of a date. What's the problem -
still collecting the evidence to prove he's the mastermind ?

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 11:59 AM

Mr. (R)aphael:

What do you do for a living?

RK

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:10 PM

Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ?
Here's an idea: why don't you try leaving the Naudets alone, you sad, disturbed person, and while you're at it you could do us a favor and not darken the doorway of this forum again.

As I said before, you are not thinking clearly. Please seek help.

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 12:14 PM

Well, Gravy, I don't mind that he's here. Though I'll add this is not really the thread to engage him in regard to his "essay."

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:37 PM

From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ?

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? ??

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies? ??Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because all day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? ??Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ??Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? ??Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. ?

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.* [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Sources are linked in the "Loose Change Viewer Guide" shown in my signature below.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 12:38 PM

From : Les Raphael 12 June 06
The Fire - YOU seem to think I'm worth your attention - I wish you didn't,
because you're not worth any more of mine.
I mentioned writing to the lawyers because one of your contributors seemed
to think I should be crapping myself at the thought. Sorry to disappoint you.
"The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them."
Even less does it prove I have. Let's get this clear : I didn't say the non-reply from the lawyers proved anything. It's just a fact - read into it what
you like. Meanwhile, since I'm not being sued, I'll carry on my campaign.
If I was being sued, I'd carry it on.
Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?
Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.
For those who made the effort :
"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed -