Gravy at Ground Zero

[JamesB]

911 Blogger has some video up of the truthers at Ground Zero. It is mostly of Gravy (if that is your real name) and then of them harassing a tv news crew. Mark, you look great, but as a longtime Husky you really need to lose the Cal hat. :D


http://911blogger.com/node/4688

[chippy]

Mark Roberts is my new favorite person ever.

[Oliver]

Mark Roberts is my new favorite person ever.

PAH!

[chippy]

PAH!

Pah what? At least he doesn't sound like he has laryngitis like Alex Jones does, nor does he make all kinds of unnecessary facial expressions to make what he is saying seem incredibly important like Alex Jones does.

I mean, I'm not saying that you like Alex Jones, and I'm sure you don't. I just never pass up an opportunity to rip on him. That's all. See, I even did it in my reason for editing!

[Unfit4Command]

haha, it's sad if you look at the comments. Just because someone shuts down "Truth Movement" members, they must be in the CIA!

How could someone actually believe that?

[chippy]

I should add that I'm not sure how far I am allowed to push the envelope here. This comment would have gotten me excommunicated at the Loose Change Forum. Indeed, I have three usernames that are blocked at the LC forum, and my IP address is even blocked. Unfortunately for them, I have neighbors with unsecured wireless networks and different IP addresses. Nothing can stop me! Except the fact that I'm tired of their garbage.

[Oliver]

I have three usernames that are blocked at the LC forum

PAH! :D

[uk_dave]

I love this post from that site.......

http://911blogger.com/node/4688

And yes, our resident debunker is named Mark Roberts. He's a regular over at the James Randi Educational Foundation forum, an organization of "skeptics".

Yay! for the mention! Though he could have posted the URL too....meany

He carries around a folder with a color encoded breakdown of the errors and misstatements of the NY911Truth flyer and walks around saying that everything the movement has to offer is critically off base.

So, no claim that the breakdown is false, just that it's showing their errors and misstatements. Well, just goes to show that the woowoos can sometimes be honest, even when they're not aware of being honest.... :D

From what I hear, he is at Ground Zero as often as he can be. He told me he is a Ground Zero tour guide, and loses money in his commitment to debunking our concerns on Saturday afternoons. He claims to care about the truth, says that he's liberal, and skeptical of government authority, and yet finds the entire matter of 9/11 to be unworthy of further investigation.

Shock! Horror! Gravy isn't a right wing fascist like alex jones or roxdog, or a paranoid delusional like killtown, or a no-friends dweeb like doherty?

From a strictly functional point of view, he serves primarily to interrupt our conversations with the public, and most often in doing so, to draw more attention and sympathy our direction.

So the way to recruit people to woowooland is to garner their sympathy by getting your @ass handed to you on a regular basis at the site of a national tragedy. Yeah, that'll work....

People generally find his abrasive approach to be unappealing

Read: "woowoos find his abrasive approach to be unappealing"

Next to him, us 'conspiracy theorists' generally seem calm and reasonable.

ahem.....

But unfortunately, he does offer a convenient out for those sitting on the fence. I suspect that this is the best he can hope to achieve.

Another tacit admission that gravy's (PBUH) efforts are not wasted.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

International???
Delusional.......

[Redtail]

911 Blogger has some video up of the truthers at Ground Zero. It is mostly of Gravy (if that is your real name) and then of them harassing a tv news crew. Mark, you look great, but as a longtime Husky you really need to lose the Cal hat. :D


http://911blogger.com/node/4688

Why would a true Husky (From UCONN) be worried about a Cal hat?:D

[solidslade]

Mark Roberts = GOD.

Thank you. Keep it up, Ill remember your methods when I come accross truufers at the World Universities Debating Championships in Vancouver.

[Oliver]

Are you a troofer, Chippy? Why do you think the
troofment is still growing? :confused:

By the way: Welcome on board, Chippy. :)

[Minadin]

We should start a drive sending Gravy new hats to wear when battling truthers so that he can more properly represent the entire country. I call dibs on Kansas.

[Oliver]

I already thought it while watching the "Waddayamean"-Video
but some guys at 911blogger reveald new evidence that my
guesses weren´t wrong:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p174/fhb_photos/robertdenediro.jpg

[uk_dave]

Well, if reasoned factual argument doesn't work against the woowoos, Gravy could always revert back to this........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHuG0HWVf4

(Goodfellas - probably not very safe for work..... you gotta love youtube)

[JamesB]

Oops wrong thread

[JAStewart]

Hahahahahah that "wrong" sign Mark was holding was hilarious :D

[TobiasTheViking]

that's great :D

[Horatius]

I love how they edit it to start or stop showing Gravy just after or before he gets into the meat of his explanations. Quotemining lives on!

[chippy]

Are you a troofer, Chippy? Why do you think the
troofment is still growing? :confused:

By the way: Welcome on board, Chippy. :)

Thanks!

And no, I am most certainly not a truther.

[realitybites]

They're bringing TVs to Ground Zero now??!?! Seems as though their prefered method of debate is to watch movies.

Shocking, I know.

[Brainster]

Loved it! Gravy's a bit more "in your face" than I would be, but I love the way he just shuts the guy down. Gotta wonder why they make him the star of their little movie; is it possible that they really think they won the argument?

[realitybites]

... is it possible that they really think they won the argument?
In the world of Star Wards Death Rays, anything is possible.

[bob_kark]

Sorry, (my IP address) has been banned.

Well, that sucks. What the hell did I do?

[JAStewart]

I don't even know why they put that video on their site. It supports Gravy!

Gravy is such a sensible debater especially compared to that gray haired idiot. Gravy is showing him proof and he is blindly ignoring it!

I can't believe I used to believe that conspiracy BS.

[Oliver]

Thanks!

And no, I am most certainly not a truther.

And why do you think that these clowns and
their circus are proliferating? :confused:

@General: I also watched the footage. It´s a littlebit
sad that this guy who lost his father also fights for
the clowns but at least his intentions are understandable
if he does it for a new investigation.

Anyway: Great job, Gravy. I know for sure that i
couldn´t stay so calm in similar discussions.

[Calcas]

Holy Cow...while looking for something else I ran into this.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/mark-roberts-deals-out-another.html

To paraphrase MNF, "All our rowdy friends were there on Monday night!"

Gravy, Abby, P'DUH and TAM.

Gravy, if this debate happens please let us know here. I can't keep up with all these websites.

And Abby. P'Duh's obsession with your, uh, measurements is a little scary...

Also, does anyone have a link to the "Hardfire" episodes they referenced?

[Oliver]

Holy Cow...while looking for something else I ran into this.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/mark-roberts-deals-out-another.html

To paraphrase MNF, "All our rowdy friends were there on Monday night!"

Gravy, Abby, P'DUH and TAM.

Gravy, if this debate happens please let us know here. I can't keep up with all these websites.

And Abby. P'Duh's obsession with your, uh, measurements is a little scary...

Also, does anyone have a link to the "Hardfire" episodes they referenced?

I read about it in here but these episodes are not filmed yet,
or which "Harfire"-episodes are you talking about, Calcas?

ETA: And who´s "Jon Gold"?

[Regnad Kcin]

...And Abby. P'Duh's obsession with your, uh, measurements is a little scary..."Fleeing? I was banned from JREF despite having been dared to go there. They couldn;t handle my arguments"

Yawn.

[Calcas]

I read about it in here but these episodes are not filmed yet,
or which "Harfire"-episodes are you talking about, Calcas?

ETA: And who´s "Jon Gold"?

That Jon Gold guy seems like a piece of work, doesn't he?

Some other guy posted this.

"People who actually watched the two 'Hardfire' videos tend to disagree with your assessment of Les Jamieson's performance..."

I was wondering if someone had a link...

[Calcas]

That Jon Gold guy seems like a piece of work, doesn't he?

Some other guy posted this.

"People who actually watched the two 'Hardfire' videos tend to disagree with your assessment of Les Jamieson's performance..."

I was wondering if someone had a link...

ETA: I found the links here...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69115

[Oliver]

"Fleeing? I was banned from JREF despite having been dared to go there. They couldn;t handle my arguments"

Yawn.

Doh´s brain, (big-)mouth and tail are the perfect qualifications for a
political career... Or at least for a career as texan psycho radio host... :rolleyes:

ETA:
Whatever got you banned from JREF could not possibly have related to your arguments. You don't make any.

[Anti-sophist]

Someone asked on the LC forum about the Monty Hall Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem).

PDoh got it wrong, of course, but to his credit realized his mistake later. The really shocking part is that someone with a Master's Degree in math has never run into the Monty Hall problem before.

[bob_kark]

Someone asked on the LC forum about the Monty Hall Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem).

PDoh got it wrong, of course, but to his credit realized his mistake later. The really shocking part is that someone with a Master's Degree in math has never run into the Monty Hall problem before.

Well, when you get your Master's Degree from a Cracker Jack box...

[chipmunk stew]

Well, when you get your Master's Degree from a Cracker Jack box...
Maybe he won it on "Let's Make a Deal"...

[T.A.M.]

My favorite part of this video so far, is at the 10 minute mark when the camera man, working for the "truthers" says to his fellow men...

"Oh no, I think you gotta take the argument away from Controlled Demolition and start hitting him with other stuff man. he's got so much crap he could throw out here."

They know when it comes to arguing with Mark, none of them stand a chance.

Keep it up man...you rock.

TAM

[Calcas]

Someone asked on the LC forum about the Monty Hall Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem).

PDoh got it wrong, of course, but to his credit realized his mistake later. The really shocking part is that someone with a Master's Degree in math has never run into the Monty Hall problem before.

That was me. I'm Calcas everywhere...no puppet socks for me!

It looks like I'm one of the few remaining skeptics over there. I have to be "vewy caweful..."

[Anti-sophist]

Yea I just read the rest of that thread, and listening to these people explain probability makes me want to punch myself in the face.

[Bell]

Sentinel made a cameo as well. You talked to him, Gravy?

[Oliver]

Sentinel made a cameo as well. You talked to him, Gravy?

"Our" Sentinel was on this footage as well? Who is it?

[Alt+F4]

I so hate that the conspiracy liars do this at ground zero. It is disrespectful beyond belief to have this BS THERE. Folks may debate the JFK assassination at Dealy Plaza, but they don't do it at Arlington.

These liars seem to forget is ground zero is a grave site.

[Oliver]

I so hate that the conspiracy liars do this at ground zero. It is disrespectful beyond belief to have this BS THERE. Folks may debate the JFK assassination at Dealy Plaza, but they don't do it at Arlington.

These liars seem to forget is ground zero is a grave site.

So you think that >any< discussion on holy ground
should be avoided - no matter if PRO or CONTRA?

[Alt+F4]

So you think that >any< discussion on holy ground
should be avoided - no matter if PRO or CONTRA?

It's not holy ground, it's a cemetary. I understand what Gravy is trying to do, and I appreciate his effort. However, find me another place on earth where people yell politics and conspiracy theory a mere few feet from where thousands were murdered.

Like Gravy, I'm a New Yorker and I've always been of the belief that NOTHING (especially that ugly**s Freedom Tower) should be built on that site. The Arizona, Gettysburg were left to the dead where they fell, why not Ground Zero?

[Oliver]

It's not holy ground, it's a cemetary. I understand what Gravy is trying to do, and I appreciate his effort. However, find me another place on earth where people yell politics and conspiracy theory a mere few feet from where thousands were murdered.

Like Gravy, I'm a New Yorker and I've always been of the belief that NOTHING (especially that ugly**s Freedom Tower) should be built on that site. The Arizona, Gettysburg were left to dead where they fell, why not Ground Zero?


I thought there were several polls about what should
have done with ground zero and which kind of memorial
should build above it. But i agree - in my opinion this place
should be a park with some kind of memorial where the
buildings stood.

[Anti-sophist]

Keeping calm must be hard. I don't understand how you don't lose your cool.

That being said, I'd love to go down there once and mix it up with them. The main problem is it would ruin my emotional state to do it often. I'd just be mad constantly.

[The Almond]

Keeping calm must be hard. I don't understand how you don't lose your cool.

That being said, I'd love to go down there once and mix it up with them. The main problem is it would ruin my emotional state to do it often. I'd just be mad constantly.

I, too, appreciate what Gravy is doing. It's a thankless job, but the truthers need to be kept in check. I think it's better to think of Gravy as providing a counter-point to truther ramblings, rather than trying to argue them into changing their minds. Getting mad might be part of the wrong mindset on this matter. If you're arguing to change minds, you'll get frustrated and angry. If you're arguing to present the truth to the ignorant, the opposing side is simply providing impetus, and you can't get angry about that.

Something I've learned in my short time on these forums is that people who engage in discourse fall into two distinct groups:
1) Those who believe, like Socrates, that logical and intelligent discourse can lead to a mutual discovery of the truth, and
2) Those who believe that the other person is wrong and are willing to provide 100 reasons for it.

It seems to me that most truthers and some skeptics fall into the second category, but that Gravy, Maccy and yourself fall into the first group. It follows, then, that those in the first group demand a type of logical consistency in their arguments that can only be achieved through scrutiny and criticism. Simply put, you can't argue with a truther because the logical consistency you'll present has not been shown to exist in any truther argument or person. Dylan Avery is more interested in producing evidence than he is in interpreting it logically.

The bottom line is don't get mad at the truthers, and don't let their lies ruin your sound reasoning. Take a little bit of Zen and realize if they weren't so darn stupid, your job would be harder and more frustrating, their views would be more mainstream, we'd have our work really cut out for us.

[Trigood]

I love how Gravy doesn't let those idjuts make him sink to their level... although I did appreciate his use of the word "a*****e" [rule8] for that one guy. But he doesn't go overboard and get all emotional, like I probably would. :eek: Like Almond says, you can't really argue with these people... they're operating on another plane (no pun intended) of reality altogether.

Watching this happen at Ground Zero is sort of sad but so American. I just cannot help thinking how stupid it all is. I mean, there are issues to discuss -- why the buildings were constructed as they were, without fireproof stairs; how to improve the fire/police communications so a similar death toll doesn't happen again; etc. etc. But whether the government carried this out? Come on! So ridiculous.

Thanks Gravy and someday I hope to shake your hand at GZ.

[WildCat]

Why did that doofus troofer have to wear a hat w/ White Sox logos on it... :(

[Anti-sophist]

1) Those who believe, like Socrates, that logical and intelligent discourse can lead to a mutual discovery of the truth, and
2) Those who believe that the other person is wrong and are willing to provide 100 reasons for it.

It seems to me that most truthers and some skeptics fall into the second category, but that Gravy, Maccy and yourself fall into the first group.

The Socrates allusion is apt on so very many levels.


Socrates was an arch anti-sophist, challenging the basis for many of their pronouncements through dialogue and rigorous, sustained questioning.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KBD6XbcLJIoJ:www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/bs/research/2004-2.pdf+socrates+anti-sophist&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a

[hellaeon]

I think its not too hard for gravy to keep calm because he has the facts at his disposal and knows his stuff. These guys loose their cool because they run out of things to spout.
I would have trouble trying to argue with them in the flesh if they brought up specific stuff. More so I could argue the basic level of things just based on common sense and logic. (eg: people involved and no whistle blowers? dynamite in concrete? Star wars beam weapons floating in space without detection?). The heavier stuff would fall under that annoying banner they live on. Asking a question you cant answer means 'they win' or what have you.

That said I had a debate in a forum a few months back and the guy pretty much recycled the same crap over and over so it was pretty easy to whip him with some of the information I had gathered here. But I had my pc on hand...easier then in person....

[Bell]

"Our" Sentinel was on this footage as well? Who is it?

Somewhere in the beginning. He's the guy with the two bags over his shoulder and a black jacket with the American flag on the arms. He's in the movie for a short time, and talks about him being there and carying a scanner, and then walks out of the picture.

[LashL]

Wow - I'm surprised that the tinhatters posted that video. Gravy does an incredibly good job, as always; my surprise is only that the tinhatters are too stupid to realize that and too stupid to realize how pathetic they look throughout the video :)

[Trigood]

Wow - I'm surprised that the tinhatters posted that video. Gravy does an incredibly good job, as always; my surprise is only that the tinhatters are too stupid to realize that and too stupid to realize how pathetic they look throughout the video :)
Totally!

What I thought was funny was how the troofers with the two banners kept maneuvering back and forth in back of that TV anchorman talking about the Freedom tower. It was hilarious! Like watching a Monty Python movie!
-- Let's get into this picture, John.
-- OK Peter, let's see, I think it's best over to the right here.
-- No, no, John, over to the left.
-- No, no! Come on! Over to the right is better!
-- But Betty with her sign is going to the left, let's follow her!

It was hilarious. And how the newsman called them a name they deserved. :)

Seeing Gravy there made me feel so proud! YEAH Gravy!!! Those idiots aren't getting away with this without contest.

I find this all so bizarro. I mean, people actually listening to these idiots, spouting gibberish. Then, when people actually protest the war itself, they get treated like this (http://www.savagesound.com/gallery83.htm): assaulted, arrested, manhandled, hand-cuffed and held overnight in jail with no charges. (This is that guy who self-immolated in Chicago a couple weeks ago to protest the war.)

[pgwenthold]

I think its not too hard for gravy to keep calm because he has the facts at his disposal and knows his stuff. These guys loose their cool because they run out of things to spout.
I would have trouble trying to argue with them in the flesh if they brought up specific stuff. More so I could argue the basic level of things just based on common sense and logic. (eg: people involved and no whistle blowers? dynamite in concrete? Star wars beam weapons floating in space without detection?). The heavier stuff would fall under that annoying banner they live on. Asking a question you cant answer means 'they win' or what have you.



A lot of that can be handled by forcing them to explain it more in depth. They always criticize the NIST report for example because it doesn't account for enough of the tiny little details (please - they are supposed to model the entire collapse of a 100 story building, and account for every little dust speck?). Make them explain why what they say accounts for what is observed.

A good example is the claim about molten metal after X weeks. Since fires can't account for it, it must be thermite. Even if you don't know how fires can account for it, turn that around, and make them explain how thermite does. Does thermite generate enough heat to keep metal molten for weeks? They don't know the answer to that (and the answer is no, thermite goes quickly). But even if you don't know, they can't explain how thermite could produce molten metal over a long period of time.

[Brainster]

I think its not too hard for gravy to keep calm because he has the facts at his disposal and knows his stuff. These guys loose their cool because they run out of things to spout.

Exactly. This is why guys like O'Reilly and Hannity mostly resort to the "You're a kook!" school of debating when they have a Fetzer or a Barrett on the show with them.

[T.A.M.]

I liken the truthers at GZ to snake oil salesmen, and Gravy is the guy standing next to their cart shouting...

"These guys are frauds, and here is why."

Make no wonder they get upset...lol

TAM

[Bell]

Totally!

What I thought was funny was how the troofers with the two banners kept maneuvering back and forth in back of that TV anchorman talking about the Freedom tower. It was hilarious! Like watching a Monty Python movie!
-- Let's get into this picture, John.
-- OK Peter, let's see, I think it's best over to the right here.
-- No, no, John, over to the left.
-- No, no! Come on! Over to the right is better!
-- But Betty with her sign is going to the left, let's follow her!

It was hilarious. And how the newsman called them a name they deserved. :)

That piece was indeed hillarious, worthy of a Terry Gilliam cartoon.

But why the nutters posted it? Beats me. Seems like they are incapable of learning, since the exact same thing happened with the LC vanity video about 2 months ago.

[uk_dave]

That piece was indeed hillarious, worthy of a Terry Gilliam cartoon.

But why the nutters posted it? Beats me. Seems like they are incapable of learning, since the exact same thing happened with the LC vanity video about 2 months ago.


Just another sign of delusion.

They see conspiracy where none exists

They see a video which promotes their cause when it actually does the complete opposite.

[Spins]

These two comments about Gravy made me laugh...


I'm just reading John Marks' "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate - the CIA and Mind Control, the secret history of the Behavioural Sciences".
is this guy an example of the MKULTRA programme?



I think it's far from an established fact that such programs are still operating today, but they might be, and if they are, it can only be supposed that their efficacy has advanced. I think some form of manipulation of already unstable people may be the best explanation for some of the shill stuff that goes on here and elsewhere. (if nothing else, it's probably more cost effective.)



http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/zoolander.jpg
"OBEY MY DOG!"

:D

[Oliver]

What I thought was funny was how the troofers with the two banners kept maneuvering back and forth in back of that TV anchorman talking about the Freedom tower. It was hilarious! Like watching a Monty Python movie!
-- Let's get into this picture, John.
-- OK Peter, let's see, I think it's best over to the right here.
-- No, no, John, over to the left.
-- No, no! Come on! Over to the right is better!
-- But Betty with her sign is going to the left, let's follow her!

"Do you think their camera is pointing to our Banner now?"
"I get clue."
"I get a clue, too."
"My clue is pointing to the left."
"My clue is pointing to the right and it´s huuuge."
"Okay, let´s follow your clue." :boggled:

[Oliver]

BTW: Where is Gravy? He missed to answer
but i guess he´s lurking with a loupe. :D

[Trigood]

"Do you think their camera is pointing to our Banner now?"
"I get clue."
"I get a clue, too."
"My clue is pointing to the left."
"My clue is pointing to the right and it´s huuuge."
"Okay, let´s follow your clue." :boggled:
:D
very good, Oliver.

[WildCat]

Then, when people actually protest the war itself, they get treated like this (http://www.savagesound.com/gallery83.htm): assaulted, arrested, manhandled, hand-cuffed and held overnight in jail with no charges. (This is that guy who self-immolated in Chicago a couple weeks ago to protest the war.)
Why do you think he was assaulted, manhandled, and held overnight?
The pics and lawsuit mention no such thing. Basically, he wouldn't move off the street/sidewalk when ordered to by police (this is obviously a planned demonstration or there wouldn't be cops there in their tremendously effective new riot gear otherwise), so they arrested him for disorderly conduct, booked him and let him go on a personal recognizance bond - he didn't even have to post one cent to go free! And no chance he spent a night in jail for that.

Sadly, about all his self-immolation accomplished was making me and 50,000 other people late for work due to the traffic jam he caused. The traffic reporters were reporting it as a fiery car wreck... no one knew what really happened until that Reader article. The rerst of the media all but ignored (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/061124/) it.

[gumboot]

Sadly, about all his self-immolation accomplished was making me and 50,000 other people late for work due to the traffic jam he caused. The traffic reporters were reporting it as a fiery car wreck... no one knew what really happened until that Reader article. The rerst of the media all but ignored (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/061124/) it.



Wow...

I can't believe he actually did that. Was he mentally ill?

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

Was he mentally ill?

-Gumboot
You're not the only one wondering! Seems loopy to me.

[Crungy]

You're not the only one wondering! Seems loopy to me.

Didn't you bother reading The Reader article that you provided a link to? :confused:

"Anon," who would later identify himself as a former stepson, wrote in to say that Malachi Ritscher had been born Mark Ritscher, but after his wife divorced him "due to his constant physical and mental abuse," he'd appropriated the name of their son. Wrote Anon, "The man was no saint. And I will not let him become one." Ritscher's brother Paul then returned to say that after the divorce Ritscher was denied contact with his son, and that as an adult the son turned his back on him. "My brother was deeply hurt, a pain that he carried the rest of his all too short life."
At that point the estranged son, the original Malachi Ritscher, was heard from. "Paul," he began, "of all the people on this world: I know my father. How dare you presume to know anything about our relationship! Where were you during the intervening time? Did you live with and love a schizophrenic for 35 years? Did you EVER come by for dinner? Did you ever even contact me on purpose? NO!"

The Chicago Tribune had an article about him in today's paper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0611290054nov29,1,3030497.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[RandFan]

I'm a Gravy fan.

[Free Thinkr]

@General: I also watched the footage. It´s a littlebit
sad that this guy who lost his father also fights for
the clowns but at least his intentions are understandable
if he does it for a new investigation.
I have to disagree, because he's a liar like all the rest of them. He says he "just wants an investigation." He says he "just wants people to think for himself. Yet, there he is standing next to a huge banner that says "911 was an inside job," arguing the "911 bowel movement" (oops, truth movement) case. He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.

[Pardalis]

:o

[LashL]

I have to disagree, because he's a liar like all the rest of them. He says he "just wants an investigation." He says he "just wants people to think for himself. Yet, there he is standing next to a huge banner that says "911 was an inside job," arguing the "911 bowel movement" (oops, truth movement) case. He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.

I half hate to mention it but does anyone have the guy's name or his father's name in order to ascertain whether his assertion about his father dying at the site on Sept. 11/01 is legitimate? I'm not saying that it isn't legit, but the guy does appear to be rather, well, less than believable on the basis of the short video I've seen, and if his father died at the site, that should be a matter of public record.

And since this guy is (presumably) a beneficiary of his father's estate, that too should be a matter of public record.

Anyone know anything about this guy?

[gumboot]

He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.



I personally agree with this sentiment to a degree.

It reminds me of the infamous "Jersey Girls". Some will claim they have legitimate questions and concerns, and then of course bring up the "they lost someone" emotional argument.

And yet in "9/11 Press For Truth" they bring up very typical and easily refuted CTer claims. For example they claim to have researched 9/11 thoroughly for years, and allocate to themselves extensive knowledge of the subject, yet make patently false claims such as "not one single military aircraft took off for two hours on 9/11" and so forth.

Let's not tiptoe around the subject. Raving mad CTers are a precentage of people. The "related to 9/11 victim" population is large enough that a percentage will be raving mad CTers. The fact that they ALSO lost someone on 9/11 is actually irrelevant as they'd be raving CTers regardless. All they do is use their "victim" status to claim undeserved authority on the matter at hand, and to unfairly claim sympathy.

Sure, there's lots of relatives of victims with genuine concerns who aren't CTers. No doubt about it. But there's some that are simply using their loss to further their CTer mindset. Frankly that's as utterly disgusting as the worst actions of the rest of the CTers.

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

Sadly, about all his self-immolation accomplished was making me and 50,000 other people late for work due to the traffic jam he caused. The traffic reporters were reporting it as a fiery car wreck... no one knew what really happened until that Reader article. The rerst of the media it.Would you believe that I had a truther, twoofer, woowoo, CTer (just plain nutcase) blame this guys suicide on the government!!!! I was waiting to hear him pin it on Bush :)

[Pardalis]

This reminds me of the people who blame the US government for their health problems due to the air quality at ground zero...

BLAME THE FREAKING TERRORISTS for crying out loud!

[Matthew Best]

I just watched the video.

Gravy is my hero.

[gumboot]

This reminds me of the people who blame the US government for their health problems due to the air quality at ground zero...

BLAME THE FREAKING TERRORISTS for crying out loud!


I think people just like to blame authority for anything that happens.

Here in NZ the police get blamed when someone is killed as a result of the offender in a high speed pursuit hitting another car or crashing. Sometimes even when the person killed is the person who was running from the police in the first place!

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

I have to disagree, because he's a liar like all the rest of them. He says he "just wants an investigation." He says he "just wants people to think for himself. Yet, there he is standing next to a huge banner that says "911 was an inside job," arguing the "911 bowel movement" (oops, truth movement) case. He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.

Do you know him that you are sure to call him a liar?
I mean he does not look or act like the usual US-GOV-Hater
from what i saw in the footage.

If he just feels unsure i can understand that he´s deeply
yearning for truth. Same goes to the Jersey Girls from what
i know. The lazy and late investigation did stink.

The government could have avoided a lot of questions if
they spend more attention to the issue immediately after
the attacks. Instead they acted like someone who has
something to hide. Wrong?

[Spins]

Do you know him that you are sure to call him a liar?
I mean he does not look or act like the usual US-GOV-Hater
from what i saw in the footage.

If he just feels unsure i can understand that he´s deeply
yearning for truth. Same goes to the Jersey Girls from what
i know. The lazy and late investigation did stink.

The government could have avoided a lot of questions if
they spend more attention to the issue immediately after
the attacks. Instead they acted like someone who has
something to hide. Wrong?He wasn't calling him a liar with regards to his father's death but because of his views on 9/11.

I also agree with the posters comments about him seemingly always using his father's death when he feels he is loosing the debate, as if saying "My farther died in the WTC!" suddenly makes him right that 9/11 was an inside job. He's basically playing on people's emotions, most people in a debate with someone who said that would back off out of respect for his father, not because he is right about 9/11 being an inside job.

[Oliver]

He wasn't calling him a liar with regards to his father's death but because of his views on 9/11.

I also agree with the posters comments about him seemingly always using his father's death when he feels he is loosing the debate, as if saying "My farther died in the WTC!" suddenly makes him right that 9/11 was an inside job. He's basically playing on people's emotions, most people in a debate with someone who said that would back off out of respect for his father, not because he is right about 9/11 being an inside job.

Well, i wasn´t talking about his behavior in
my initial comment about him but rather about
his motives.

I guess if i lost my father this way i possibly
also would join the movement if i have a lot
of questions and this seemed to be a way
to start a new investigation.

However - the people who know that all the
lies ARE lies and who are spreading these lies
nevertheless because political agendas instead
personal are much more worse in my opinion.

[gumboot]

If he just feels unsure i can understand that he´s deeply
yearning for truth. Same goes to the Jersey Girls from what
i know. The lazy and late investigation did stink.


I don't agree. From what they say, it's clear it's not about being "unsure" and "deeply yearning for truth".

They claim to have researched the topic for years. They present themselves as authorities. And yet they get basic and easily researched facts totally wrong.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

I don't agree. From what they say, it's clear it's not about being "unsure" and "deeply yearning for truth".

They claim to have researched the topic for years. They present themselves as authorities. And yet they get basic and easily researched facts totally wrong.

-Gumboot

What do you think are their intentions beside
a new investigation? I don´t see any political
or financial agenda here - no matter how good
their researches are.

[gumboot]

What do you think are their intentions beside
a new investigation? I don´t see any political
or financial agenda here - no matter how good
their researches are.


They're CTers. Plain and simple. They think the government are responsible for the death of their loved ones, and they are out to take scalps. It is a fairly common reaction to such a situation, and not unique to 9/11. People aren't interested in blaming the people responsible, they are interested in blaming someone they can actually get revenge on. The government is always the easiest target because it's always involved in some way, and it can't defend itself.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

They're CTers. Plain and simple. They think the government are responsible for the death of their loved ones, and they are out to take scalps. It is a fairly common reaction to such a situation, and not unique to 9/11. People aren't interested in blaming the people responsible, they are interested in blaming someone they can actually get revenge on. The government is always the easiest target because it's always involved in some way, and it can't defend itself.

-Gumboot

Well, i have to agree with them that the government didn´t
reacted the way they should have after the attacks. To me
it didn´t look like they were interested to investigate but rather
to use the situation for their goals.

Also things like the conversations between Bush and the Comission
behind closed doors and not under oath. I highly guess that i would
be upset about such a lacking courage of my leaders.

[gumboot]

Well, i have to agree with them that the government didn´t
reacted the way they should have after the attacks. To me
it didn´t look like they were interested to investigate but rather
to use the situation for their goals.


And what do you feel about their "unquestionable fact" that NORAD was stood down on 9/11?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

And what do you feel about their "unquestionable fact" that NORAD was stood down on 9/11?

-Gumboot

I think it´s the same way of tacticts the Troofers
use to reach their goals: awaking public interest,
no matter of right or false "facts".

But personally the whole issue raised a lot of
questions in me, too - after i only learned what
german media published about it.

From this point of view they are achieving their
goals. No wonder that LTW bans people who
speak the truth...

[gumboot]

I think it´s the same way of tacticts the Troofers
use to reach their goals: awaking public interest,
no matter of right or false "facts".


In that case they should probably have a look at the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf).

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

In that case they should probably have a look at the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf).

-Gumboot

The story about the "boy who cried wolf" is about
seeking responsible people where no are. In my opinion
the governments behavior after the attacks was lazy
and in a way that looks suspicious like they indeed had
something to hide. No matter because of involvement
or incompetence - it looked like "let´s cover the incident".

[gumboot]

The story about the "boy who cried wolf" is about
seeking responsible people where no are.


The lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is if you lie people won't believe you even if you tell the truth. When people with real concerns use lies to gain attention, they are crying wolf. All they ensure is when they present their real concerns everyone will dismiss them as more nonsense.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

The lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is if you lie people won't believe you even if you tell the truth. When people with real concerns use lies to gain attention, they are crying wolf. All they ensure is when they present their real concerns everyone will dismiss them as more nonsense.

-Gumboot

I agree with your statement - but with their rasing
questions in public they achieve their goal to awake
peoples interest - and this is the way the whole
truthmovement does it.

If the government did everything to investigate
the political side, the truthmovement wouldn´t
exist. Therefore i blame the government for this
discussion, too.

[Oliver]

I would like to see Gravy´s comment about it:
Did they a good job to avoid all these questions
or was the Gov´s behavior the reason for the
whole 9/11 issue?

[WildCat]

Didn't you bother reading The Reader article that you provided a link to? :confused:
The Chicago Tribune had an article about him in today's paper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0611290054nov29,1,3030497.story?coll=chi-news-hed)
It's inconclusive at this point.
Friends and family have tried to make sense of Ritscher's decision to die by self-immolation.

They have no doubt he whole-heartedly opposed the war in Iraq and believe it was a major factor in his decision.

But loved ones said they don't know if his mind and heart also were crowded with personal angst: despair, depression, mental illness.

They never knew him to be treated for those types of ailments. They never looked at him and thought he was irrational and needed medical help.

[Porkpie Hat]

I'm new here and just watched the Gravy. Great work my friend. It's good to see someone standing up for all of the innocent victims who lost thier lives at ground zero that day.

[chipmunk stew]

I'm new here and just watched the Gravy. Great work my friend. It's good to see someone standing up for all of the innocent victims who lost thier lives at ground zero that day.
Welcome, Porkpie! :w2:

Here's an even better example of his work:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s

This is footage captured and promoted by the Loose Change guys. They're proud of this??? :con2:

And make sure you check out his and others' excellent written work in the Links section. You can get there through the link in my sig.

[60hzxtl]

I half hate to mention it but does anyone have the guy's name or his father's name in order to ascertain whether his assertion about his father dying at the site on Sept. 11/01 is legitimate? I'm not saying that it isn't legit, but the guy does appear to be rather, well, less than believable on the basis of the short video I've seen, and if his father died at the site, that should be a matter of public record.

And since this guy is (presumably) a beneficiary of his father's estate, that too should be a matter of public record.

Anyone know anything about this guy?

You are not the only one who got suspicious when viewing this - Besides his kind of medicated face, what got my attention is his phrasing - "My father passed away here." Not he died here, not his life was snuffed out here, but "passed away" as if he died in his own bed, that just happened to be at WTC.

If he is a fake, he is trying to put himself at a higher plane of victim, one who can't be questioned.

Would love a name for this guy.

[Oliver]

On the other side i could question Gravy´s
agenda about debunking them down there
on Ground Zero.

I doubt that he is able to deny the warnings
and foreknowledge before 9/11. So we are
not talking about absolute loonies here, even
if they´re speculating very much in order to
attract attention.

[MarkyX]

I have to disagree, because he's a liar like all the rest of them. He says he "just wants an investigation." He says he "just wants people to think for himself. Yet, there he is standing next to a huge banner that says "911 was an inside job," arguing the "911 bowel movement" (oops, truth movement) case. He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.

Reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. Use the death of the family member to push your political agenda.

Sick, just real sick.

[Oliver]

Reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. Use the death of the family member to push your political agenda.

Sick, just real sick.

I disagree bacause faking wmd-evidence, war-mongering and
invading a sovereign country not connected to the attacks but
implying this nevertheless that they were responsible for 3000
family members death is uncountable times more sick from many
views around the world, including me.

[Gravy]

On the other side i could question Gravy´s
agenda about debunking them down there
on Ground Zero.

I doubt that he is able to deny the warnings
and foreknowledge before 9/11. So we are
not talking about absolute loonies here, even
if they´re speculating very much in order to
attract attention.I've stated my reasons for going to Ground Zero. What do you think they are?

[Oliver]

I´m not sure about your agenda. It could be your
respect for the people who died there, the rescue
teams, firefighters and so on but it could also be
a political one.

I missed your statement about your reasons.

[Gravy]

I agree with your statement - but with their rasing
questions in public they achieve their goal to awake
peoples interest - and this is the way the whole
truthmovement does it.

If the government did everything to investigate
the political side, the truthmovement wouldn´t
exist. Therefore i blame the government for this
discussion, too.I disagree. There is no evidence to support the claims of the truth movement. Some prominent deniers, such as Korey Rowe, and some of the people I see at Ground Zero, say that nothing can change their minds that 9/11 was an inside job.

Conspiracy believers will always exist, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. Did the US government not do enough to "prove" the moon landings?

[Oliver]

I disagree. There is no evidence to support the claims of the truth movement. Some prominent deniers, such as Korey Rowe, and some of the people I see at Ground Zero, say that nothing can change their mind that 9/11 was an inside job.

Conspiracy believers will always exist, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. Did the US government not do enough to "prove" the moon landings?

I see no connections from the moon-landing to 9/11.
How many people died because the moon landing and
how many wars were started because it?
How many laws changed?

I consider these things after learning what this whole
discussion is about.

[Crungy]

It's inconclusive at this point.

If I only read the Trib article, then I'd agree with that statement.

The Reader article probes deeper. His son IDs his severe mental illness.

[Scientologist]

I say we ban Oliver for being a moron.

[Oliver]

I say we ban Oliver for being a moron.

Is this you, PDoherty? For what reason - explain. (Oh, Scientology) (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=10122)

[Gravy]

I´m not sure about your agenda. It could be your
respect for the people who died there, the rescue
teams, firefighters and so on but it could also be
a political one.

I missed your statement about your reasons.Well, I'm not sure what political agenda a liberal could be trying to advance by debunking people who lie about 9/11.

Basically, it offends me that these people lie constantly, completely, and loudly, yet call themselves a "Truth" movement. It offends me that most of them can't be bothered to take the issue seriously enough to learn about it. I've written about my motivations in all my papers and in many posts in this forum. This post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1940907&postcount=11), which won The Language Award last month (undeserved, but I'll take it), sums it up.

[Oliver]

Well, I'm not sure what political agenda a liberal could be trying to advance by debunking people who lie about 9/11.

Basically, it offends me that these people lie constantly, completely, and loudly, yet call themselves a "Truth" movement. It offends me that most of them can't be bothered to take the issue seriously enough to learn about it. I've written about my motivations in all my papers and in many posts in this forum. This post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1940907&postcount=11), which won The Language Award last month (undeserved, but I'll take it), sums it up.

I agree concerning fighting lies - i see no gain in
spreading lies beside attracting attention and
hate-mongering against the US-Gov.

Progress would mean discussing the proofable issues
around 9/11 - especially the political side.

I will read your linked thread now.

[60hzxtl]

Gravy's washed his hands of these people so many times they've been bleached white!

Yipes man! Put those things out in the sun, is that why we wear shades at GZ on Saturdays!

[Gravy]

I see no connections from the moon-landing to 9/11.
How many people died because the moon landing and
how many wars were started because it?
How many laws changed?

I consider these things after learning what this whole
discussion is about.
My point was that no matter how much evidence exists that an event happened, such as the moon landings or Oswald shooting JFK, there will always be people who disbelieve it. The fact that thousands of people died on 9/11 doesn't excuse the irrationality, dishonesty, and laziness of the deniers.

[Oliver]

Did read the link. Your statement sounds like you miss
the political side of the movement/the political agendas.

I don´t think that most of them are paranoid like Killtown.
Many know exactly what is lie and what not.

Ever thought about the idea if one truther meets
another one, they say:

"Well, we all know this MIHOP stuff is crap - but it
helps to spread interest to our political anti-gov agenda.
Funny how Gravy is trying to tell us the things we already
know nevertheless."

[Gravy]

Gravy's washed his hands of these people so many times they've been bleached white!

Yipes man! Put those things out in the sun, is that why we wear shades at GZ on Saturdays!Yeah, it's not pretty. I wear sunscreen and a hat. It's a skin cancer thing. My hands are still pale from wearing cycling gloves on two long trips, and the last one was three years ago!

[Spins]

You are not the only one who got suspicious when viewing this - Besides his kind of medicated face, what got my attention is his phrasing - "My father passed away here." Not he died here, not his life was snuffed out here, but "passed away" as if he died in his own bed, that just happened to be at WTC.

If he is a fake, he is trying to put himself at a higher plane of victim, one who can't be questioned.

Would love a name for this guy.Whether he is fake or not he is certainly playing the innocent victim, he who cannot be questioned. Time and time again throughout that video he says his "father died here" (or words to that effect) because he knows everyone will back off out of respect, I personally think its pathetic. Instead of trying to take the moral high ground he might want to back up what he says with facts at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[Gravy]

Did read the link. Your statement sounds like you miss
the political side of the movement/the political agendas.

I don´t think that most of them are paranoid like Killtown.
Many know exactly what is lie and what not.

Ever thought about the idea if one truther meets
another one, they say:

"Well, we all know this MIHOP stuff is crap - but it
helps to spread interest to our political anti-gov agenda.
Funny how Gravy is trying to tell us the things we already
know nevertheless."If I'm saying the opposite of what they say, how can I be telling them things they already know?

I deal with what the other side says at Ground Zero. Their claims aren't supported by evidence, and therefore don't support their political goals. If you have evidence that elements of the Bush administration was involved in LIHOP of MIHOP, I'd love to see it, and I'd love to bring it to the New York Times. Haven't seen any so far, have you?

[Oliver]

Whether he is fake or not he is certainly playing the innocent victim, he who cannot be questioned. Time and time again throughout that video he says his "father died here" (or words to that effect) because he knows everyone will back off out of respect, I personally think its pathetic. Instead of trying to take the moral high ground he might want to back up what he says with facts at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I don´t judge someone without knowing him.
Therefore it´s a littlebit like RoxDog´s bashing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64567&highlight=roxdog)
just because thinking someone is fake.

[Oliver]

I deal with what the other side says at Ground Zero. Their claims aren't supported by evidence, and therefore don't support their political goals. If you have evidence that elements of the Bush administration was involved in LIHOP of MIHOP, I'd love to see it, and I'd love to bring it to the New York Times. Haven't seen any so far, have you?

There is no evidence for MIHOP.
LIHOP is another thing but i´m still learning...

[Spins]

I don´t judge someone without knowing him.
Therefore it´s a littlebit like RoxDog´s bashing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64567&highlight=roxdog)
just because thinking someone is fake.I personally believe him, but I don't like they way he is using it to win debates/arguments. He needs to stop trying to appeal to emotion and back up what he says with real facts.

[Oliver]

I personally believe him, but I don't like they way he is using it to win debates/arguments. He needs to stop trying to appeal to emotion and back up what he says with real facts.

I also don´t like it if somebody tries to appeal
emotions but in the scene where the reporter
said his impression about them and he´s going
away - it seemed to be the only last thing that
was left to say in this situation: A unintentional
explanation to excuse himself for the reporters
argument.

Looked very natural to me. But you may look
again to this particular scene to estimate the
situation.

[Gravy]

By the way, I only cursed at the guy in the beginning because, after I had corrected everything he had just said to the public, he brought up "NORAD's stand down," he refused to listen to my correction about that, and then he said he was proud of what he was saying. That really set me off. I'm surprised that people thought I was keeping my cool. I don't call people a-holes every day!

The cameraman and the two guys with the purple banner were from TruthMove.org, which only appears to have those three members. Another thing they edited out is them saying that I didn't know what I was talking about and me asking each of them to name a single thing I said that was wrong. Their reply: "I don't think we need to engage in that kind of thing." Right. No need to have evidence when you claim that someone is lying. I spend my entire time there correcting them, but no denier that I've encountered at Ground Zero has been able to tell me a single thing that I've gotten wrong.

They also chose not to include in the video my asking each truther (including those three) what NIST gave as the reasons for the tower collapses. Of course none of them have any idea, although their main argument at Ground Zero is that the towers couldn't have fallen the way they did without explosives.

This is as basic as it gets. If you're going to vehemently claim that a version of events is false, it helps to know what that version is. Not a single denier I've encountered at Ground Zero has ever known what the official version is!

[uk_dave]

I think they're frightened of the official account because, just as those who say they didn't believe in a CT until they watched loosechange, people can be easily swayed by well presented and detailed presentation, even when in the case of LC the presentation isn't factual.

If the woowoos start reading the evidence in favour of the official account then they will start to have self doubt and, if there is one thing we have learned about woowoos it is that they really REALLY dislike uncertainty.

[Oliver]

But what about the guys who KNOW that the whole
MIHOP story is crap but never admit it because they
are not going to destroy their own agenda?

Roxdog and his regular Anti-Bush threads is just a
sample about this behavior. They don´t care one
second about the truth - they simply fade these
things away.


I see several kinds of truthers:

The dumb and/or paranoid
The Anti-War motivated
The Anti-Gov motivated
The Manchester Resistance :D

[Horatius]

But what about the guys who KNOW that the whole
MIHOP story is crap but never admit it because they
are not going to destroy their own agenda?

Roxdog and his regular Anti-Bush threads is just a
sample about this behavior. They don´t care one
second about the truth - they simply fade these
things away.


In that case, I'd say they are even worse, and need to be exposed and/or opposed even more.

Someone who says the towers came down in a CD because they actually believe that can be argued with. They may be stupid or ignorant, but they're not neccessarily evil. Someone who simply professes such a belief for cynical political gain is just scum.

I've had an idea for a posting in the back of my mind for a few days that I really need to get to work on, all about beliefs, opinions, attitudes and the commitment to truth....

[Free Thinkr]

I have to disagree, because he's a liar like all the rest of them. He says he "just wants an investigation." He says he "just wants people to think for himself. Yet, there he is standing next to a huge banner that says "911 was an inside job," arguing the "911 bowel movement" (oops, truth movement) case. He's crapping on his father's memory by exonerating those who murdered his father, while simultaneously invoking his name every time the debate goes south. If anything, that's worse than the average truther.
Do you know him that you are sure to call him a liar?
I mean he does not look or act like the usual US-GOV-Hater
from what i saw in the footage.
No, I don't know him, but I do know what he said. On the one hand, he said he just wants people to think for themselves, yet that clearly wasn't the case; he very clearly has beliefs regarding 911 and a government conspiracy, which he wishes to propagate. Its the most common lie among woowoos, to claim that they're simply "questioning." That's a load of crap, that their little puppetmasters plant in their minds as a means of deflecting the criticism they'll inevitably face. Maybe they're too stupid to even know they're lying (or confused in their own minds), but it's a lie nonetheless. I refuse to give people the benefit of the doubt because they're too weak-minded to be honest with themselves.

If he just feels unsure i can understand that he´s deeply
yearning for truth. Same goes to the Jersey Girls from what
i know. The lazy and late investigation did stink.

The government could have avoided a lot of questions if
they spend more attention to the issue immediately after
the attacks. Instead they acted like someone who has
something to hide. Wrong?No amount of investigation would have so much as an iota of effect on the 911 bowel movement. These people are impervious to reason, as anyone who has debated them knows.

[Oliver]

No, I don't know him, but I do know what he said. On the one hand, he said he just wants people to think for themselves, yet that clearly wasn't the case; he very clearly has beliefs regarding 911 and a government conspiracy, which he wishes to propagate. Its the most common lie among woowoos, to claim that they're simply "questioning." That's a load of crap, that their little puppetmasters plant in their minds as a means of deflecting the criticism they'll inevitably face. Maybe they're too stupid to even know they're lying (or confused in their own minds), but it's a lie nonetheless. I refuse to give people the benefit of the doubt because they're too weak-minded to be honest with themselves.

This seems to be a misunderstanding - i was
talking about liar in terms of his dead father,
not about the usual MIHOP-lie...

No amount of investigation would have so much as an iota of effect on the 911 bowel movement. These people are impervious to reason, as anyone who has debated them knows.


And may i ask who you are?

By the way,
welcome on board. :)

[Free Thinkr]

I disagree bacause faking wmd-evidence,
Faking WMD evidence?

war-mongering and invading a sovereign country not connected to the attacks but implying this nevertheless that they were responsible for 3000
family members death is uncountable times more sick from many
views around the world, including me.BS. I'm so sick of this "implying they were responsible." Say what you will about the lead-up to the Iraq war, but they never stated that Iraq was involved in 911. And what's the purpose of saying "sovereign" country? What other type is there? That's nothing more than an attempt at claiming that Hussein's rule was legitimate, which I believe is pretty *****' highly debatable (though, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily make the act of deposing his regime right or wise).

This seems to be a misunderstanding - i was
talking about liar in terms of his dead father,
not about the usual MIHOP-lie...I don't doubt that his father died there. It could be false, but I certainly can't make that claim, because I don't know.

And may i ask who you are?How do you mean?

By the way,
welcome on board. :)Thanks! :D

[Pardalis]

Gravy is the Chuck Norris of debunkers.

He can roundhouse kick you back into reason. Gravy knows his facts. :D

[Oliver]

Faking WMD evidence?

Don´t mind - just another conspiracy... ;)

BS. I'm so sick of this "implying they were responsible." Say what you will about the lead-up to the Iraq war, but they never stated that Iraq was involved in 911. And what's the purpose of saying "sovereign" country? What other type is there? That's nothing more than an attempt at claiming that Hussein's rule was legitimate, which I believe is pretty *****' highly debatable (though, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily make the act of deposing his regime right or wise).

Well, "sovereign" means a accepted, official government - not a
Banana-Rebublic Government. There are 10 more A**hole-dictators
around the world and nobody cares.

9/11 - Iraq:
oxWuApjie24

How do you mean?

Well, you´re new here and sound like a veteran. :D
Are you new to the issue?

[Free Thinkr]

Don´t mind - just another conspiracy...
:D

Well, "sovereign" means a accepted, official government - not a
Banana-Rebublic Government. There are 10 more A**hole-dictators
around the world and nobody cares.That may be, but I don't think Hussein's regime was accepted in any realistic way; no more than I accept that a mugger take my wallet with a gun to my head.

9/11 - Iraq:With regards to that: Bush's cabinet members are associated with the PNAC. The PNAC stated way back in '98 that terrorism was a problem, and that the US should take a aggressive stance, in particular in the ME. They believed that changing the very political landscape in the ME was necessary to combat terrorism, and that this could be achieved militarily. Now, in that regard, Iraq is related to terrorism; when they say that Iraq is part of the war on terror, that's what they mean. 9/11 was something of an "I told you so" moment for the PNAC; their belief that terrorism would be a major problem and that we were inadequately prepared to combat it was vindicated. Though it seems that their "solution" has proved every bit as ineffective, sadly.

Well, you´re new here and sound like a veteran. :D
Are you new to the issue?No, I've been debating this for some time now, on several forums. Someone from another forum (Sentinal, if you know the name) recently joined a forum I frequent, and foolishly linked to a thread here. All the better, I say: the people here are even better at debunking CS crap than the several of us over there who act as full-time debunkers. When I saw that Mark Roberts frequents this forum, I decided this would be my type of place. ;)

[Oliver]

:D

That may be, but I don't think Hussein's regime was accepted in any realistic way; no more than I accept that a mugger take my wallet with a gun to my head.

*lol* Is Bush´s Regime accepted? I guess it must be because
while you´re talking about muggers - he stole your election. :rolleyes:

With regards to that: Bush's cabinet members are associated with the PNAC. The PNAC stated way back in '98 that terrorism was a problem, and that the US should take a aggressive stance, in particular in the ME. They believed that changing the very political landscape in the ME was necessary to combat terrorism, and that this could be achieved militarily. Now, in that regard, Iraq is related to terrorism; when they say that Iraq is part of the war on terror, that's what they mean. 9/11 was something of an "I told you so" moment for the PNAC; their belief that terrorism would be a major problem and that we were inadequately prepared to combat it was vindicated. Though it seems that their "solution" has proved every bit as ineffective, sadly.

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes
sense to avoid terrorism.

No, I've been debating this for some time now, on several forums. Someone from another forum (Sentinal, if you know the name) recently joined a forum I frequent, and foolishly linked to a thread here. All the better, I say: the people here are even better at debunking CS crap than the several of us over there who act as full-time debunkers. When I saw that Mark Roberts frequents this forum, I decided this would be my type of place. ;)

Bootlicker! :D :p

[maccy]

Oliver, if you want to keep discussing this I suggest you start a thread in the politics section.

[Oliver]

Oliver, if you want to keep discussing this I suggest you start a thread in the politics section.

Huh? We are still talking about political agendas
of >troofers<. What´s the problem?

[maccy]

Huh? We are still talking about political agendas
of >troofers<. What´s the problem?

I'd suggest that these comments aren't relevant to this thread:

*lol* Is Bush´s Regime accepted? I guess it must be because
while you´re talking about muggers - he stole your election. :rolleyes:

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes
sense to avoid terrorism.

[Free Thinkr]

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes sense to avoid terrorism.
Well, that US hasn't actually killed that many Iraqis (that's only the case if you're one of those who blames insurgent kills on the US; obviously that wasn't part of the PNAC plan).

[Oliver]

I'd suggest that these comments aren't relevant to this thread:

Not to the thread but to the discussion. Are you
one of the apostels? :confused:

Just bring it back on topic by discussing the issue.
What do you think are the troofers agendas?

[gumboot]

Oliver,

Just my humble opinion as always...

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot

[Free Thinkr]

Oliver,

Just my humble opinion as always...

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot
LOL, that about sums it up, I think.

[Oliver]

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. :D I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.

There is a difference between "I´m a nut" and
"I play the nut to fool you".

Off course i wouldn´t like to see these type of
people in powerful political positions - even if i
think that W&co are such nuts. :D

[gumboot]

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. :D I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.


I didn't say all. I said "most".

And I don't think they're "nuts" (if by nut you mean mentally ill).

I think the percentage of CTers who have actual mental illness issues are very small (altohugh they are probably the more colourful ones).

As I said, I think the vast majority of CTers believe their ideas completely, and do so out of ignorance.

-Gumboot

[Alt+F4]

Gravy, are the CTers at ground zero everyday or just on the weekends? I ask because I'm curious if they are targeting New Yorkers who work downtown or tourists on the weekends. Thanks.

[Oliver]

I didn't say all. I said "most".

And I don't think they're "nuts" (if by nut you mean mentally ill).

I think the percentage of CTers who have actual mental illness issues are very small (altohugh they are probably the more colourful ones).

As I said, I think the vast majority of CTers believe their ideas completely, and do so out of ignorance.

-Gumboot

Mhmm, after annoying them for the last view
months i guess that it´s 50/50 concerning nuts
and intellectual people.

I don´t know the exact definition of nuts. Is it
"dumb" or "mental ill"? - i would describe "nut"
as "twisted mind" - not serious mental illness.

[Gravy]

Gravy, are the CTers at ground zero everyday or just on the weekends? I ask because I'm curious if they are targeting New Yorkers who work downtown or tourists on the weekends. Thanks.They're only there on Saturday afternoons. It's all confused tourists. They waste a lot of money handing out pamphlets then!

[Gravy]

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. :D I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.

There is a difference between "I´m a nut" and
"I play the nut to fool you".

Off course i wouldn´t like to see these type of
people in powerful political positions - even if i
think that W&co are such nuts. :DOliver, can you think of someone who may be "playing the nut?"

I can't. I'm quite sure that the regulars I deal with are 100% convinced that they are right. And I don't think you can appreciate how aggressively ignorant they are. Many of them are much worse in person than they come across on the internet, and they say much worse things when they think their words aren't going to be in print for all to see.

[Scientologist]

Is this you, PDoherty? For what reason - explain. (Oh, Scientology) (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=10122)


Nope, I'm not pdoherty.

I do have a theory about you, Oliver. In your 2400 posts, I bet you have not thought of one original idea. You simply regurgitate what you have heard here and on the Loose Change forum.

You seem to be one of those people who likes to "fit in" intellectually but you seem devoid of independent thought.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and my third cent would be that you suck at being an internet sleuth too.

[JamesB]

What a bunch of jerks. The host was mocking the rescue efforts. "Yeah they were getting rid of the evidence by saying they were looking for survivors. What were they looking for, mush?"

[gumboot]

What a bunch of jerks. The host was mocking the rescue efforts. "Yeah they were getting rid of the evidence by saying they were looking for survivors. What were they looking for, mush?"


Sick.

-Gumboot

[JamesB]

Sick.

-Gumboot

Oops, wrong thread, that should have been in the Fetzer-wood thread.

[Oliver]

Oliver, can you think of someone who may be "playing the nut?"

Yes - i´ve met such people who tell you the whole
"Inside Job" lala-land but if you learn a littlebit more
about them, they admit that most of this is crap and
they have a own theory.

ETA: That´s why i asked you:

Ever thought about the idea if one truther meets
another one, they say:

"Well, we all know this MIHOP stuff is crap - but it
helps to spread interest to our political anti-gov agenda.
Funny how Gravy is trying to tell us the things we already
know nevertheless."

[Oliver]

Nope, I'm not pdoherty.

I do have a theory about you, Oliver. In your 2400 posts, I bet you have not thought of one original idea. You simply regurgitate what you have heard here and on the Loose Change forum.

You seem to be one of those people who likes to "fit in" intellectually but you seem devoid of independent thought.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and my third cent would be that you suck at being an internet sleuth too.

You´ve won.