Skeptic4Sure's Gravy Debunking Thread!

[Gravy]

I watched you debate Alex Jones at Ground Zero and knew exactly what I would have said to you. Or presented to you.
Have at it.

[LashL]

:popcorn1

[Bell]

Strawman! Strawman!

[Gravy]

Bump for S4S. Where'd you go?

[Calcas]

Hey!

When did I get those cool shades?

And, can I get an 8 x 10 of that?

I'm almost looking professional!


Sincerely,

jxd

Ah, I mean

dxj



Ttttthhhhtaaaasssss aalllllll folks........!

(sings the Loony Tunes song)....

[Gravy]

Hey!

When did I get those cool shades?

And, can I get an 8 x 10 of that?

I'm almost looking professional!


Sincerely,

jxd

Ah, I mean

dxj



Ttttthhhhtaaaasssss aalllllll folks........!

(sings the Loony Tunes song)....That's just some picture I got off the internet. Ed knows who the pilot is. But I know about the eyewear. Those are benighted vision goggles. Only available for pilots of fantasy flights.

[kookbreaker]

Have at it.

"Whaddya mean Ya saw 'em!!!!!"

There. Did it for him.

[FramerDave]

well?

[Gravy]

The silence of a falling star
Lights up a purple sky
And as I wonder where you are
I'm so lonesome I could cry

[jhunter1163]

I don't think S4S feels like bearding the lion in his den. Or anywhere else for that matter.

If Gravy is the JREF "leader", it's because he's EARNED the post, by his tireless work at Ground Zero and compiling evidence and his clear and logical presentation.

Contrast this with the Twoofer crowd, where one becomes a "leader" basically by saying "I'm a leader."

[W6102LA]

I don't think S4S feels like bearding the lion in his den. Or anywhere else for that matter.

If Gravy is the JREF "leader", it's because he's EARNED the post, by his tireless work at Ground Zero and compiling evidence and his clear and logical presentation.

Contrast this with the Twoofer crowd, where one becomes a "leader" basically by saying "I'm a leader."
Most likely with a bullhorn

:p

[njslim]

Hey Calcas

The shades are standard MIB (Men in Black) issue - if you been
following this forum you would know that GRAVY is a government paid
stooge who is shilling for the CIA. In his spare time works as
a hit man to eliminate conspiracy loons and make it look like an accident.
Don't tell anyone as it is a BIG secret!

[T.A.M.]

"911 was an NWO job!" come on, repeat after me, I am the leader.

lol

TAM

[uk_dave]

Please people....save this witty banter for our private forum rooms.... too many of the enemy...I mean 'ordinary' people, can read these posts.

(adopts the prescribed right arm wrapped around left leg while hopping on the right leg and scratching arse with left hand NWO posture as he leaves the room)

[R.Mackey]

Roger, you're going to be in for big surprise.
You can do what you want-believe what you want. Hold your breath, plug your ears. If you thought the "truth movement" was dying or growing. One thing is for sure, this will reinvigorate the movement one way or the other.
I can already see it, your denial will keep you from accepting this as a reality. You will rationalize, distort, and omit for this not to become true.
I don't have any have any desire for you to "listen to me". You will have to hear it and deal with it eventually. ... Oh you will have their words and then some.
Mackey, I have it. And so will you all. Soon.
I can't wait til this stuff hits you guys square in the face.

Does this remind anybody else of Alex Jones? "Oh, we have total evidence... Massive evidence..."

Funny how they love to build up to things that never come. You'd think they'd have been able to figure it out in the intervening five years. I mean, I never heard of anyone who was held back that many times!

[NickUK]

Please people....save this witty banter for our private forum rooms....

Mention them again in public, Dave, and I'll evoke Executve Order 19, Subsection 4a, Paragraph iii on you.

You really think you can handle that many chimps?

[uk_dave]

Mention them again in public, Dave, and I'll evoke Executve Order 19, Subsection 4a, Paragraph iii on you.

You really think you can handle that many chimps?

I'll behave and just thank mighty moloch that you didn't invoke para iv... I couldn't handle them covered in butter as well.

[Pardalis]

Does this remind anybody else of Alex Jones? "Oh, we have total evidence... Massive evidence..."

I wonder if "evidence" in the CTist language means the same thing as "clue" in the skeptical language...

[defaultdotxbe]

I wonder if "evidence" in the CTist language means the same thing as "clue" in the skeptical language...
ive got raging evidence, and its kinda pointing to the left...


hey, it works! (does that make me a leader too, or do i absolutely need the bullhorn?)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Gravy, I thought you were going to be in the 9/11 National debate, and that it was being moved to New Hampshire or Vermont or something? That still on?

http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html

Looks like Wieck is on, but no Gravy. Looks like it is still in South Carolina.

[defaultdotxbe]

Gravy, I thought you were going to be in the 9/11 National debate, and that it was being moved to New Hampshire or Vermont or something? That still on?

http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html

Looks like Wieck is on, but no Gravy. Looks like it is still in South Carolina.
yeah, it would seem that uncle fetzer renegged

[Horatius]

I wonder if "evidence" in the CTist language means the same thing as "clue" in the skeptical language...

In that case, I don't believe he has massive evidence, either.

[Gravy]

yeah, it would seem that uncle fetzer reneggedStill in the works, actually. I'll let you know when I know more. This isn't exactly a priority in my life!

[Gravy]

Bump, since S4S is posting again.

[Darth Rotor]

Does this remind anybody else of Alex Jones? "Oh, we have total evidence... Massive evidence..."

Funny how they love to build up to things that never come. You'd think they'd have been able to figure it out in the intervening five years. I mean, I never heard of anyone who was held back that many times!
I am reminded of a man waving a sheaf of papers, exclaiming "I have names!"

DR

[scissorhands]

I want to have a raging clue too.
S4S says he has one, why cant he just say what it is?

[Bronze Dog]

Just joined in this thread.
The presumed troll's evidence:
A world of crickets.

[Skeptic4Sure]

The "world of crickets" is actually a person who is busy with something much more important that Gravy has to wait.

In the meanwhile, can somebody please post the Alex Jones ground zero debate/yelling match?

[Gravy]

The "world of crickets" is actually a person who is busy with something much more important that Gravy has to wait.Your busy schedule hasn't prevented you from posting nonsense ad nauseum in the other thread, has it? In the time you've taken to say that you knew what you would tell me, and then to twice ask where the Alex Jones encounter actually is, you could have simply stated your case. You haven't done so because you're a coward. Prove me wrong.

In the meanwhile, can somebody please post the Alex Jones ground zero debate/yelling match?As I told you in the other thread, it's in the document that's linked in my signature.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Just link it silly man.

[rwguinn]

Just link it silly man.

You have a reading comprehension problem (statement, not a question)
or you are deliberately stupid.
IT IS LINKED!
Just click on his sig.

[Pardalis]

Boy, these CTists all sound alike.

Skeptic4Sure sounds like Pdoherty now...:hypnotize

[Skeptic4Sure]

Just link it silly man.

[Dog Town]

Boy, these CTists all sound alike.

Skeptic4Sure sounds like Pdoherty now...:hypnotize

No, they are just both attention freaks. This one, is that one dood, from LC.
He is being harassed by the MIB over this, he claims! Started a thread about it an everything. Funny folks! Gotta laugh loud...

[Skeptic4Sure]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.

[Skeptic4Sure]

No, they are just both attention freaks. This one, is that one dood, from LC.
He is being harassed by the MIB over this, he claims! Started a thread about it an everything. Funny folks! Gotta laugh loud...

Conspiracy theorists.:rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information

A dildo is your new evidence?

[Gravy]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.That's okay. I just thought I'd prompt you since you brought it up and you seem to have an awful lot of free time on your hands, as shown by your posts on this forum. I'll be around whenever you're ready.

Rather than "sitting on" your evidence, why not release it? The pressure must make you feel uncomfortable. Or are you like that songstress in the old blues tune:

If I can't sell it
I'll keep sittin' on it
Before I give it away...

[Skeptic4Sure]

A dildo is your new evidence?

Ah now I know what Arkan meant about you guys being "Critical thinkers/Scientists"

[Pardalis]

Why don't you just show us your evidence and be done with it?

[Skeptic4Sure]

That's okay. I just thought I'd prompt you since you brought it up and you seem to have an awful lot of free time on your hands, as shown by your posts on this forum. I'll be around whenever you're ready.

Rather than "sitting on" your evidence, why not release it? The pressure must make you feel uncomfortable. Or are you like that songstress in the old blues tune:

If I can't sell it
I'll keep sittin' on it
Before I give it away...

It's OK Bobby,

I know you're nervous. When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.

When I'm done sitting on it, you can have at it...it will be nice and warm.

[The Almond]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy?

Except you very explicitly challenged him to a debate. See first post of this thread.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I think ego is proclaiming the importance of scientific evidence before releasing it. I think ego is lauding your own work before others have a chance to see it.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

Actually, you said you knew immediatly what you would have responded to. It really shouldn't take you long to write your thoughts down, right?

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.
As you should be. A person with significant knowledge and experience in the matter has challenged you to debate him on specific points in his analysis. He has provided you with an entire transcript of the debate as well as links to his writings. Meanwhile, you declared victory over him as a direct result of evidence you deem substantial, but no one has been able to verify.

[stateofgrace]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.

Ok I will ask nicely. Any chance you could share it with this forum, so people here could see what you are talking?

Oh I forgot, please.

[scissorhands]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information

Then why wait?
Its not to make yourself appear important and in "the know" is it?
Given the subject matter I cant understand how anybody would play games like this.
Are you a sociopath?

[Gravy]

It's OK Bobby,

I know you're nervous. When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.

When I'm done sitting on it, you can have at it...it will be nice and warm.The link, with transcript, is in that paper, in the Alex Jones section, which you can find by using the table of contents, the index, or your pdf or doc reader's search function. I suggest that you also read the paper. You may learn a lot.

Out of curiosity, do you, like Alex Jones, believe the FDNY was involved in "demolishing" WTC 7?

[Pardalis]

When I'm done sitting on it, you can have at it...it will be nice and warm.

Something wrong with your peristaltis?

[Skeptic4Sure]

Out of curiosity, do you, like Alex Jones, believe the FDNY was involved in "demolishing" WTC 7?

Of course not.

[hellaeon]

S4S you are such a 'dribbly'. Thats a polite word for another type of person unfortunate with dice result dealt by nature. Are you in the USA? isnt it coming up to winter now? Go hibernate.

S4S = DJ Legacy

[Bronze Dog]

Oh, well. I'm sure he'll release his evidence...

...pretty soon. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html)

[Gravy]

Oh, well. I'm sure he'll release his evidence...

...pretty soon. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html)That's a great page.

[Pardalis]

Something wrong with your peristaltis?

Not only are we constantly bukkaked with stupid, now we're going to be enemaed with evidence?

[Peephole]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information,
When can we expect this explosion? I'd like to know so I can get my put options in place.

[Belz...]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

"Well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you."

Child.

[JFM]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.

The ego has landed.

[stateofgrace]

When can we expect this explosion? I'd like to know so I can get my put options in place.

It will be something alone these lines

" The US government......bla, bla, bla......black box......bla,bla,bla.......lamp posts......bla,bla,bla.......everybody is lying or asleep..........bla,bla,bla........inside job. The End"

[fuelair]

I wonder if "evidence" in the CTist language means the same thing as "clue" in the skeptical language...

"I have here a list of Communists and Communist sympathizers working for the State Department......" Sen. Joseph McCarthy, A.H.:D :D :D

[chipmunk stew]

When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.
Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s

[aggle-rithm]

Not only are we constantly bukkaked with stupid, now we're going to be enemaed with evidence?

Not to mention catheterized with craziness.

[aggle-rithm]

It's OK Bobby,

I know you're nervous. When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.

When I'm done sitting on it, you can have at it...it will be nice and warm.

Either you DON'T have the evidence and you're being a troll, or you DO have the evidence and you're obstructing justice. Which is it?

[JFM]

Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s

Dear me. What a rabble.

[Spins]

Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s
I didn't know you could put the time at the end of the link like that; you are the Zen Master of Google Video!

:D

[fuelair]

I like the idea of Skipfersher sitting on it - as he admits to doing. Hopefully it is appropriately long and thick.

[DarkMagician]

If I, I get to know your name
Well if I, could trace your private number, baby

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
I want some, want some

I set my sights on you
(And no one else will do)
And I, I've got to have my way now, baby

All I know is that to me
You look like you're having fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out here I come

Chorus:

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

I got to be your friend now, baby
And I would like to move in just a little bit closer

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out, here I come

(Chorus)

I want your love...
I want your love...

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out, here I come

(Chorus)

I want your love...
I want your love...

(Chorus, repeat and fade)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't go out no more. There's a man by the door in a raincoat smoking a cigarette But I've put him in my diary and the mailers are all lined up on the bed, bloody in the glow of the bar sign next door He knows that if I die (or even drop out of sight) the diary goes and everyone knows the CIA's in Virginia 500 mailers bought from 500 drug counters each one different and 500 notebooks with 500 pages in everyone. I am prepared. * * * I can see him from up here. His cigarette winks from just above his trenchcoat collar and somewhere there's a man on a subway sitting under a Black Velvet as thinking my name. Men have discussed me in back rooms. If the phone rings there's only a dead breath. In the bar across the street a snubnose revolver has changed hands in the men's room Each bullet has my name on it. My name is written in back files and looked up in newspaper morgues. My mother's been investigated; than God she's dead. They have writing samples and examine the back loops of pees and crosses of tees. My brother's with them, did I tell you? His wife is Russian and he keeps asking me to fill out forms. I have it in my diary. Listen-- listen do listen: you must listen. In the rain, at the bus stop. black crows with black umbrellas pretend to look at their watches, but it's not raining. Their eyes are silver dollars. Some are scholars in the pay of the FBI most are the foreigners who pour through our streets. I fooled them got off the bus at 25th and Lex where a cabby watched me over his newspaper. In the room above me an old woman has put an electric suction cup on her floor It sends out rays through my light fixture and now I write in the dark by the bar sign's glow. I tell you I know. They sent me a dog with brown spots and a radio cobweb in its nose. I drowned it in the sink and wrote it up in folder GAMMA. I don't look in the mailbox anymore. The greeting cards are letter-bombs. (Step away! Goddam you! Step away. I know tall people! I tell you I know very tall people!) The luncheonette is laid with talking floors and the waitress says it was salt but I know arsenic when it's put before me. And the yellow taste of mustard to mask the bitter odor of almonds. I have seen strange lights in the sky. Last night a dark man with no face crawled through nine miles of sewer to surface in my toilet, listening for phone calls through the cheap wood with chrome ears. I tell you, man, I hear. I saw his muddy handprints on the porcelain. I don't answer the phone now, have I told you that? They are planning to flood the earth with sludge. They are planning break-ins They have got physicians advocating weird sex positions. They are making addictive laxatives and suppositories that burn. They know how to put out the sun with blowguns. I pack myself in ice--have I told you that? It obviates their infrascopes. I know chants and I wear charms. You may think you have me but I could destroy you. any second now. Any second now. Any second now. Would you like some coffee, my love? Did I tell you I can't go out no more? There's a man by the door in a raincoat
Paranoid: A Chant Stephen King Skeleton Crew

[chipmunk stew]

When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.
Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s
Whenever you're ready S4S...

[chipmunk stew]

:bump4 for Skeptic4Sure

[Peephole]

If I, I get to know your name
Well if I, could trace your private number, baby

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
I want some, want some

I set my sights on you
(And no one else will do)
And I, I've got to have my way now, baby

All I know is that to me
You look like you're having fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out here I come

Chorus:

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

I got to be your friend now, baby
And I would like to move in just a little bit closer

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out, here I come

(Chorus)

I want your love...
I want your love...

All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
Open up your lovin' arms
Watch out, here I come

(Chorus)

I want your love...
I want your love...

(Chorus, repeat and fade)


Video for maximum effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2OtnUHP68M

[Gravy]

I didn't know you could put the time at the end of the link like that; you are the Zen Master of Google Video!

:D Neither did I. That's good to know.

[Mashuna]

So Gravy, have you debunked Septic4Sure's evidence yet? You know, if you don't debunk it in the next 48hrs, then it'll have been proven true.

It's a small matter that it's not been presented yet, but I'm sure that only goes to show what a cast-iron case he's making.

Or something.

Actually, if someone could just give me a nudge when he gets round to posting anything interesting, that'd be great. Thanks. As soon as the information's in.

:pigsfly

[PerryLogan]

Yes, you just go away. We'll call you real soon.

[uk_dave]

Perry....you don't look well.

Is it the water?

[Dog Town]

Perry....you don't look well.

Is it the water?

Stop drinking out of Town Lake!

[chipmunk stew]

When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.
Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s
Whenever you're ready S4S...
:bump4 for Skeptic4Sure
:bump4 for Skeptic4Sure

[Hellbound]

http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/drumroll.gif

Bump-ba-dump-bada-bada--bump-ba-bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-bada-bada-bump-bada-bump-bada-bump-babumpity-bimpity-bimpity-bumpity-ba-ba-ba-ba-bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-ba-ba-bump!

Ching!

<The drum solo bump>

[scissorhands]

Maybe tonights the night (at least in the uk it is) when all will be revealed.
Its nerve racking waiting for the results of this investigation.
I hope Lyte and s4s havent been "compromised" by speaking too soon.

[JonnyFive]

I hope Lyte and s4s havent been "compromised" by speaking too soon.

You see, that's it! It's all true because no evidence has been posted! The MIB got them!

Maybe soon. I'm just going to have to sit here and click "refresh" for the next six hours hoping something crops up.

[Bronze Dog]

Just you wait. It'll come any day now (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html).

[tsig]

Oh, well. I'm sure he'll release his evidence...

...pretty soon. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html)

Well he's sitting on it and it's warm we can draw conclusions.

[JonnyFive]

Just you wait. It'll come any day now (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html).

Then I won't be hitting refresh for very long...

...will I?

Come on, it's been a long time now and my mouse finger hurts.

[Piggy]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information

No, you're not.

[fuelair]

I'm sitting on some ... explosive .

And I am down with that tool boy!!! Need a light?:D :D :D

[ArmillarySphere]

I think what you really meant was:

HERE, USE MY MATCH

[Skeptic4Sure]

Ok foolair.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Wow, so at 29:30, Mark bets a gentlemen in the crowd a "six pack of beer" regarding the Silverstein quote.

Wow, what does that say about Mark? Does he like to drink...too much? Is he an alcoholic? I heard a lisp when he was talking, was that more a slur?

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.

[Gravy]

Wow, so at 29:30, Mark bets a gentlemen in the crowd a "six pack of beer" regarding the Silverstein quote.And when I tried to collect my beer money two days later, he made an excuse and then scurried away. That's not how a "gentleman" honors a bet. Why are 9/11 deniers so dishonest?

[uk_dave]

Wow, what does that say about Mark? Does he like to drink...too much? Is he an alcoholic? I heard a lisp when he was talking, was that more a slur?

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.

WOW!

You really do draw incredible conclusions, don't you?

Is your 'evidence' going to be just well deduced?

lmao

[Mobyseven]

Not to mention catheterized with craziness.

A triple-bypass of the truth, if you ask me...

[Cuddles]

Alcoholics go to meetings. Gravy is a drunk. :p

What is a lush anyway?

[Gravy]

Alcoholics go to meetings. Gravy is a drunk. :p

What is a lush anyway?A drunk with a sense of humor.

The Fatal Glass of Beer

As recorded by W.C. Fields in the short film of the same name.

To be haltingly, wistfully sung-spoken and accompanied by a dulcimer played with heavy mittens.

There was a young man, and he came to New York
To find himself a lucrative position befitting his talents.

And he hunted all the Employment Agencies, but was nearly starved to death,
When at last he got a job in a stone quarry with all the other college graduates.

And after work was done, they lured him into a saloon,
And tempted him to drink a glass of beer.

But he'd promised his Dear Old Mother that he never would imbibe
That he'd never touch his Lips to a glass containing Liquor.

They laughed at him and Jeered, and they called him a cow-yard
Till at last he clutched and drained that glass of beer.

When he saw what he had Did, he dashed his glass upon the floor,
And staggered out the door with Delirium Tremens.

And the first person that he met was a Salvation Army Lass,
And with one blow he broke her tambourine!

When she saw what he had did, she placed a mark upon his brow
With a kick that she had learned before she was sav-ed.

And the moral of this tale is to shun that fatal glass,
And don't go around breaking other peoples' tambourines.

[Peephole]

Wow, so at 29:30, Mark bets a gentlemen in the crowd a "six pack of beer" regarding the Silverstein quote.

Wow, what does that say about Mark? Does he like to drink...too much? Is he an alcoholic? I heard a lisp when he was talking, was that more a slur?

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.
What's so bad about alcoholism?:confused:

[chipmunk stew]

I watched you debate Alex Jones at Ground Zero and knew exactly what I would have said to you. Or presented to you.
Have at it.
The "world of crickets" is actually a person who is busy with something much more important that Gravy has to wait.

In the meanwhile, can somebody please post the Alex Jones ground zero debate/yelling match?
Your busy schedule hasn't prevented you from posting nonsense ad nauseum in the other thread, has it? In the time you've taken to say that you knew what you would tell me, and then to twice ask where the Alex Jones encounter actually is, you could have simply stated your case. You haven't done so because you're a coward. Prove me wrong.

As I told you in the other thread, it's in the document that's linked in my signature.
Just link it silly man.
You have a reading comprehension problem (statement, not a question)
or you are deliberately stupid.
IT IS LINKED!
Just click on his sig.
Just link it silly man.
I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

I told you we'll get to it when we get to it.

I am tempted to not let your "victory by forfeit" tactic slide by.
That's okay. I just thought I'd prompt you since you brought it up and you seem to have an awful lot of free time on your hands, as shown by your posts on this forum. I'll be around whenever you're ready.

Rather than "sitting on" your evidence, why not release it? The pressure must make you feel uncomfortable. Or are you like that songstress in the old blues tune:

If I can't sell it
I'll keep sittin' on it
Before I give it away...
It's OK Bobby,

I know you're nervous. When you're ready to provide the videogoogle link and not some plug for your PDF, I'll give it a whirl.

When I'm done sitting on it, you can have at it...it will be nice and warm.
Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s
Whenever you're ready S4S...
Just you wait. It'll come any day now (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html).
Wow, so at 29:30, Mark bets a gentlemen in the crowd a "six pack of beer" regarding the Silverstein quote.

Wow, what does that say about Mark? Does he like to drink...too much? Is he an alcoholic? I heard a lisp when he was talking, was that more a slur?

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.
After all that build up... :nope:

Was this really what you were talking about when you said you knew exactly what you'd have said to Mark? When you said you'd "give it a whirl"?

Is this what we should expect from your "explosive evidence"?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/party_snaps.jpg

[jhunter1163]

Lush = a female drunk.

Gravy is, I'm sure, neither. Even if he were, he could probably win a debate with S4S while being half in the bag.

Typical CT tactic; when one is losing an argument, resort to character assassination/ad hominem attacks.

[Mongrel]

What's so bad about alcoholism?:confused:

Alcoholism is bad
Having a few beers is not bad
Extropolating Alcoholism from "Bet you a 6 pack" (Not many blokes turn down beer ;)) is lunacy.

[JonnyFive]

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.

That was pointless.

Any chance we could see the explosive evidence now, maybe?

[Horatius]

Wow, so at 29:30, Mark bets a gentlemen in the crowd a "six pack of beer" regarding the Silverstein quote.

Wow, what does that say about Mark? Does he like to drink...too much? Is he an alcoholic? I heard a lisp when he was talking, was that more a slur?

I hope the skeptic movement isn't represented by a lush. That would be sad.

No, you guys have missed the cunning subtlety that is Gravy's plan. Since he "knows" he is "lying" he "knows" he will "lose" the "bet", so that he will have to give the CTist the sixpack. Thus, Gravy will turn the entire CT movement into alcoholics, one six-pack-bet at a time! Bwahahahaha!

And when I tried to collect my beer money two days later, he made an excuse and then scurried away. That's not how a "gentleman" honors a bet. Why are 9/11 deniers so dishonest?

Unfortunately, the CTists are just too darn smart for us. Now, we'll never have another bet, as they've strategically shown they can't be trusted to honour the bets. Drat! Foiled again!

[JonnyFive]

No, you guys have missed the cunning subtlety that is Gravy's plan. Since he "knows" he is "lying" he "knows" he will "lose" the "bet", so that he will have to give the CTist the sixpack. Thus, Gravy will turn the entire CT movement into alcoholics, one six-pack-bet at a time! Bwahahahaha!

So what you're saying is that Gravy is really a covert CIA MIB telepathic psychic disinfo agent who masterminded the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, and the entire war in Iraq (which is faked in a sandlot behind a Hollywood production company)?

...or am I a covert FBI Illuminati Rockefeller mind slave bounty hunter sent to spread counter-counter info about him?

I'm so confused.

[maccy]

So what you're saying is that Gravy is really a covert CIA MIB telepathic psychic disinfo agent who masterminded the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, and the entire war in Iraq (which is faked in a sandlot behind a Hollywood production company)?

...or am I a covert FBI Illuminati Rockefeller mind slave bounty hunter sent to spread counter-counter info about him?

I'm so confused.

Nominated!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2128983#post2128983

[aggle-rithm]

...or am I a covert FBI Illuminati Rockefeller mind slave bounty hunter sent to spread counter-counter info about him?


If you were, do you really think we would tell you? ;)

[JonnyFive]

If you were, do you really think we would tell you? ;)

Where do I go at night?

Disinfo!

[jaydeehess]

I'm sitting on some very explosive information, and you think I want to get sidetracked with some silly debate with this guy? I would love to spend all the time I could, but at this point, I simply can't..


Now he sounds like Lyte Trip endlessly proclaiming his stupendous, exciting 'evidence'.

So for you make a whole separate thread for me, is flattering. And of course very egotistical of you, in an impetuous sort of way.

Which is exactly what happens on "Pilots for ,,," whenever anyone starts challenging something in the forums. S4S complains about such a thing so S4S could not be jdx unless he is an utter hypocrite.

[jaydeehess]

Alcoholism is bad
Having a few beers is not bad
Extropolating Alcoholism from "Bet you a 6 pack" (Not many blokes turn down beer ;)) is lunacy.

Betting a "6 pack" proves he is NOT an alcoholic.
6 beer is an appetizer to atrue alcoholic, he'd have bet a whole case(which in my part of the world means 24 beer)

[chipmunk stew]

Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s
BUMP for Skeptic4Sure, because he's online RIGHT NOW!

[JonnyFive]

BUMP for Skeptic4Sure, because he's online RIGHT NOW!

Come on! Let's see some evidenciary action!

[Horatius]

So what you're saying is that Gravy is really a covert CIA MIB telepathic psychic disinfo agent who masterminded the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, and the entire war in Iraq (which is faked in a sandlot behind a Hollywood production company)?

...or am I a covert FBI Illuminati Rockefeller mind slave bounty hunter sent to spread counter-counter info about him?

I'm so confused.

You should be confused, because the real answer is, that both are true!

Kneel in awe at the realization of the complexity of Our Plot!

[aggle-rithm]

What's so bad about alcoholism?:confused:

I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but it's always worked for me.

[JonnyFive]

You should be confused, because the real answer is, that both are true!

Kneel in awe at the realization of the complexity of Our Plot!

I would talk about this more, but I think I have some people to erase.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

1) W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush. Greg Palast is a professional journalist for the BBC and like many journalists, has anonymous sources, one of those sources was an FBI agent. Palast provided a scan of the documents, http://www.prisonplanet.com/W199I.gif (http://www.prisonplanet.com/W199I.gif), and went as far as to publicly level the charges against the Bush Administration...are you calling Greg Palast a liar, Gravy? The only person, besides Gravy, who has seemingly tried to defend the Bushes on W-199i is "Mike Williams" of 911myths.com. Let's see what Mike has to say, let's hear his "take" as he likes to put it...

But once you know that happened under Clinton, then this is just a second-hand account of a comment from an unnamed source: it may be accurate, it may not. There's no way to tell, and it's certainly not sufficient to prove the original claim.


It's accurate. It's certainly accurate when the US State Dept website on 9/11 Conspiracy theories makes absolutely no correction or statement about this issue. Tell me Gravy, do you have any statements from the Bush Admin correcting this issue?

Mike uses the same strawman argument as Gravy regarding the term "Executive Order"...

In fact some people actually misinterpret this to the point of taking the 1996 FBI case number, then describing it as a “Bush Executive Order” telling the FBI to “back off bin Ladin”.

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.

[TheGrunion]

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.

Honestly though, you're wrong.

An Executive Order is a type of Presidential Directive.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

Your google-fu is weak, young grasshopper.

You may want to brush up on your understading of sets and sub-sets while you are at it.

[Lyte Trip]

Honestly though, you're wrong.

An Executive Order is a type of Presidential Directive.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

Your google-fu is weak, young grasshopper.

You may want to brush up on your understading of sets and sub-sets while you are at it.

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

[LashL]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

Mark lisps? Evidence, please.

W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush.

Yes, he is absolutely correct that it was not an Executive Order, which was the point, in case you missed it.

Evidence that the "Presidential Directive Decision" was "re-enacted by Bush", please.

It's certainly accurate when the US State Dept website on 9/11 Conspiracy theories makes absolutely no correction or statement about this issue.

Um, no, I don't think so. That's like saying that if I write and publish an untrue story about you and you don't correct it, that makes it accurate.

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

Really? I don't think so. Evidence, please.

[TheGrunion]

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

Good grief. You may need more remedial help than S4S. I'll give you a couple of style points though. I find it cute how you gallantly came to his defense, kind of like he is a damsel in distress.

S4S made a statement that was clearly incorrect. I corrected it. Please explain to me how that is a strawman arguement?

At this point, I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman arguement is.

Regarding the rest of S4S's post (the part that directly pertains to 9/11), that's not for me to respond to. Not in this thread anyway. This is Gravy's thread.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".

As if it matters.

The idiot Silverstein already showed he was lying, in his response from his company spokesperson Dara McQuillan, they stated:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.




Meanwhile,

-Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)) as saying: "There was no firefighting >in< WTC 7."

-The FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

-And an article (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nytimes_112901.html) by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."


Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

And does evacuating the firefighters because of safety reasons mean they knew the building was going to collapse because of damage?

Did they evacuate "3 hours before" because they knew the WHOLE building was going to fall straight down into a pile? Or were they just unsure of the integrity of the building because they thought a PORTION may collapse OVER or a PIECE OF BUILDING DEBRIS may fall on a firefighter. They had lost hundreds of fellow firefighters, maybe they thought the rescue efforts and safety of the remaining firemen was more important. Does that make them structural engineers that know a whole building is going collapse?

Hey Mark did you ever speak with Indira Singh?

Did you ever see Rick Seigel's video, hear the boom? Or the "Clap of Thunder" and "shockwave" as reported by an eyewitness on the scene?

[LashL]

At this point, I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman arguement is.

I suspect that you're right about that. It seems that nearly all troofers are hopelessly inept at identifying logical fallacies and hopelessly bereft of proper debate skills.

[LashL]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".

As if it matters.

The idiot Silverstein already showed he was lying, in his response from his company spokesperson Dara McQuillan, they stated:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile,

-Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)) as saying: "There was no firefighting >in< WTC 7."

-The FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

-And an article (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nytimes_112901.html) by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

And does evacuating the firefighters because of safety reasons mean they knew the building was going to collapse because of damage?



There were, in fact, firefighters in the building and they did initially intend to try to fight the fires. They found that their firefighting capabilities were compromised to the point of being non-existent because the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of the towers. Still, the firefighters remained on the scene at building 7, and continued to ensure that everyone had been successfully evacuated from the building, and continued to assess the building even though they could not engage in active firefighting operations in the building because of the loss of firefighting capacity mentioned above.

You do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "manual firefighting operations"? And you do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "firefighting capacity"? If not, perhaps you could consult your fellow CTer, Russ Pickering, as it is rumoured that he worked for a fire department once upon a time. Perhaps he can enlighten you on the terminology if you don't understand it.

[rwguinn]

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

The map is not the territory.
The subset is not the set.
Don't you folks get tired of being wrong All the time?

[Gravy]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

1) W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush.False. W-1991 is neither an Executive order nor a Presidential Decision Directive (not "directive decision, btw). It is an FBI case file number from the Washington Field Office. You can view actual PDDs here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html

...are you calling Greg Palast a liar, Gravy?Palast says it's an FBI case number. I agree. It's not a "presidential" anything. http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.Honestly, though, you are woefully misinformed. This is what comes of believing Alex Jones.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.Good luck with that. I hope your research skills improve.

So this was what you meant when you said you knew "exactly what you'd say to me?" Consider me underwhelmed.

[Gravy]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".Wrong. The guy said that Silverstein said "We made that decision." He was wrong. The fire department made the decision to pull their men away from the building, which Silverstein acknowledged.

It doesn't matter who made that decision?

Uh, yeah, it does.

Hey, I wrote a whole paper about WTC 7! It's linked in my signature. It should clear up your misperceptions.

[WildCat]

You do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "manual firefighting operations"? And you do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "firefighting capacity"?
No, he does not realize any of those things. And probably never will.

[kookbreaker]

Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

Why do you think he wouldn't? Owners (or lease holders) of prominent buildings are going to be involved in discussions of firefighting plans when they are ablaze. They have to be for severeal reason, not the least of which is all building changes/modifications are not in a convenient file they Fire Chief has handed to him when he shows up on site.

Welcome to the real world.

[Skeptic4Sure]

False. W-1991 is neither an Executive order nor a Presidential Decision Directive (not "directive decision, btw). It is an FBI case file number from the Washington Field Office. You can view actual PDDs here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html

Palast says it's an FBI case number. I agree. It's not a "presidential" anything. http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html

Honestly, though, you are woefully misinformed. This is what comes of believing Alex Jones.

Good luck with that. I hope your research skills improve.

So this was what you meant when you said you knew "exactly what you'd say to me?" Consider me underwhelmed.


You're calling something I remember from memory "research"????

Please.

It's also called a "Presidential Directive", hence me misplacing the words.

Which part is the PDD and which part is the case number Gwavy?

And now that we've got the strawman tactics out of the way, are you admitting that w-199i existed and was re-enacted by Bush?

Any comments on my buddy Rick Siegel's video? The "Clap of thunder"? Indira Singh?

Didn't think so.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Wrong. The guy said that Silverstein said "We made that decision." He was wrong. The fire department made the decision to pull their men away from the building, which Silverstein acknowledged.



Lie.

He acknowledged recommending that the fire commander remove firefighters from INSIDE the building. Firefighters who were NOT >inside< the building.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Mark lisps? Evidence, please.



Thounds like it to me.

[Skeptic4Sure]

There were, in fact, firefighters in the building and they did initially intend to try to fight the fires.


Link?


They found that their firefighting capabilities were compromised to the point of being non-existent because the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of the towers.

Link with firemen specifically stating this, please.




You do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "manual firefighting operations"? And you do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "firefighting capacity"?

You do realize, do you not, that Silverstein's statement explicitly stated that he recommended that firefighters be removed from INSIDE the building. Firefighters who weren't >inside< the building.

Do honestly believe there were firefighters in 7 after the the first tower collapsed with their brothers inside, with the other one hit and potentially about to do the same thing???

You truly believe that firefighters were INSIDE wtc7 after all that???

[Gravy]

You're calling something I remember from memory "research"????If that's an issue for you, perhaps you should do research, rather than making ridiculous statements based on your memory.

It's also called a "Presidential Directive", hence me misplacing the words.

Which part is the PDD and which part is the case number Gwavy?No part of it is PDD. Do you have ADD?

And now that we've got the strawman tactics out of the way, are you admitting that w-199i existed and was re-enacted by Bush?An FBI memo was re-enacted? Was that at the White House Press Corps Dinner or something? Please explain.

Any comments on my buddy Rick Siegel's video? The "Clap of thunder"? You mean the "clap of thunder" that is heard miles away in Hoboken but not at the WTC? That clap of thunder?

:dl:

[Gravy]

Link?

Link with firemen specifically stating this, please.

You do realize, do you not, that Silverstein's statement explicitly stated that he recommended that firefighters be removed from INSIDE the building. Firefighters who weren't >inside< the building.

Do honestly believe there were firefighters in 7 after the the first tower collapsed with their brothers inside, with the other one hit and potentially about to do the same thing???

You truly believe that firefighters were INSIDE wtc7 after all that???Again, I recommend that you read my WTC 7 paper, which is linked in my signature. If you won't do that, then read the NIST report on WTC firefighting operations. If you won't do that, then read the firefighters' oral testimones. My paper has links and excerpts from those documents. It will correct your misperceptions. You are making a fool of yourself with every post. Check your chemtrail filter.

[WildCat]

S4S, try putting the bong away for a few days and then maybe your reading comprehension will improve. You're talking nonsense, and fast approaching gibberish.

[Skeptic4Sure]

If that's an issue for you, perhaps you should do research, rather than making ridiculous statements based on your memory.

Rediculous? It is an Presidential directive, that had an FBI case file. And???

No part of it is PDD. Do you have ADD?

It is PART of a PDD. Do YOU have proof it isn't?

An FBI memo was re-enacted? Was that at the White House Press Corps Dinner or something? Please explain.

Yeah, didn't you read or see any of Palast's work?

You mean the "clap of thunder" that is heard miles away in Hoboken but not at the WTC? That clap of thunder?




yeah, that clap of thunder. The one the witness on the radio heard. You know, the one that was standing near wtc7 that saw the "shockwave" rip through the building. You know, that one.

Are saying that Rick Siegel is a liar and a fraud? Is that what you are saying Mark Roberts DeZiro?

Come on critical thinker, don't you think that everyone DID hear it? Think about it, firemen, leaving the scene with their backs turned, they simply heard the "clap of thunder" and would have assumed it was 7 hitting the ground.

[Skeptic4Sure]

S4S, try putting the bong away for a few days and then maybe your reading comprehension will improve. You're talking nonsense, and fast approaching gibberish.


It's funny, but I haven't seen you do anything except run your hole.

You are a cheerleader. hahaha.

Stay out of it, unless you have something you want to contribute tot he debate or I will report your slimey self.

[senorpogo]

Rediculous? It is an Presidential directive, that had an FBI case file. And???

It's "ridiculous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ridiculous)". That's my all-time, most hated spelling mistake.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Again, I recommend that you read my WTC 7 paper, which is linked in my signature. If you won't do that, then read the NIST report on WTC firefighting operations. If you won't do that, then read the firefighters' oral testimones. My paper has links and excerpts from those documents. It will correct your misperceptions. You are making a fool of yourself with every post. Check your chemtrail filter.


That's fine, just post the links.

You make a fool out of yourself, every time you don't see a speech therapist.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Just so we can get back to basics.

Were there firefighters INSIDE wtc7, which is why Silverstein told the fire commander to pull them from INSIDE?

[The Almond]

That's fine, just post the links.

The links are in his signature. But since you seem to be incapable of following directions, I'll post the links here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Just copy and paste that into your browser window and you'll get the whole pdf file. If you don't have Adobe Reader, one can be downloaded for free from this website:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html


You make a fool out of yourself, every time you don't see a speech therapist.

Ad hominem attacks are frequently employed by those who have run out of valid arguments. Is this the case for you?

[Gravy]

Rediculous? It is an Presidential directive, that had an FBI case file. And???

It is PART of a PDD. Do YOU have proof it isn't?Apparently you do have ADD. It's an FBI case number, as Greg Palast says. No part of it is a PDD. It has nothing to do with any presidential order. I gave you links to PDDs. I suggest you look at them, and stop staring at that framed picture of Alex Jones on your wall.

Yeah, didn't you read or see any of Palast's work?I linked to Palast saying that it's an FBI case number, you numbskull!

yeah, that clap of thunder. The one the witness on the radio heard. You know, the one that was standing near wtc7 that saw the "shockwave" rip through the building. You know, that one.
We're talking about a different clap then. I was talking about the tower collapses in 9/11 Eyewitness. Of course a "shockwave" went through WTC 7 when the global collapse ensued. The whole building was collapsing! You can see it on video. That happened after the collapse began, not before. Think about the east mechanical penthouse collapse: no "shockwave" then. No "shockwave" or "squibs" as are seen in controlled demolitions, preceding the collapse. Nothing. Nada. Zilch

Are saying that Rick Siegel is a liar and a fraud? Is that what you are saying Mark Roberts DeZiro?My impression is that Siegel is simply an idiot. He thinks the helicopters were "in on it."

Come on critical thinker, don't you think that everyone DID hear it? Think about it, firemen, leaving the scene with their backs turned, they simply heard the "clap of thunder" and would have assumed it was 7 hitting the ground.Are you saying that a skyscraper shouldn't make a loud noise when it collapses? One thing is for sure, the experts who were right there and witnessed WTC 7 fall, such as the demolitions experts, say there was NO sign of controlled demolition. None of the firefighter accounts indicate an explosion before the collapse. Nor was any such explosion recorded by the neighborhood seismographs. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Think different? Provide your evidence.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Ad hominem attacks are frequently employed by those who have run out of valid arguments. Is this the case for you?


OMG.

Have you ever read MOST of the user's posts here?

I'll make sure I'll and save that quote.

Ad hominem attacks are frequently employed by those who have run out of valid arguments.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Apparently you do have ADD. It's an FBI case number, as Greg Palast says. No part of it is a PDD. It has nothing to do with any presidential order. I gave you links to PDDs. I suggest you look at them, and stop staring at that framed picture of Alex Jones on your wall.

I linked to Palast saying that it's an FBI case number, you numbskull!



Sweety pie, where did the FBI case number originate and why?

[Gravy]

Sweety pie, where did the FBI case number originate and why?
I'm done repeating myself. The answer is in the Palast material I linked to. This isn't brain surgery, Skeptic. Just make the slightest effort. Goodbye.

[WildCat]

Stay out of it, unless you have something you want to contribute tot he debate or I will report your slimey self.
You have shown that you do not know how to research, debate, understand what you read, nor do you possess even a sliver of critical thinking skills.

It was not, and is not, a PDD. No matter what the nutter CT site told you.

[The Almond]

OMG.

Have you ever read MOST of the user's posts here?

ad hominem tu quoque

I'll make sure I'll and save that quote.

Ad hominem attacks are frequently employed by those who have run out of valid arguments.

This should make an excellent reference for you in the future. Removing childish personal attacks from your argument strengthens it. If others attack you personally, you will look more intelligent and mature by comparison.

[Skeptic4Sure]

You have shown that you do not know how to research, debate, understand what you read, nor do you possess even a sliver of critical thinking skills.

It was not, and is not, a PDD. No matter what the nutter CT site told you.


It is. It is directly related to and exists because of it.

[Arus808]

just because your repeat it, doesn't make it true
with every post you make you prove you do not know what research is.

[WildCat]

It is. It is directly related to and exists because of it.
So now it's not a PDD, nor an Executive Order, but "related to" a PDD?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Stay out of it, unless you have something you want to contribute tot he debate or I will report your slimey self.

Oh? Report to whom?

This isn't another one of those "all who disagree with us will be shot after the revolution" things again, is it?

[jaydeehess]

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

These firefighters were doing search and rescue NOT fighting fires.

In regards to "pull it", there is oft quoted worker who describes what they are doing to building 6. However it seems this quote is taken out of context and it has to be deliberate.

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

America Rebuilds documentary (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/index.html)

In this case it refers to the FACT (CT's are always interested in facts just ask jdx) that the building was physically pulled down using cable attached to it and heavy machinery which in moving away tightened on those cables and quite literally pulled it over. No explosives used at all. So the CT use of this quote of this worker simply does not back up the claim that the term "pull it" is used by demolition teams in the case of erxplosive demolition of buildings. Other reasearchers have contacted major demolition companies and all confirmed that they do not use that term for explosive demolitions.
SO, if it is not a term for explosive demolitions then obviously the contention that Silverstein was using it as such is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it is further quite obvious that another connotation for the term is intended and since throughout the entire quote of Mr. Silverstein the subject is indeed the safety of those who may still be inside the connotation intended is to have those persons exit the building.

S4S states
Did they evacuate "3 hours before" because they knew the WHOLE building was going to fall straight down into a pile? Or were they just unsure of the integrity of the building because they thought a PORTION may collapse OVER or a PIECE OF BUILDING DEBRIS may fall on a firefighter. They had lost hundreds of fellow firefighters, maybe they thought the rescue efforts and safety of the remaining firemen was more important. Does that make them structural engineers that know a whole building is going collapse?


No, it makes them prudent. The safety margin around the entire building was made equal to the height of the building since that would be expected to be the maximum distance any portion of the building could reach if it fell.

The building did NOT fall "straight down". This is obvious even in the videos that only show the east and north exposures ofthe building's collapse. However the about 2/3rds of the north wall leans inward as it falls while the eastern 1/3 of it leans outward . Indeed the western 2/3rds of the north wall is seen on the pile over the original location of the building while the eastern 1/3 hits the building to the north. We are all quite capable of locating pictures of this on your own, I should not have to hold anyone's hand and link them. One should take care to note in any pictures whether or not the roadways have been cleared of debris since such will indicate that clean up has started when the pictures were taken. Some sites have posted such images and claimed it shows that debris from WTC 7 did not fall outside its own footprint (something S4S seems to buy into) when in fact such is not the case.

[beachnut]

It is. It is directly related to and exists because of it.

You sound a lot like Docker, just saying stuff and stringing out your weak arguments, but you seem not as smart as Pdoh, or are you just as smart. You want people to look up stuff for your arguments; why?

[jaydeehess]

Oh? Report to whom?

This isn't another one of those "all who disagree with us will be shot after the revolution" things again, is it?


Perhaps it is the assumption that the rule ""all who disagree with us will be banned after a short time", which is in effect at some CT forums, is also being utilized here.:)

[jaydeehess]

It should be noted that if the north wall fell southward then since the building was 610 feet tall and 140 feet wide (north-south distance) then debris of the north wall could not hit any further south than 470 feet south of the south wall. BUT that means that a ) it was hitting the building accorss the street and b ) landing within the debris feild of the north tower. So it would break up upon hitting the other building and mix with the debris from the north tower. Within a day the debris in the road south of WTC 7 was cleared of debris and thus any pictures of the WTC debris would now seem to show that no debris of the north wall went any further than the south wall.

The 'critical thinkers' in the CT crowd thus conclude that WTC 7 fell entirely within it own footprint(just ignore that damage to the buildings to the north and east as well).