Gravy Cleanses Silverstein Quote

[TruthSeeker1234]

In his new WTC7 paper, Gravy has misquoted Larry Silverstein.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

The correct quote must include the word "then", as follows:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Gravy, please correct your paper and apologize to anyone who may have been mislead.

[WildCat]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[stateofgrace]

Consider yourself having the honour of the first and only person I have ever put on my ignore list.

[MarkyX]

TS1234 is correct. "Then" is included. But it is a very pointless.

[defaultdotxbe]

This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

"then" does not imply causal connection, then implies that what is stated after occured after, somethign which is already implied by the order of the statements

[CptColumbo]

Can you link to the actual quote or is this someone else telling you this.

[Dazed]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I bent my wookie... :(

[Lisa Simpson]

Even my boogers are spicy.

[Dog Town]

Could you not have... just sent him a PM ? O' the drama!

[TruthSeeker1234]

Whether you guys think it is important or not, the word then is clearly what the man said. There must be a hundred places you can listen to the quote for yourselves. I have corrected at least a dozen websites on this already.

When one event follows another, there is not necessarily a causal connection. To think so is the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. However, in the context of a statement by a person speaking on a subject, and he says xxx then yyy, there is a definite implication that the speaker believes there is a causal connection.

[milesalpha]

Steady people, when you have been beaten up as badly as ts1234 has been, you are bound to rush to any tiny victory and exagerate its importance. Have to expect this out of the poor CT.

[Arus808]

still doesn't prove that the building came down via CD. so the quote if misquoted or not, means nothing in the end.

[defaultdotxbe]

When one event follows another, there is not necessarily a causal connection. To think so is the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. However, in the context of a statement by a person speaking on a subject, and he says xxx then yyy, there is a definite implication that the speaker believes there is a causal connection.
so its only post hoc ergo propter hoc if no one talks about it?

[Anti-sophist]

However, in the context of a statement by a person speaking on a subject, and he says xxx then yyy, there is a definite implication that the speaker believes there is a causal connection.


Hahahahahaha. Oh man. That's classic. I should write this **** down.

[Oliver]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I have no cat. How does cat food smell like?

[Scientologist]

Oh ****. Well, now that I know this, I have completely changed my mind about 9/11.


Thanks Truth.

[Lisa Simpson]

Pretty nasty. But the cats seem to like it.

[stateofgrace]

I can't bare it, everybody seems to be laughing at you TS, you are off my ignore list. I have to see for myself your posts. Surely nobody is this silly.

Oh wait...... I see you are.

[Josh Redstone]

'Then' implies the building collapsed after the firefighters pulled their people out - that's what happened. I'm sure most people could make that connection even if Gravy misquoted Silverstein.

Besides, Gravy was clear enough in his paper; had Silverstein felt that he 'slipped up', he would have asked for that segment to be re-taped and for his 'slip up' not to be included.

That being said, let's stop concentrating on that silly 'pull it' quote, and look at the actual series of events and the physical evidence from that day instead.

[defaultdotxbe]

i have looke dup "then" on dictionary.com


1.at that time: Prices were lower then.
2.immediately or soon afterward: The rain stopped and then started again.
3.next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.
4.at the same time: At first the water seemed blue, then gray.
5.next in order of place: Standing beside Charlie is my uncle, then my cousin, then my brother.
6.in addition; besides; also: I love my job, and then it pays so well.
7.in that case; as a consequence; in those circumstances: If you're sick, then you should stay in bed.
8.since that is so; as it appears; therefore: You have, then, found the mistake? You are leaving tonight then.


of those only 7 fits how TS1234 claims it was used

what evidence do you have that larry didnt mean in it any other sense? same evidence you have for how he meant "pull?" (IE, "it fits our theory so it must be true")

[Kent1]

Gravy You dishonest jerk! :boggled:

Please correct your paper and apologize to anyone who may have been mislead.

Snicker...lol!

[Dog Town]

There must be a hundred places you can listen to the quote for yourselves. I have corrected at least a dozen websites on this already.

Glad to see you were productive during your suspension! That Wiki thing, is still a thorn in your pride, huh?

[T.A.M.]

Ahh, but you see from the "Big Bad Gubmint Did it" pov, the "then" implies that after he said "pull the building down with Controlled Demolition", we "then" watched the building (which I just ordered to be demolished) Collapse.

Now you see the relivance (from their pov).

lol

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

Reading on, I see Gravy gets tremendous mileage out of his deceptive misquote, even going so far as to hand the misquote to a truth activist and have him read it.

Gravy, perhaps next time you can get the quote right, then have people read it. Just a thought.

[NickUK]

God, you really are desperate, aren't you?

[DavidJames]

Reading on, I see Gravy gets tremendous mileage out of his deceptive misquote, even going so far as to hand the misquote to a truth activist and have him read it.

Gravy, perhaps next time you can get the quote right, then have people read it. Just a thought.You made a number of unsubstantiated claims in here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65353&page=3

A number of people called you out and asked you to support your claims with evidence. But instead of answering them you ran away and created this thread.

You are are sad, narcissistic, childish, terrorist supporting troll. How do you live with yourself?

[Dog Town]

Gravy, you really get to these guys! First KClown now this one, good job!

[T.A.M.]

what is it they say...if you can't attack the argument...

TAM

[twinstead]

You made a number of unsubstantiated claims in here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65353&page=3

A number of people called you out and asked you to support your claims with evidence. But instead of answering them you ran away and created this thread.



The nature of the beast. Play out unsubstantiated claims in a thread until the either the evidence against it begins to overwhelm, or it is exposed as the simple conjecture it is, then change the subject.

The only way to truly debate the 'truthers' is to keep them on one subject. Their tactic is to throw as much 'evidence' in your direction as they can as fast as they can, regardless if it is valid or not, changing the subject as needed, until you don't know where to begin to debunk.

The technique must be in the CT handbook; they all use it.

[Crungy]

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." ;)

[lylfyl]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65653), TruthSeeker1234 has misstated that a camera contained editing software.

thread title:
Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software
The correct statement must be that the camera is sold with an accompanying CD that contains the software.

This is no minor point, for the word "contained" shows locational positioning of the software inside the camera itself.

TruthSeeker1234, please correct your thread and blog, and apologize to anyone who may have been misled.


I state that I was misled by the thread title, and so you can start your apologies with me.




Or perhaps I'm willfully misunderstanding the gist of your post and am trying to obfuscate the issue, while at the same time appearing pretentious and arrogant.

[defaultdotxbe]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65653), TruthSeeker1234 has misstated that a camera contained editing software.

thread title:

The correct statement must be that the camera is sold with an accompanying CD that contains the software.

This is no minor point, for the word "contained" shows locational positioning of the software inside the camera itself.

TruthSeeker1234, please correct your thread and blog, and apologize to anyone who may have been misled.


I state that I was misled by the thread title, and so you can start your apologies with me.




Or perhaps I'm willfully misunderstanding the gist of your post and am trying to obfuscate the issue, while at the same time appearing pretentious and arrogant.
the thread and blog is from Killtown, not TS1234

easy mistake though, they might as well be the same person, lol

[G-K-4]

Okay, then. There's a "then". It still works.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire..."

Well, then, it would have been dangerously futile to continue to fight it, by gum.


"...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'"

Then the team inside can be pulled out to to safety.


"And they..."

They. Tell your friends that you concede that Silverstein said "they", not "I".


"...made that decision to pull and then ..."

...and then the guys we pulled out were able to stand with us when...


"...we watched the building collapse."

...since we were then together, and none of the "we" was inside the building at that later time.


[snaps fingers] Easy.

[lylfyl]

Dammit. :boxedin: I even had to open that thread to cut and paste.

Now I have to make another one.

lylfyl, you have claimed that Truthseeker1234 has posted a vile and underhanded thread.

In fact. It was killtown that posted it.

I apologize to Truthseeker and everyone that I misled.


[Back to lurking for you. Go play in the Humor section or something. ]

[DarkMagician]

"Then" implies sequence, not cause. Ever hear a kid go through telling his day?

[JamesB]

In his new WTC7 paper, Gravy has misquoted Larry Silverstein.



The correct quote must include the word "then", as follows:



This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Gravy, please correct your paper and apologize to anyone who may have been mislead.


You find a single source showing that "pull" is an industry term for blowing up a building yet?

[Stellafane]

Reading on, I see Gravy gets tremendous mileage out of his deceptive misquote, even going so far as to hand the misquote to a truth activist and have him read it.

Gravy, perhaps next time you can get the quote right, then have people read it. Just a thought.

You, a bald-faced liar, have the nerve to quibble about the word "then"?

My God, it must suck to be you.

[qarnos]

You, a bald-faced liar, have the nerve to quibble about the word "then"?

So he read the whole thing and this was the biggest error he could find?

They must be running out of straws in la-la-land.

[TruthSeeker1234]

somebody confused In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65653), TruthSeeker1234 has misstated that a camera contained editing software.

thread title:
Quote:
Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software
The correct statement must be that the camera is sold with an accompanying CD that contains the software.

This is no minor point, for the word "contained" shows locational positioning of the software inside the camera itself.

TruthSeeker1234, please correct your thread and blog, and apologize to anyone who may have been misled.


I state that I was misled by the thread title, and so you can start your apologies with me.

Or perhaps I'm willfully misunderstanding the gist of your post and am trying to obfuscate the issue, while at the same time appearing pretentious and arrogant.

I think that's about Killtown, not me.

[Horatius]

Ahh, but you see from the "Big Bad Gubmint Did it" pov, the "then" implies that after he said "pull the building down with Controlled Demolition", we "then" watched the building (which I just ordered to be demolished) Collapse.

Now you see the relivance (from their pov).

lol

TAM

Yeah, he went and ordered the demolition, and then the damn thing went and collapsed all on its own! Total waste of resources, dontcha know, complete c*ck up. The mice were furious....

[CurtC]

This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.
I'll grant that you're correct about the word being left out of the quote.

But I have to say, I'm a native English speaker, and those two sentences mean exactly the same thing to me whether it has "then" there or not. Is there anyone who would disagree?

[Lisa Simpson]

They mean the same thing to me. I don't get what the difference is supposed to be.

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, why would Silverstein admit he was involved in the WTC7 controlled demolition? Why would he say that on camera?

[R.Mackey]

Reading on, I see Gravy gets tremendous mileage out of his deceptive misquote, even going so far as to hand the misquote to a truth activist and have him read it.

Gravy, perhaps next time you can get the quote right, then have people read it. Just a thought.
I can only assume the word "then" means something totally different to you than it does to me...

This is all you got, huh?

Ready to stop being such an Internet Tough GuyTM, and learn something?

[The Mad Hatter]

TruthSeeker, if your only complaint is that he left out a word, does this mean you agree with the rest of the paper?

[David Wong]

Even if Silverstein was on tape saying, "And then we blew up the building with explosives," the next step would merely be to figure out if he was joking and if not, was he delusional or confused.

Because CD is physically impossible in this case. No time to plant the explosives, impossible to cover it up. So trying to pry around a quote to find words that edge it one milimeter toward him mentioning CD doesn't get you within a million miles of actual evidence.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Because CD is physically impossible in this case

Orwellian. Here we have otherwise intelligent people who think that buildings crushing themselves into fine powder and shredded steel under their own weight is physically possible, yet controlled demolition is not physically possible in this case.

[Regnad Kcin]

Orwellian. Here we have otherwise intelligent people who think that buildings crushing themselves into fine powder and shredded steel under their own weight is physically possible, yet controlled demolition is not physically possible in this case.Wow. The only way there could be anything else incorrect in the above... Well, actually there isn't; the glass is full to the brim.

[Hawk one]

Who amongst us have claimed the buildings were crushed into fine powder?

In fact, I have seen several posts where the posters have made a point of saying that much of the bulding did not turn into dust. Some of it did, but much of it didn't. Why do you ignore these facts?

And based on the complete lack of physical evidence for demolition with bombs, why shouldn't anyone conclude that hey, without any evidence, it's not possible?

[TruthSeeker1234]

They mean the same thing to me. I don't get what the difference is supposed to be.(between Silverstein's quote without the word "then" vs with the word "then"

The difference is: Absent the word "then", we could see the decision to "pull it" as seperate from "we watched the building collapse". One happened after the other, but no causal connection. With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.

Let me turn this around. We all now agree that the word "then" is what the man said. If it is so insignificant, why not just get the quote right? Shouldn't Gravy get the quote right? Here he was, making a bid deal out of the fact that Truth Activists couldn't recite the quote correctly, then he botches the quote himself on tape, then when he publishes his paper, even after pointing out that he botched the quote on tape, he still doesn't get it right.

Let's just get it right. That's my point.

[R.Mackey]

"That's... one small step for man... then one giant leap for mankind."

TruthSeeker1234, you have abhorred precision in every single statement you've made since you got here. Starting with your first post, where you claimed 50% or more of the WTC towers was reduced to 100 microns or smaller.

And never backed it up.

Your fixation on Gravy here is even more hilarious than your usual antics.

By the way, how's the debate planning going? Decided to follow through on your promises yet?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Who amongst us have claimed the buildings were crushed into fine powder?

In fact, I have seen several posts where the posters have made a point of saying that much of the bulding did not turn into dust. Some of it did, but much of it didn't. Why do you ignore these facts?


What facts am I ignoring? Please show me any picture with any significant part of the 200,000 tons of concrete in it. Thus far I have seen evidence for about 1 ton. What happened to the other 199,999 tons of steel-reinforced concrete? Where is the carpet? Where are the desks? The computers? The human beings?

[qarnos]

"That's... one small step for a man... then one giant leap for mankind."

:D

[Ducky]

The difference is: Absent the word "then", we could see the decision to "pull it" as seperate from "we watched the building collapse". One happened after the other, but no causal connection. With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.

No, we can't. not when you have a grasp of the english language, and you understand the context in which the story is told. There is no two halves, there is a timeline, and causality is not implied.

Let me turn this around. We all now agree that the word "then" is what the man said. If it is so insignificant, why not just get the quote right? Shouldn't Gravy get the quote right? Here he was, making a bid deal out of the fact that Truth Activists couldn't recite the quote correctly, then he botches the quote himself on tape, then when he publishes his paper, even after pointing out that he botched the quote on tape, he still doesn't get it right.

I am sure Gravy will happily correct the paper. It is insignificant and the only person making a big deal out of it is you. but to answer "why not just get the quote right?" I will point out that you used the word "bid" instead of "big" in the above quote. Do you understand what I mean?

Let's just get it right. That's my point.


I have yet to see you get anything right. How's that debate thread going, coward?

[Hawk one]

Let's just get it right. That's my point.

Hmmm... Someone makes a minor mistake that doesn't make a difference, because the meaning actually stays the same for those of us living in a fairly sane world. And the meaning is not one of causality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Whereas the "troofers" are already infamous for hideously misquoting people and also mis-interpret what they say. Without any real evidence that, say Silverstein is in on a plot, of course. How about you go over to the LC forum and make sure to correct all the quote-mining that's happened there?

I do enjoy getting things right, but the way I do it, is that I make it a priority to get facts right first and foremost. Granted, if I want to quote someone, I also want to quote him or her correctly, but it's not a big deal as long as the meaning isn't actually changed (which several people have pointed out is what is the case here). Especially not if there are far more important things to get right first. Such as admitting that the WTC towers didn't all crumble into fine dust. Are you getting that one right yet?

[TruthSeeker1234]

By the way, how's the debate planning going? Decided to follow through on your promises yet?

Triterope has accepted the challenge, and has requested time to craft his case. Chimpmuck Stew posted a thread which included a rather pathetic attempt to make a case. His effort does not qualify, because I already accepted triterope, and because his effort did not contain any evidence or reasoning. I replied to CS thread anyway, as a show of good faith.

[Ducky]

Triterope has accepted the challenge, and has requested time to craft his case. Chimpmuck Stew posted a thread which included a rather pathetic attempt to make a case. His effort does not qualify, because I already accepted triterope, and because his effort did not contain any evidence or reasoning. I replied to CS thread anyway, as a show of good faith.

No comment on my pointing out your egregious error of language? You misquoted YOURSELF man! How are we to believe anything you say? Why not just get the post right from the beginning? You used the wrong word! Why didn't you use the right one?


Oh wait, we could all tell the meaning through the mistake. Right.


Tool.

[TruthSeeker1234]

the WTC towers didn't all crumble into fine dust. Are you getting that one right yet?

No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete? I'm waiting.

[TruthSeeker1234]

How's that debate thread going, coward?

Last i checked, I had completely demolished CS naked assertions with evidence, reasoning, and calculations.

[Ducky]

Last i checked, I had completely demolished CS naked assertions with evidence, reasoning, and calculations.

Whatever you're smoking, please do share.'

once again:

No comment on my pointing out your egregious error of language? You misquoted YOURSELF man! How are we to believe anything you say? Why not just get the post right from the beginning? You used the wrong word! Why didn't you use the right one?


Oh wait, we could all tell the meaning through the mistake. Right.


Tool.

[Hawk one]

It's been pointed out to you in the past why it's been impossible to put in explosives in the two towers, but you did what you always do, you just changed the subject to avoid having to answer it. THen you repeat the assertions in another thread, as if you hadn't been totally refuted. See, I don't post here often, but I do read the threads a lot. I know your cowardly posting history and the irony of your nickname.

It's also been pointed out to you that it would do you good to read some real reports of what was found on Ground Zero and stop ignoring what these reports say.

So why don't you do just that?

[Redtail]

No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete? I'm waiting.



Can you post 5 pics that show nothing but "dust" and "shredded steel"?
(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/)

[LashL]

In his new WTC7 paper, Gravy has misquoted Larry Silverstein.

The correct quote must include the word "then", as follows:

This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Gravy, please correct your paper and apologize to anyone who may have been mislead.

You are pathetic, TS. It certainly is a "minor point".

After being shown up as the fool that you are on every thread you've ever posted on here, and after running away from nearly every question ever asked of you, the best you can do is criticize Gravy for quoting a "troofer" site without double checking it for accuracy?

Gravy wasn't "cleansing" the quote. Your ridiculous suggestion that he deliberately misquoted it is just that - ridiculous.

Your assertion about causal connection is wholly unfounded as has been pointed out by others above.

I won't expect a response since I'm sure you'll be busy for the next several days writing to all of your fellow tinhatters who have promulgated that misquote on their sites ... right?

Gravy did not mislead anyone, despite your false assertion to the contrary.

Oh, and the word you were looking for in the last sentence of your post (since you were writing in the past tense) was "misled", not "mislead". Get it right, would you?

[MikeW]

Googling the full "made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" returns 360 hits.

Googling the quote without "then", "made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" returns 15,800 hits, at sites including prisonplanet.com, wtc7.net, whatreallyhappened.com, and Kevin Barrett's Mujca.com. I trust "truthseeker"'s interest in the facts will ensure he gets all these sites to fix their quotes, too.

Incidentally, while doing that quick Google check I noticed Mujca use another variation of the Silverstein quote:

9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."
www.mujca.com
One of the problems CTers face with this is that Silverstein said he was talking to a fire commander, and that "they" made the decision to pull, but here Mujca fix this by changing the quote: now it's "we" made the decision to pull, much more incriminating. Way to pretend you're interested in the truth! And a far more serious (and unusual) change than the one in Gravy's piece, but I don't suppose any "inside jobber" is going to care about that, right?

[Gravy]

Googling the full "made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" returns 360 hits.

Googling the quote without "then", "made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" returns 15,800 hits, at sites including prisonplanet.com, wtc7.net, whatreallyhappened.com, and Kevin Barrett's Mujca.com. I trust "truthseeker"'s interest in the facts will ensure he gets all these sites to fix their quotes, too.

Incidentally, while doing that quick Google check I noticed Mujca use another variation of the Silverstein quote:


One of the problems CTers face with this is that Silverstein said he was talking to a fire commander, and that "they" made the decision to pull, but here Mujca fix this by changing the quote: now it's "we" made the decision to pull, much more incriminating. Way to pretend you're interested in the truth! And a far more serious (and unusual) change than the one in Gravy's piece, but I don't suppose any "inside jobber" is going to care about that, right?
That's interesting, Mike. (BTW, I'm sending a corrected version to you in a few minutes...sorry!)

I'll email Kevin Barrett and ask him to make that correction.

[MikeW]

That's interesting, Mike. (BTW, I'm sending a corrected version to you in a few minutes...sorry!)
S'okay. It's still ludicrously busy here, but I will get it put up once the document arrives.

I'll email Kevin Barrett and ask him to make that correction.
That seems only fair. Let's see how long it takes for him to fix it...

[eeyore1954]

What facts am I ignoring? Please show me any picture with any significant part of the 200,000 tons of concrete in it. Thus far I have seen evidence for about 1 ton. What happened to the other 199,999 tons of steel-reinforced concrete? Where is the carpet? Where are the desks? The computers? The human beings?


Truthseeker weren't there close to 300 hundred bodies pulled from the remains pretty much intact. The news outlets don't usually publish news about computers or chairs found in the rubble. There are plenty of pictures which you have been shown of rubble a lot of which is greater than 100 microns at gruond zero.



I went to the beach on Monday then went to work. Did my going to the beach cause me to go to work. or did I just go to the beach first.

Many claims made by the "Truth" movement deliberately misquote to change the meaning of a statement such as the CNN reported who they would have you believe said no plane hit the pentagon

[Hellbound]

You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."

The word "then" does NOT imply any sort of causality, unless you live in a world where your desperate to twist anything you can to make sure you can still claim you're right. The word "then" implies nothing more than a temporal sequence...the prior event occured before the second event. In other words, the above examples could be re-written as:

"I went to work before I went out to get a pizza."
"I went out to get a pizza after I went to work."

"I washed the dog before I watched TV and drank a beer."
"I watched TV abd drank a beer after I washed the dog."

"I went to the store before I painted the house."
"I painted the house after I went to the store."

"They made the decision to pull before we watched the collapse."
"We watched the collapse after they made the decision to pull."

[Lisa Simpson]

The difference is: Absent the word "then", we could see the decision to "pull it" as seperate from "we watched the building collapse". One happened after the other, but no causal connection. With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.

As one of the forum Grammar Nazis, I can tell you, "then" doesn't imply causality. It is an adverb that refers to time. As everybody else here has told you as well.

Let me turn this around. We all now agree that the word "then" is what the man said. If it is so insignificant, why not just get the quote right? Shouldn't Gravy get the quote right? Here he was, making a bid deal out of the fact that Truth Activists couldn't recite the quote correctly, then he botches the quote himself on tape, then when he publishes his paper, even after pointing out that he botched the quote on tape, he still doesn't get it right.

Let's just get it right. That's my point.

Why don't any of the CT sites have the quote right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or, more aptly, what's good for the skeptics is good for the nutjobs.

[Gravy]

No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete? I'm waiting.(bolding mine)

And that is one of your many problems, TS. You're waiting. Why? What kind of education has led you to believe the way to prove your claims is to wait for...what? Divine intervention? You're going to have a very long wait.

Sorry, but that's not how it's done, and did you ever come to the wrong place – a forum for critical thinkers – to play that game! Your claims: your burden of proof. You don't like the NIST report? Prove it wrong. You can't do that with beliefs, my friend. You'll need evidence. The only thing you've presented so far is some thoroughly laughable and totally debunked physics from dental engineer Judy Wood, who believes the towers should have fallen like trees.

Is that it, then? Is that all you've got?

If not, then why don't you stop stalling, as we've been asking you to do since your first posts, and start providing your evidence? Your bluff has been called EVERY TIME YOU POST. Yet you are unable to show that your statements are anything more than 100% unadulterated horsecrap.

You can start right now. Everyone's watching. No excuses. Ready?

1) What explosive is capable of producing the effects you claim for the towers: complete "powderization" of the contents, "shredding" of the steel, and a "pyroclastic flow" that expands to three times the volume of the towers.

Answer the question. Right now. Or withdraw the claim.

2) Why did the "pyroclastic flow" not poison and/or burn to death everyone it came in contact with, including the survivors in the towers?

3) Define "powderized" or "turned to dust." What was the average size of the debris of the contents of the towers, and who made the measurements that your claim is based on? Show your sources.

4) If all the concrete was "powderized" by explosives, how were about 1,600 victim identifications able to be made? How were people able to survive in the towers?

5) Define "shredded steel." How large was the average piece of steel in the piles, and who made the measurements that your claim is based on? Show your sources.

6) From what height would the upper section of one of the towers have to be dropped in order to initiate a gravity-driven collapse? Show your math.

7) In the scenario in #6, what would happen to the floor concrete? Be specific.

8) Was building 7 destroyed in the same way as the towers? If not, how was it destroyed?

9) What are the chunks of gray material in the photos below?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce917de76c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce91816fe3.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce91847140.jpg

No more whining. No more "waiting." Provide evidence for your claims. Begin. We're all watching.

[CurtC]

With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.
I can see that the "if... then" construction implies causality. So where did Silverstein say "if"?

Absent that, "then" simply describes order.

Anyway, you now have ample evidence that Gravy simply quoted CT sources, so wasn't the one who took the word out. You're pathetic.

[defaultdotxbe]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/concrete1.jpg
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/concrete2.jpg


any questions?

[Lisa Simpson]

I can see that the "if... then" construction implies causality. So where did Silverstein say "if"?

Absent that, "then" simply describes order.

Anyway, you now have ample evidence that Gravy simply quoted CT sources, so wasn't the one who took the word out. You're pathetic.

Silverstein would have had to have said an entirely different sentence to make it causal. Something like "If they made the decision to pull the building, then it would collapse." That shows cause.

[Mercutio]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/concrete1.jpg
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/concrete2.jpg


any questions?
Um...to be fair, both of those pics are of the same object. The second is just a close-up.

[defaultdotxbe]

Um...to be fair, both of those pics are of the same object. The second is just a close-up.
pfft, minor details :p

[TK0001]

I loved you like an e-father, Gravy, but this is unacceptable!

UNACCEPTABLE!!!@#

If you're so willing to dismiss monumental words like "then" and......"then", what's next huh? WHAT'S NEXT GRAVY???

Are you gonna cast a blind eye to words like "freedom" or "liberty" or "justice"??? This is a slippery slope you've decided to stand upon, and I just can't follow you down any more.




truthseeker, will you be my new e-father?

[Kent1]

I guess I'll toss in another photo also.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/

[tsig]

When one event follows another, there is not necessarily a causal connection.

You are right!!!

Every post you make here proves this point.

[tsig]

What facts am I ignoring? Please show me any picture with any significant part of the 200,000 tons of concrete in it. Thus far I have seen evidence for about 1 ton. What happened to the other 199,999 tons of steel-reinforced concrete? Where is the carpet? Where are the desks? The computers? The human beings?

You are trying to make a real loud noise with a very small drum.

Beat on it harder.

[Bell]

With his screenname, TruthSeeker1234 has misled the JREF members.

TruthSeeker1234

The correct screenname must not include the word "TruthSeeker", as follows:

1234

This is no minor point, for the word "TruthSeeker" implies he is indeed looking for the truth, allthough he cleary is not.

1234, please correct your screenname and apologize to everyone who has been mislead.

[tsig]

along with shredded steel.

Shredded steel goes good with liquid nano-thermite.

Breakfast of champions!

[Spektator]

Ah, yes, but remember CT logic (TM), man! To wit:
You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

...and the pizza exploded into fine powder!


"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."
...and my dog had a concrete core!

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."
...so the explosion behind my house was Photoshopped in!

[chipmunk stew]

First, the key word was "pull".
Next, the key word was "it".
Now, the key word is "then".

I'm half-expecting someone to focus next on the word "the" in this lunatic attempt to squeeze a confession out of this sentence.

[tsig]

naked assertions

I don't think nudity is allowed on this site.

[Bell]

btw, anyone, what was the question that Silverstein was responding to? Serious.

[Horatius]

I'm half-expecting someone to focus next on the word "the" in this lunatic attempt to squeeze a confession out of this sentence.

and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

Well, come on! "the" building? "THE" is THE definite article! How could they know which build would collapse, HUH? It should have been 'A' building collapsed!!! Without perfect foreknowledge of the entire timeline of 9/11, thier's know way the ccould have "knownd" THE BUILDING was going to coollllpases?!!!?




So how's that?

[chipmunk stew]

btw, anyone, what was the question that Silverstein was responding to? Serious.
"Mr. Silverstein, did you blow up, that is, did you 'pull', building 7?"

[Hellbound]

btw, anyone, what was the question that Silverstein was responding to? Serious.

"So when, during the few hours you had available, did you decide to rig the building for controlled demolition and make it look like an accident, contracting out a demo firm, involving hundreds of rescue workers and civllians, news agencies, and others, covering everything up?"

:D

[TK0001]

I don't think nudity is allowed on this site.

That reminds me. They should really be more clear about that during the registration process.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, come on! "the" building? "THE" is THE definite article! How could they know which build would collapse, HUH? It should have been 'A' building collapsed!!! Without perfect foreknowledge of the entire timeline of 9/11, thier's know way the ccould have "knownd" THE BUILDING was going to coollllpases?!!!?




So how's that?
Damn... You're right. I've played right into their hands. Lisa, please cleanse all posts referring to the topic of "the".

[Bell]

Jeez guys... :rolleyes: lol, I guess ;)

But serious. That could put the whole quote in context.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

10,000' view. The thread title and OP highlight the illogical thinking of the CT mindset. Intent is applied without substantiating evidence. No action can be viewed as accidental, unintentional, or a faux pas.

Follow this with the difference in response. When the error was brought to Gravy's attention the document was immediately corrected and redisseminated with indications as to what the error was, and that it is corrected in the new version of the document. Compare this with CT documents, Hoffman for example, the errors in particle size, and makeup, have been pointed out; yet the document still contains the errors and revisions of the document are not replaced on sites mirroring the information.

[TK0001]

10,000' view. The thread title and OP highlight the illogical thinking of the CT mindset. Intent is applied without substantiating evidence. No action can be viewed as accidental, unintentional, or a faux pas.

Follow this with the difference in response. When the error was brought to Gravy's attention the document was immediately corrected and redisseminated with indications as to what the error was, and that it is corrected in the new version of the document. Compare this with CT documents, Hoffman for example, the errors in particle size, and makeup, have been pointed out; yet the document still contains the errors and revisions of the document are not replaced on sites mirroring the information.

I never got a response from Truthy, so now I declare Arky my new e-dad.


mind if i call you arky, new e-dad?

[Horatius]

Damn... You're right. I've played right into their hands. Lisa, please cleanse all posts referring to the topic of "the".

There, you see? Rational discussion can change a person's mind!

[Hellbound]

[off-topic]

Horatius, I think the cat in your avatar is halfway to discovering anti-gravity.

[/off-topic]

[Stellafane]

Last i checked, I had completely demolished CS naked assertions with evidence, reasoning, and calculations.

Evidence, reasoning, and calculations -- you've shown no indication that you even know what any of those words mean.

Demolished CS, in what parallel universe? The land of Oz? Then again, you'd fit right in with Dorothy and the Scarecrow, wouldn't you? You could be the Cowardly Liar.

[boloboffin]

Somebody asked what question Silverstein was responding to. All we have is that short snippet of answer from the PBS documentary. Is there any way we can get a longer section of tape released? It would be interesting to see if a few more seconds of context were enough to close this question once and for all.

[Bell]

Somebody asked what question Silverstein was responding to. All we have is that short snippet of answer from the PBS documentary. Is there any way we can get a longer section of tape released? It would be interesting to see if a few more seconds of context were enough to close this question once and for all.

I asked. I did because I never saw the documentary, and was indeed curious to find context. What if, for example, the interviewer asked something like "How did you and the FDNY came to the decision to let WTC7 burn and collapse by itself?"

Or something...

[Horatius]

[off-topic]

Horatius, I think the cat in your avatar is halfway to discovering anti-gravity.

[/off-topic]

Actually, he's just about the opposite. Every time he gets excited, he falls over!

[boloboffin]

I asked. I did because I never saw the documentary, and was indeed curious to find context. What if, for example, the interviewer asked something like "How did you and the FDNY came to the decision to let WTC7 burn and collapse by itself?"

Or something...

Yes, the documentary only has that short clip. I went to the Great Projects website and emailed one of their producers about getting more context. Hey, it never hurts to ask, right?

[Bell]

Yes, the documentary only has that short clip. I went to the Great Projects website and emailed one of their producers about getting more context. Hey, it never hurts to ask, right?

Asking questions doesn't.
The answer might hurt, though (if you're a denier that is).

ETA: Thanks btw for e-mailing them.

[JamesB]

So did you come up with anything to show that "pull it" is an industry term for blowing stuff up yet?

[sleahead]

Ah, the "pull it" remark. Despite fierce competition, for me this remains one of the troof movement's most absurd claims. The notion that the Fire Commander rang Silverstein, Silverstein told the Fire Commander to blow up building seven and the Fire Commander went away and did exactly that is amazingly stupid.

What I really want to know from troofer1234, and it is something that has yet to be explained to me by any other troofer, is how they see Mr. Silverstein's role in their conpiracy fantasy from the planning stage, through execution and afterwards. For example, I cannot see why the Fire Commander would be ringing Silverstein at all. The CT has it that the the demise of WTC7 is pre-planned (destruction of sooper sekrit documents or destruction of operational bunker, take your pick). So, troofer1234, can you notch up a first for the troof by explaining Silverstein's role?.

[stateofgrace]

Ah, the "pull it" remark. Despite fierce competition, for me this remains one of the troof movement's most absurd claims. The notion that the Fire Commander rang Silverstein, Silverstein told the Fire Commander to blow up building seven and the Fire Commander went away and did exactly that is amazingly stupid.

What I really want to know from troofer1234, and it is something that has yet to be explained to me by any other troofer, is how they see Mr. Silverstein's role in their conpiracy fantasy from the planning stage, through execution and afterwards. For example, I cannot see why the Fire Commander would be ringing Silverstein at all. The CT has it that the the demise of WTC7 is pre-planned (destruction of sooper sekrit documents or destruction of operational bunker, take your pick). So, troofer1234, can you notch up a first for the troof by explaining Silverstein's role?.

It's so simple; anybody can figure this one out.

It goes like this, rogue elements inside the US government came up with a plan, to commit mass of their own country men. This plan was incredibly complex. They involved hundreds of people before hand and the one of the ring leaders said.

“Hey has anybody phoned Silverstien yet?"

Ring, Ring........

" Hi Larry, we've got a plan, it involves loads and loads of people and wondered if you wanted a piece of the action"

" Really? ,what’s going on?"

" Well without going into too much detail, maybe you should plant loads of explosives inside WTC 7 and get better insurance on it"

" Em, interesting, it's sounds a bit dodgy, maybe I should phone the authorities"

" Oh it's ok, they are involved also"

Pause.

“Ok I'm in, it sounds perfect"

[kookbreaker]

It's so simple; anybody can figure this one out.

It goes like this, rogue elements inside the US government came up with a plan, to commit mass of their own country men. This plan was incredibly complex. They involved hundreds of people before hand and the one of the ring leaders said.

“Hey has anybody phoned Silverstien yet?"

Ring, Ring........

" Hi Larry, we've got a plan, it involves loads and loads of people and wondered if you wanted a piece of the action"

" Really? ,what’s going on?"

" Well without going into too much detail, maybe you should plant loads of explosives inside WTC 7 and get better insurance on it"

" Em, interesting, it's sounds a bit dodgy, maybe I should phone the authorities"

" Oh it's ok, they are involved also"

Pause.

“Ok I'm in, it sounds perfect"

"By the way, don't mention this little conspiracy in any interviews, OK?"

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually, he's just about the opposite. Every time he gets excited, he falls over!
is he narcaleptic? my mom used to have a narcaleptic dog, lol

[smother]

*bump for TS1234*


No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce917de76c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce91816fe3.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce91847140.jpg





http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg



TS1234 - did you manage to find the concrete in those pictures? Just a simple yes or no would do.

[Loss Leader]

No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete? I'm waiting.


Once again, BS1234, I remind you that I provided you the names, addresses, phone numbers and emails of the men who actually sorted the rubble of the towers. These men will give you their first-hand testimony as to what the remains of the towers consisted of and all of the objects they found that were not shredded steel and powdered concrete. They will also give you access to people who worked for very, very low wages on the conveyer belts sorting the debris, in case you think that wealthy people cannot be trusted as a rule.

And once again, you will ignore this post. You will not do any first-hand research. You will not speak to actual witnesses. The reason you will not do this is because you have a mental defect that makes your ego incapable of dealing in person with people you fear will not support you.

If you wish to dispute this, please provide the contact information for your closest relatives including your brother-in-law. You won't do that, though, because you know your sister and brother-in-law also believe you to be mentally ill.

[Metullus]

And once again, you will ignore this post. You will not do any first-hand research. You will not speak to actual witnesses. The reason you will not do this is because you have a mental moral defect that makes your ego incapable of dealing in person with people you fear will not support you.Minor correction.

[Gravy]

In a post above, MikeW noted that Kevin Barrett, the controversial U. Wisconsin semi-prof., badly misquoted Larry Silverstein on his MUJCA.com website. I wrote a detailed email to Barrett asking him to correct several things, and gave him the link to my WTC 7 paper. This passage from MUJCA deserves extra-credit for mendacity and ignorance, and check out that last sentence!

"9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein's inability to get anything built on the site during the past five years, leaving a gigantic bomb crater screaming silently to the world that the WTC was destroyed by bombs, not by planes, is another, far more eloquent confession. To borrow a phrase from the Loose Change logo, Larry's bomb crater is "louder than words." Perhaps the best possible memorial would be to leave the site exactly the way it is, and hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Larry Silverstein Memorial Bomb Crater.

What I'm getting at here is that there is an "emotional intelligence" side to 9/11 truth as well as a scientific side...."
This guy claims to be a Scholar! He teaches at a public university!

[Stellafane]

What I'm getting at here is that there is an "emotional intelligence" side to 9/11 truth as well as a scientific side...

Beautiful...if you're ever proven wrong, just say that the scientific evidence may be against you, but on the "emotional intelligence" side, you're still somehow correct.

That the author of this sentence is being paid public money to educate people -- when education is clearly the last profession in which he should be allowed to practice -- bespeaks a serious failure somewhere.

[TK0001]

Okay, from the above picture, this just scared the crap out of me:


http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9223/gfdgqz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS1234 - did you manage to find the concrete in those pictures?

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep. The sky appeared overcast because there was so much dust suspended in it. The photos and videos show this pulverization occurring.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder. Where is a desk? Where is a computer? Where is carpet? And what, pray tell, is the explanation for this?

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/cars_wtc2_all.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep. The sky appeared overcast because there was so much dust suspended in it. The photos and videos show this pulverization occurring.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder. Where is a desk? Where is a computer? Where is carpet? And what, pray tell, is the explanation for this?



The bulk of that dust has been shown, repeatedly, to be gypsum drywall dust.

Also, you still need to retract your accusational analogy concerning supporters of the Evidence Based Conclusion and Holocaust deniers.

[Bell]

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep. The sky appeared overcast because there was so much dust suspended in it. The photos and videos show this pulverization occurring.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder. Where is a desk? Where is a computer? Where is carpet? And what, pray tell, is the explanation for this?

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/cars_wtc2_all.jpg

What, exactly, in those pictures do you want us to explain to you?

[Gravy]

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.
No, we will not be "generous" to you, fool. Show us how you derived the 1/2000th. On what measurements is it based?

Answer: "On no measurements, Gravy. But you should believe what I say, because I am a really true truth seeker."

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep.No it wasn't. Guess you'll have to recalculate your concrete "powderization" percentage. And of course you know that there was far more gypsum than concrete in the dust samples, because we've shown you the studies.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder. No, you don't stand by that statement, because you are unable to support it. I've asked you many times to do so. Do it now or retract it.
How about that shredded steel, AttentionSeeker? Show your sources for that.

Have you actually read NOTHING about the WTC on 9/11? You don't even know that cars were on fire everywhere, including in the parking lot across West Street, because of the debris damage from the towers?

When the hell are you going to stop asking us to do your homework for you, you lazy sot?

[DavidJames]

What, exactly, in those pictures do you want us to explain to you?
That idiot actually expects to see floor after floor stacked up like pancakes, with computers, file cabinets flattened between them.

He lives in a cartoon world, TV land.

[defaultdotxbe]

Where is a desk? Where is a computer?
lets try a little thought experiment, shall we?

imagine a desk, now imagine a computer on that desk, now imagine a 1-ton rock suspended 5 feet above the desk

now drop the rock

were the desk and computer reduced to an unrecognizable mess?

now imagine a million of those rocks dropped from 300 times the height

thats what happened to the desks and computers

[Redtail]

And what, pray tell, is the explanation for this?

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/cars_wtc2_all.jpg

You mean besides two 110 story buildings falling on them while on fire?

[Bell]

That idiot actually expects to see floor after floor stacked up like pancakes, with computers, file cabinets flattened between them.

He lives in a cartoon world, TV land.

Kind of like when Jerry hits Tom over the head with a poker, and the poker takes the shape of Tom's head?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Once again, BS1234, I remind you that I provided you the names, addresses, phone numbers and emails of the men who actually sorted the rubble of the towers. These men will give you their first-hand testimony as to what the remains of the towers consisted of and all of the objects they found that were not shredded steel and powdered concrete. They will also give you access to people who worked for very, very low wages on the conveyer belts sorting the debris, in case you think that wealthy people cannot be trusted as a rule.

And once again, you will ignore this post. You will not do any first-hand research. You will not speak to actual witnesses. The reason you will not do this is because you have a mental defect that makes your ego incapable of dealing in person with people you fear will not support you.

If you wish to dispute this, please provide the contact information for your closest relatives including your brother-in-law. You won't do that, though, because you know your sister and brother-in-law also believe you to be mentally ill.

Loss Leader, as I recall you wanted me to talk to people who work at a landfill. Kent suggested I speak to Jonathan Barnett, who has emailed me twice, but failed to answer a single question I posed to him. I will continue trying.

I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.

As for my brother in law, its very interesting. For those who missed it, my brother in law is an architect. He does indeed support the OCT, and has indeed said I was "crazy". As Loss Leader fails to remind readers, he also was not even remotely familiar with the facts of 9/11, not aware of WTC7, not aware that the pancake theory had been discarded.

I have attempted to show him pictures and videos, and he flat refuses. It's like Galileo's telescope, he can't look. All of this I said before. Here's the new part.

My brother in law has confessed, sort of.

He used very guarded terms, and spoke very hesitantly.

He said, "Suppose you were right. Suppose the government blew up the WTC. Suppose you could prove it. Now what? Now you have the whole administration running off to hide in seclusion somewhere. The military takes over the government, we have a coup. Now we are living in a military dictatorship. Is that what you guys want?"

He went on to say something like "It's time you grew up. This is not a perfect world. Sometimes people have a means to an end. It would be nice if everything could get done without lies and cheating and hurting people, but that's not the world we live in. In the real world, there are teams. You choose whose team you are on, and you play. From then on, it's about winning, and getting the job done."

I asked him point blank, "Did the WTC come down by controlled demolition?"

And he said "What difference does it make? What are you going to do about it? Do you want to live in a military dictatorship?"

[DavidJames]

Kind of like when Jerry hits Tom over the head with a poker, and the poker takes the shape of Tom's head?
Exactly, add in road runner and coyote images then season with the "adult" equivalents, CSI, the Matrix and V for Vendetta and you have the CTists brain.

[TruthSeeker1234]

By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?

[Dog Town]

He went on to say something like "It's time you grew up.

That was your best fictional character quote yet! Though, I am sure people have told you that plenty. Ya might wanna listen, at some point. Now is good.

[Redtail]

I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.

Emphasis mine.
So you would be able to go to any of the Firefighters and they would tell you that there were bombs in the towers? Not just it "sounded like a bomb" but "it was bombs and that's why the towers fell."

[DavidJames]

He's your brother in law, what do you expect, that he would call you retarded like South Park correctly did last night?

[DavidJames]

To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.Of course they do, bombs are round, black, have a fuse coming out the top and the word BOMB written in white letters on them. Just like in the cartoons.

Funny how you say "difference between bombs and fire extinguishers", instead of "difference between bombs exploding and fire extinguishers exploding. You disingenuous sack of dung.

[Gravy]

I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.

How many said there were bombs going off, TS? Tell us. Right now.

Put up or shut up.

ETA: Excellent! You provided something to back your case with, almost without being asked! I'll be back with my report.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Emphasis mine.
So you would be able to go to any of the Firefighters and they would tell you that there were bombs in the towers? Not just it "sounded like a bomb" but "it was bombs and that's why the towers fell."

Here's a good summary and analysis of the firefighter testimony

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

[Bell]

Here's a good summary and analysis of the firefighter testimony

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

CherryPicker1234, what do you want us to explain in the pictures you posted?

[Redtail]

Here's a good summary and analysis of the firefighter testimony

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

So you would be able to go to any of the Firefighters and they would tell you that there were bombs in the towers? Not just it "sounded like a bomb" but "it was bombs and that's why the towers fell."

[VBU2C5]

Since this is a debate, I don't consider this a highjack, there is an excellent post on the LC forum by "Maximumbob" on the 9/11 truth in the media section, an excellent read debating all the troother 'facts".

[VBU2C5]

My bad, DEBUNKING their "facts".

[scissorhands]

My brother in law has confessed, sort of.
He used very guarded terms, and spoke very hesitantly.

He thinks you are a complete maroon, but is indulging you for familial reasons.
We need a confession from your mother and father also.

[Horatius]

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep. The sky appeared overcast because there was so much dust suspended in it. The photos and videos show this pulverization occurring.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder.

Psst....TS! Look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996282#post1996282)!

[Bell]

Psst....TS! Look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996282#post1996282)!

Don't worry. He won't.

[stateofgrace]

I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.


Ts, you preach as though you know exactly what fireman know and do not know.

This is a straight forward question.

As any fireman ever said they believe the sounds of explosions came from explosive devices?

Just one?

See I am not a fireman but have had a look at what would cause explosions inside buildings that are on fire. Along with the usual combustible stuff, there includes high voltage transformers, high voltage junction boxes, gas pipes and other things.

But firemen know a lot more about fires than I do. They know, as I have found out and now pass onto you there are other causes of explosions inside burning buildings. One is called a “back draft” and the other is “flash over”.

Anyway, as you have no doubt seen the movie “back draft”, you will know what causes this; basically a fire is starved of oxygen but continues to smoulder away. Giving this a new source of oxygen will cause a massive explosion.



Back draft
o A condition where there is insufficient air to support combustion
o A sudden introduction of fresh into an oxygen-starved fire causes a back draft explosion
o Signs of back draft include puffing smoke going in and out of the building, dark smoke in the structure with little flame, smoke emitting from openings in building
o Back draft is relieved by venting at the highest point in the structure


http://www.firehouse.com/training/drills/2004/truck1.html (http://www.firehouse.com/training/drills/2004/truck1.html)

The other cause being a “flashover” is when the fire heats the air around it to such a point it will actually ignite causing a massive explosion.

A "flashover" ,unlike a back draft is a very rapid event and depending on the size of the room can happen with minutes of a fire starting.

http://www.fire.gov/newsletter/summer2001/page_two.htm (http://www.fire.gov/newsletter/summer2001/page_two.htm)

I have even, on your behave gone further and found footage of what a "flashover" looks like. (Please bear in mind a flashover is an explosion).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96ywpu_-R4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96ywpu_-R4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwFMsnQEWfY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwFMsnQEWfY)

As I have said I am not a fire-fighter, nor was I there, but neither are you. So why don’t you talk to the fireman that was there and ask them?

Does "flashover" or even "backdrafts" seem more reasonable and plausible to you? Or would you prefer secret death squads planting tons and tons of explosive devices inside the Towers?

Am I saying this is the answer; no of course not I am saying that fires do things inside buildings that are unexpected and cause things to explode, including the very atmosphere around it.

[Mancman]

By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?

The most logical explanation is that the 'squibs' were caused by air pressure.

The pancaking theory has not been discarded.

[Almo]

As one of the forum Grammar Nazis, I can tell you, "then" doesn't imply causality. It is an adverb that refers to time. As everybody else here has told you as well.

"As everybody else here has told you as well" is a sentence fragment.

:duck:

[Loss Leader]

By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?

In fact, I did in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1990846#post1990846).

Glad to see your brother-in-law is trying to reach out to you. You should take his example and meet him the other half of the way.

[hellaeon]

I can't bare it, everybody seems to be laughing at you TS, you are off my ignore list. I have to see for myself your posts. Surely nobody is this silly.

Oh wait...... I see you are.

hahaha I admit, I have done this for the people I ignore hahaha

[hellaeon]

Kind of like when Jerry hits Tom over the head with a poker, and the poker takes the shape of Tom's head?


hahaha this is pretty funny stuff.

[Crungy]

So did you come up with anything to show that "pull it" is an industry term for blowing stuff up yet?

This afternoon I sat in on a presentation of a 7 story residental building development my company is doing as a design build. Throughout the presentation large watercolor rendering of the project was proped up on the rail below the white markerboard. When the presentation got to a point, where they needed to refer to another display, the CEO loudly barked, "Pull it!" to the presenter. The posterboard displaying the 7 story (WTC7?) immediately fell to the ground. Could this example be used as evidence that the term "Pull it" was used to bring down a building?

Btw, I was the only one in the room that laughed when the order to "Pull it!" was given.

[T.A.M.]

I love the "move the goal posts" tactic the TWOOFERS use. They ask for concrete chunks, we show them chunks. Then do they relent, do they admit they were wrong...Nooooooo. Now he simply says there arent enough "chunks".

What is next?

TAM

[smother]

A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.


OMG!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce917de76c.jpg

What you see in the above photo is a mountain of rubble. The mountain is 14 stories high (of which 7 stories were below ground) and covered 14 acres.

http://www.bell-labs.com/tech/wireless/wert/Final_Report.pdf

These photos are actually only showing the tip of the iceberg. I think it is very fair to assume that there are considerable amounts of "macroscopic concrete" below surface of that rubble mountain.

[Horatius]

OMG!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452ce917de76c.jpg

What you see in the above photo is a mountain of rubble. The mountain is 14 stories high (of which 7 stories were below ground) and covered 14 acres.

http://www.bell-labs.com/tech/wireless/wert/Final_Report.pdf



Well, to be fair, that picture does show that the rubble was mostly made up of guys with hard hats.


Although I do admit, it's a mystery how they stacked them so high.....

[TK0001]

Okay, from the above picture, this just scared the crap out of me:


http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9223/gfdgqz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Alright, this freaked NO ONE else out?

What am I, some kinda sissy over here?

[Bell]

Alright, this freaked NO ONE else out?

What am I, some kinda sissy over here?

Yes...





















... it scared me too, at first sight.

[Loss Leader]

Alright, this freaked NO ONE else out?

What am I, some kinda sissy over here?

For the sake of our own sanity, let's just call that the face on Mars and assume it is a trick our pattern-recognizing brains have decided to play with an innocuous piece of concrete.

[CurtC]

Alright, this freaked NO ONE else out?

What am I, some kinda sissy over here?

It freaked us out, too, and we discussed this very image last month. Now we're just desensitized to it.

[~enigma~]

For the sake of our own sanity, let's just call that the face on Mars and assume it is a trick our pattern-recognizing brains have decided to play with an innocuous piece of concrete.I was just going to call TK a sissy but you spoiled that for me...thanks LL :)

[NickUK]

Where is Ace anyway?

I miss him :(

[Horatius]

Where is Ace anyway?

I miss him :(

He left in a snit (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69055).

[realitybites]

First Gravy's "cleansing" quotes of pesky adverbs. What's next? "Disappearing" past participles?

This new revelation has not only shaken my trust in Gravy but has convinced me that indeed, 9/11 was an inside job.

I have no choice now but to keep my bum firmly planted in front of my computer for the next decade typing "Gravy left out 'then'", over and over and over on forums dedicated to exposing the truth about that day and to expose the fraud that, thanks to TS1234, I now know Gravy to be.

..... It's a sad day in Mudville. :(

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh, just you wait until my paper comes out revealing the transparent gerunds and the "wiped" prepositions.

[Kent1]

He left in a snit (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69055).

He's here...http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=8385

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh, just you wait until my paper comes out revealing the transparent gerunds and the "wiped" prepositions.
FEMA already has death camps set up for entire predicates...

[chippy]

In what way does the lack of the word "then" confuse anybody? The building could not have collapsed BEFORE they made the decision to pull, no matter how you look at it. If you claim that the decision to pull was a decision to demolish the building, then obviously the building can't collapse before they even decide to demolish it, lol. If you claim that the decision to pull was a decision to evacuate the building, then that's a very safe assumption, seeing as how nobody died when WTC 7 collapsed.

So what is misleading about it?