Gravysites: Where 9/11 Conspiracies are Laid to Rest

[Gravy]

You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.

Links for 9/11 Research
A thousand or so categorized links, and several "mini sites" that are expanded versions of longer posts I've made here.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (now online and updated)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

[WildCat]

Thank you! Very convenient to have.

[The Doc]

Wow. Very nice work Gravy.

I will make sure to download your video ASAP too.

[T.A.M.]

Nice...with these links, the previously made guides and videos (markyx, doc, etc...), the NIST report, Ref's JREF link threads, and Gumboot's soon to be released (hopefully) Debunking of high priest DRG, we will soon have everything we need to launch Operation Wingnut Cracker.

TAM:)

[OMGturt1es]

again, thanks for the excellent work. between this site, and the new paper, and the video... i have a lot to look foward.

[OMGturt1es]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

this is a hilarious page. more importantly, it documents the insanity of the "trooth movement", and how it responds to oppositional argument. hopefully this will be a major clue to those that are on the fence...

[Mobyseven]

Gravy, I have to say, you're the best agent the NWO could have asked for. I'm going to put you forward at the next meeting for a pay rise.

Seriously though, great work. How big is the movie people are talking about? I have a pretty tight download limit here.

[Kent1]

You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.

Links for 9/11 Research
A thousand or so categorized links, and several "mini sites" that are expanded versions of longer posts I've made here.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (now online and updated)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Some REALLY good stuff gravy. You've been busy.:D

[ref]

Now wonder Gravy hasn't posted much lately, he has been very busy. Excellent, excellent :clap:

[Kent1]

Now wonder Gravy hasn't posted much lately, he has been very busy. Excellent, excellent :clap:
On this page
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/jasonbermasofloosechangedisparagesthefdn

When Bermas is talking to Abby Scott he also talks about something else.
He mentions bomb claims and a huge explosion in WTC7 on the 8th floor.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1287461440043399975&hl=en-CA
(Start at 6:10)
This I believe about Barry Jennings
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1

This BS is also in Jones paper and the upcoming LC movie.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2607881&postcount=97

[Brainster]

Superb work as usual, Mark!

[orphia nay]

Gravy, I have to say, you're the best agent the NWO could have asked for. I'm going to put you forward at the next meeting for a pay rise.

I second that (e)motion.

Seriously though, great work. How big is the movie people are talking about? I have a pretty tight download limit here.

It's 1.37 GB. I've started downloading, but at this rate it'll take me 15 hours! :boggled: I never realised my broadband was so slow! :(

[boloboffin]

Mark Roberts Has A Fork, and He's Sticking It in the Truth Movement (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x157015)

I dunno. Do you think I'm overstating the case? :D

[Mobyseven]

I second that (e)motion.



It's 1.37 GB. I've started downloading, but at this rate it'll take me 15 hours! :boggled: I never realised my broadband was so slow! :(

1.37GB?

:(

Orph, there's no way I could get you to burn a DVD and get a hardcopy off you, is there?

My download limit here is 1GB per semester, and $26 for every extra GB. And I've already spent a lot of that...

[orphia nay]

1.37GB?

:(

Orph, there's no way I could get you to burn a DVD and get a hardcopy off you, is there?

My download limit here is 1GB per semester, and $26 for every extra GB. And I've already spent a lot of that...

I'd say "no problem", but I have to get it downloaded first. I've paused it while I've been checking some threads. Once it's done (which, allowing for not wanting to leave the pooter on overnight or while I'm at work) I'll be able to do it. But it could be late Wednesday before that happens. Is that OK?

[Mobyseven]

I'd say "no problem", but I have to get it downloaded first. I've paused it while I've been checking some threads. Once it's done (which, allowing for not wanting to leave the pooter on overnight or while I'm at work) I'll be able to do it. But it could be late Wednesday before that happens. Is that OK?

No problemo. Do you want some dosh to cover DVD/postage?

I assume you know the address...;)

[orphia nay]

No problemo. Do you want some dosh to cover DVD/postage?

I assume you know the address...;)

I do indeed.

Forget about payment... or you can buy me a drink in October. ;)

[e^n]

I will host a 300 meg version if that's ok with Gravy, i already downloaded it and can convert it and upload it now.

[NickUK]

You're just showing off!

Excellent stuff :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Gravy, have you considered getting in touch with Popular Mechanics and picking up a writing or research credit for the next edition of thier debunking book?

[OMGturt1es]

gravy, i just finished watching the video. ****ing hilarious. excellent. i really enjoyed it. that seriously made my night.

have you considered making a narrated version? i'd love to hear you talk about this stuff between video clips. you could probably fit more info in...

btw, that picture of killtown is perfect.

this is definantly a video i'm keeping. thanks for making it downloadable!!

awesome job man! thanks,
anthony.

[JAStewart]

I will host a 300 meg version if that's ok with Gravy, i already downloaded it and can convert it and upload it now.

That would be tight (rad).

Should G-Vid and Y-Toob too.

James

[Mobyseven]

I do indeed.

Forget about payment... or you can buy me a drink in October. ;)

One more thing - I can't remember whether or not you know who to address it to. A package addressed to "Mobyseven" will probably just confuse admin here...

And, aye, I'll buy you a drink in October. :D

[Hyperviolet]

Gravy,

The video you have available for download is it mostly comprised of unseen footage at ground zero? Its quite a big file but if its new footage then i'll still go ahead and download it.

[chipmunk stew]

So THAT'S what you've been up to the past week or so.

Ho. Lee. Cow. :yikes:

:popcorn1

[Calcas]

Mark, your stuff just keeps getting better and better. LOVE the Rodriquez paper. I think I'll send a link to it to the folks at The View so that Elisabeth ( or whomever) can be prepared for his special brand of misinfo.

[ref]

I mean.. there is everything on those sites. It's like the debunking encyclopedia. It's like.. a look inside the Gravy knowledge :) What an effort that has been and there it is for everyone to see. Grrrrreat!

[kookbreaker]

A small typo on the 'Lighter side' pages:

"thermaphrodite (n.) - A high-temperature incendiary compound that contains elements of both thermite and thermite, and constantly changes between the two."

Shouldn't one of those thermites be thermate?

[Undesired Walrus]

Ho ho ho... anyone posted these on LCF? Probably will come at a very, very inconvient time for Dylan. I love to see his reaction, as he shows a tantrum so well, even over a computer.

[Unsecured Coins]

Gravy, when I'm in town, every beer is on me. You earned it.


*I am not responsible if Gravy drinks himself to death. But if the man has steel determination, I imagine what his liver is made out of

[kookbreaker]

The rather self-congratulatory but inept SwingDangler is trying to 'debunk' Gravy's pages. You can go to screwloosechange.blogspot.com or directly to the comments:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=3116159143137454739

[WildCat]

It's 1.37 GB. I've started downloading, but at this rate it'll take me 15 hours! :boggled: I never realised my broadband was so slow! :(
The torrent is flying, should only take a few hours.

[Triterope]

Gravy, you do a tremendous service of providing information to rebut hateful 9-11 conspiracy theories. I'm proud to have contributed to your new website -- even my part is merely comic relief.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

this is a hilarious page. more importantly, it documents the insanity of the "trooth movement", and how it responds to oppositional argument. hopefully this will be a major clue to those that are on the fence...
Should also snag the various and sundry animated .gif's they've made use of and have them on that page as well.

[Hyperviolet]

Okay - ive downloaded the Ground Zeros video but the MP4 format isn't playing here. Anyone with decent computer knowledge able to point me in the right direction?

[chipmunk stew]

Okay - ive downloaded the Ground Zeros video but the MP4 format isn't playing here. Anyone with decent computer knowledge able to point me in the right direction?
Try one of the links here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-43,GGLG:en&q=mp4+codecs

[Hyperviolet]

Try one of the links here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-43,GGLG:en&q=mp4+codecs

Thanks man ill give that a try.


I downloaded Quicktime as apparantly that played Mp4 - however, the audio is completely fine but the visual is crazy. The image is just like Orange/Pink and fuzzy... i got the torrent - is it possible the file is corrupted? Or just that there is a problem with Quicktime.

As you can tell im not exactly a computer whizz.

[WildCat]

ROFLMAO at the opening credits... :D

[WildCat]

Chapter 1: Gravy performs a controlled demolition of Les Jamieson. Don't fret about your camera-video Mark, it captures Les's true ugliness very well.

eta: Gravy is also a far, far better film maker than Dylan Avery could ever be.

[Gravy]

Chapter 1: Gravy performs a controlled demolition of Les Jamieson. Don't fret about your camera-video Mark, it captures Les's true ugliness very well.

eta: Gravy is also a far, far better film maker than Dylan Avery could ever be.
Thanks. You know, no film school has ever rejected me.:D I hadn't watched it since February, and I have to admit that I crack up every time I get to "Union of Unconcerned Scientists." I was going to ask that the video not be judged on artistic merit, because I've never made a video before, I have only crappy equipment and software, and I didn't intend for it to have any artistic merit. In fact, my video card is so old and pokey that I can't even watch more than 30 seconds of that piece before the video stalls. There is a lot of filler, though, and I may make a version with just the opening credits and some highlights, such as the last five minutes. At least the truthers can't accuse me of using only selected snippets of hours of footage: I only shot about 14 minutes of video. Oh, be sure to check out the music credits also. You'll understand the odd variety I used.

@ e^n: Sure, host away! My only concern is that there's a lot of text that may be hard to read. I used a variety of compression schemes when trying to get it to play properly on Google Video (the transitions were always glitchy) and some of the low res versions were pretty sketchy. But who watches a video for the words anyway?

[LashL]

You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.

Links for 9/11 Research
A thousand or so categorized links, and several "mini sites" that are expanded versions of longer posts I've made here.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (now online and updated)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

It hardly needs to be repeated, but wow! Terrific work, Mark!

[Undesired Walrus]

Christ! PDoherty's hatred of Gravy borders on psychotic!

[OMGturt1es]

Thanks man ill give that a try.


I downloaded Quicktime as apparantly that played Mp4 - however, the audio is completely fine but the visual is crazy. The image is just like Orange/Pink and fuzzy... i got the torrent - is it possible the file is corrupted? Or just that there is a problem with Quicktime.

As you can tell im not exactly a computer whizz.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

try that one. it's called "videoLAN". it's the only player i've ever had that can consistantly deal with mp4s properly.

[kookbreaker]

Christ! PDoherty's hatred of Gravy borders on psychotic!

Yah. You're talking about the guy who got banned from SLC because he threatened to:

1) Punch Abby if he met her at ground zero.
2) Claimed that what Mark and Abby were doing at ground zero was 'violence inciting' and 'harassing'.
3) Threatened to cyberstalk the blogmeistersof SLC and turn their information over to 'unsafe people' if he wasn't given his way.

Plus much more. They boy is a classic internet tough guy.

[Gravy]

Yah. You're talking about the guy who got banned from SLC because he threatened to:

1) Punch Abby if he met her at ground zero.
2) Claimed that what Mark and Abby were doing at ground zero was 'violence inciting' and 'harassing'.
3) Threatened to cyberstalk the blogmeistersof SLC and turn their information over to 'unsafe people' if he wasn't given his way.

Plus much more. They boy is a classic internet tough guy.What amazes me, although it certainly shouldn't by now, is that those boneheads always read a page of evidence, declare it false, and don't bother reading the mountains of corroborating evidence that make up the rest of the document. They're like Dorothy, clicking their heels three times and wishing themselves away from the bad dream they're in.

For instance, they argue that high explosives do produce fireballs, but ignore the fact that I said repeatedly that if you were close enough to be burned by a high explosive, you'd be blown to smithereens. If they want to posit a large HE fireball, they're going to have to account for an enormous HE blast, which didn't occur. In the paper I tried to help them understand that concept by linking to this video of a TNT detonation:

vb3y6m-buco

Is it possible that any of them could have watched that and come away thinking that they would survive being close enough to the blast to be burned? :eye-poppi

Then, they're saying, "Okay, okay, Arturo Griffith did see a jet fuel fireball from the elevator shaft, but it came down later." Uh, yeah, just like the other basement witnesses say. There wasn't another explosion down there. They can't even get past the first page. I imagine they'd be cheap dates, because they wouldn't even know there were entrees on the menu.

[Blackwell]

Incredible work as always, Gravy. Thanks!

The NWO has approved an increase to your monthly beer rations. Use those 1.7 pints wisely.

[kookbreaker]

I've managed to watch the first half of the video. The old man is quite the surly little child, isn't he ("We Own it Now")? Les isn't much better. What a bunch of wankers.

[Hyperviolet]

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

try that one. it's called "videoLAN". it's the only player i've ever had that can consistantly deal with mp4s properly.

This one is workin perfect. Thanks very much for that! :)

[Aggs]

Gravy, on your Rodriquez page you source a quote from Arturo Griffith with a URL ending in seiu/details/55, but it should be seiu/details/54. (Sorry, I can't post full URL's.)

Wouldn't want the you-know-who's to call BS on ya!



Aggs

[Gravy]

Gravy, on your Rodriquez page you source a quote from Arturo Griffith with a URL ending in seiu/details/55, but it should be seiu/details/54. (Sorry, I can't post full URL's.)
Wouldn't want the you-know-who's to call BS on ya!
AggsThanks Aggs, and welcome to the forums. You should be able to post links, BTW. I think it's after 15 posts.

[Hyperviolet]

Gravy,

Nice work.."Moonbatia" had me in tears.

Quick comment about the Federal Reserve system coming about in 1915 (and i could be wrong here) but to my understanding it was created on December 23rd 1913 with the first chairman of Governors of the Federal Reserve System being Charles Hamlin who held the postion from August 10th 1914.
Also, with reference to historical figures speaking on the banking system, aren't they talking about The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) and then 5 years later The Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836) which was a copy of the original. Both banks using the same fractional reserve banking system employed by todays Federal Reserve? Thus, the quotations being in reference to fractional reserve banking and privatisation of the banking systems in general.

[Popsickle]

Wow, that must have been a lot of work. Like unsecured coins, all beers on me once I finally make it to NYC.
The video had me laughing, shaking my head in disbelief/disgust and being plain stunned by that special kind of ignorance they display. Nice work btw using 'Prove It' by Television :D (if only the twoofers took the lyrics literally)

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Nice work.."Moonbatia" had me in tears.

Quick comment about the Federal Reserve system coming about in 1915 (and i could be wrong here) but to my understanding it was created on December 23rd 1913 with the first chairman of Governors of the Federal Reserve System being Charles Hamlin who held the postion from August 10th 1914.
Also, with reference to historical figures speaking on the banking system, aren't they talking about The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) and then 5 years later The Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836) which was a copy of the original. Both banks using the same fractional reserve banking system employed by todays Federal Reserve? Thus, the quotations being in reference to fractional reserve banking and privatisation of the banking systems in general.Thanks!
The Reserve system was approved in 1913 but it wasn't in effect until 1915. Unfortunately, the kook's literature refers to the Fed as being a continuous entity since the early 19th century. Sorry, but anyone who says that no Nazi tanks were destroyed in WWII doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on historical matters!

[Hyperviolet]

Thanks!
The Reserve system was approved in 1913 but it wasn't in effect until 1915. Unfortunately, the kook's literature refers to the Fed as being a continuous entity since the early 19th century.

Ahh ok - all cool then. :)

[pomeroo]

The ineffable Jon Gold got all huffy about my comment that Mark makes tinfoil-hatters tremble when he approaches.

Yeah, Jon, you're right. The deceptive charlatans, maladjusted adolescents, dotty and uninformed academics, and delusional paranoiacs of the 9/11 fantasy movement have nothing to fear.

Napoleon said, God is on the side of the better artillery. Mark provides the rationalist side with tremendous firepower.

[pomeroo]

Thanks!
The Reserve system was approved in 1913 but it wasn't in effect until 1915. Unfortunately, the kook's literature refers to the Fed as being a continuous entity since the early 19th century.

Sorry, but anyone who says that no Nazi tanks were destroyed in WWII doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on historical matters!


Excuse me? The amazing crackpottery about no Nazi tanks being destroyed in WWII is something I encountered a long time ago. I paid little attention at the time, as the person spouting this nonsense was clearly deranged. But now I hear it again. What exactly is this claim all about and who is making it? Surely there must be more to it than a simple, although preposterous, error?

[Gravy]

Excuse me? The amazing crackpottery about no Nazi tanks being destroyed in WWII is something I encountered a long time ago. I paid little attention at the time, as the person spouting this nonsense was clearly deranged. But now I hear it again. What exactly is this claim all about and who is making it? Surely there must be more to it than a simple, although preposterous, error?I suppose you could describe a severe chemical imbalance as preposterous.

But seriously, I think this wackadoodle was claiming that Ford sold the Nazis invincible armor, leaving the U.S. tanks to be covered with spit and tissue paper, which is why the Germans...won...the war? :con2:

[pomeroo]

I suppose you could describe a severe chemical imbalance as preposterous.

But seriously, I think this wackadoodle was claiming that Ford sold the Nazis invincible armor, leaving the U.S. tanks to be covered with spit and tissue paper, which is why the Germans...won...the war? :con2:



No, I wasn't making myself clear. I can't seem to find "Moonbatia" (undoubtedly, I'm overlooking something simple). Who is the nut and where does he make this insane statement?

[WildCat]

No, I wasn't making myself clear. I can't seem to find "Moonbatia" (undoubtedly, I'm overlooking something simple). Who is the nut and where does he make this insane statement?
It's in the movie.

[8den]

I suppose you could describe a severe chemical imbalance as preposterous.

But seriously, I think this wackadoodle was claiming that Ford sold the Nazis invincible armor, leaving the U.S. tanks to be covered with spit and tissue paper, which is why the Germans...won...the war? :con2:

You guys would have been screwed if Captain America hadn't thrown his mighty shield.....*


*Later it turned out George Bush senior paid for the development of the Nazi tank army armour which then somehow the NWO let Capt America have to use for shield, which helped defeated the nazis. Or something.

I get confused when people suggest the NWO ran both sides of the cold war and WW2, it does beggar the question "Er. Why?" I mean western europe has enjoyed it's most profitable and successful half a century because of the wars we've been going through?

[pomeroo]

I suppose you could describe a severe chemical imbalance as preposterous.

But seriously, I think this wackadoodle was claiming that Ford sold the Nazis invincible armor, leaving the U.S. tanks to be covered with spit and tissue paper, which is why the Germans...won...the war? :con2:



I remembered a terrific article by Victor Davis Hanson. It doesn't deal directly with conspiracy theories, but it makes incisive observations:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTg3MmQ4MjE1NjQyMGM5OTZlMzYzZGM3NTMxZWMzYjg=

[Comsat Angel]

I suppose you could describe a severe chemical imbalance as preposterous.

But seriously, I think this wackadoodle was claiming that Ford sold the Nazis invincible armor, leaving the U.S. tanks to be covered with spit and tissue paper, which is why the Germans...won...the war? :con2:

There are photos from September 1939 showing German panzers destroyed in their optimistic assault on Warsaw, before they realised that blitzkreig is not best conducted in the middle of a city.
Three feet away from me on a table is a library volume entitled "Over the Battlefield - Operation Goodwood" with a photograph on the front cover of a destroyed King Tiger that had been rammed by a Sherman. That's a destroyed King Tiger, not one that feels a bit poorly, or has a loose track. Destroyed.

My colleagues at the SOTCW could provide more evidence on this, enough for a small paperback book. In fact this nonsense is so easy to debunk I almost feel guilty.

(Sorry - should point out that a "King Tiger" is an enormous nazi tank)

[Architect]

Lads, back in January when I was ill the UK History programme was rerunning "The World at War" and I had nothing else to watch except reruns of Quincy.

Please stop, you're giving me flashbacks.

[ob986s]

ok I want to watch the movie but not download the Vuze viewer whatever the hell that is. can someone upload the mp4 file so I can download it and watch on my on viewer?

Thanks in advance

Jon

and Gravy, great sites

[Corsair 115]

Sorry, but anyone who says that no Nazi tanks were destroyed in WWII doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on historical matters!:jaw-dropp

If no Nazi tanks were destroyed during WWII, then I would assume that means no Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk at the Battle of Midway either...

[Unfit4Command]

Excellent work, Mark! I'm currently reading through your newest paper and it's great so far.

Another page I can refer truthers to during debates.

[Kent1]

Gravy the Steve Spak video no longer works. Steve pulled it down. He was worried about his family due to truther nuts.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/detailsofdamagetowtc7

However this video is still at the debunking 911 site.


See below

"New video shows the gash on the south side of building 7."
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[Gravy]

Thanks Kent. Fixed the link.

[Gravy]

ok I want to watch the movie but not download the Vuze viewer whatever the hell that is. can someone upload the mp4 file so I can download it and watch on my on viewer?
Thanks in advance
Jon
and Gravy, great sites
It's 1.38 Gigs, so I think the inconvenient way is the best way for now. I can sum up the video for you: truthers are dumb, illogical, and crazy!

[chipmunk stew]

ok I want to watch the movie but not download the Vuze viewer whatever the hell that is. can someone upload the mp4 file so I can download it and watch on my on viewer?

Thanks in advance

Jon

and Gravy, great sites
Vuze is a torrent sharing program. If you have other torrent software already installed on your system, you can just click on the "torrent" link, which should open the torrent file in that program instead.

If you don't already have torrent-sharing software, Vuze seems pretty good and easy to use, so go ahead and install it (it's a quick install).

[ob986s]

Vuze is a torrent sharing program. If you have other torrent software already installed on your system, you can just click on the "torrent" link, which should open the torrent file in that program instead.

If you don't already have torrent-sharing software, Vuze seems pretty good and easy to use, so go ahead and install it (it's a quick install).

Thanks, I steer clear of torrent sharing so I have never installed any on this machine but if you guys say Vuze is safe I'll use it.

Thanks

Jon

[bje]

Congratulations, Mark, for another stupendous effort. I just started reading and cannot say enough for your hard work, logical thinking, and clear presentation.

[Rawkarma]

It's a reduced quality of the original (http://tinyurl.com/369yzt) of course, but it's watchable. I uploaded it for anyone that has download limits or a slow internet connection and finds the prospect of the 1.37GB torrent unpleasant or if you simply do not use torrents and have no desire to start now.

http://tinyurl.com/3b2lr2

[chipmunk stew]

It's a reduced quality of the original (http://tinyurl.com/369yzt) of course, but it's watchable. I uploaded it for anyone that has download limits or a slow internet connection and finds the prospect of the 1.37GB torrent unpleasant or if you simply do not use torrents and have no desire to start now.

http://tinyurl.com/3b2lr2
Sweet.

Digg it! (http://digg.com/videos/people/The_Ground_Zeros_Mark_Roberts_Confronts_the_9_11_T ruth_Movement)

[Darth Rotor]

[QUOTE=Gravy;2618947]You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.
[QUOTE]
Mark

Your film on youtube is an interesting response to the style of Loose Change and Truthers.

Looks like a labor of love, and hate: love for NYC and hate for the slandering bungholes out there.

Critique on style:

Given the format, a number of the frames with smaller fonts need larger fonts, on the black and white slides to ensure ease of reading, clean presentation. I noted considerable variation on font size and choice in the text passages.

Music Credits could have been larger, so one can actually read the on youtube.

That's about it.

*claps*

Ya done good.

DR

[Rahne Everson]

The Gravy Train never disappoints. Superb work, I'd send you a big box of homemade cookies if I could.

[Mashuna]

Lads, back in January when I was ill the UK History programme was rerunning "The World at War" and I had nothing else to watch except reruns of Quincy.

Please stop, you're giving me flashbacks.

Laurance Olivier voiceover flashback for me there.

[Darth Rotor]

I remembered a terrific article by Victor Davis Hanson. It doesn't deal directly with conspiracy theories, but it makes incisive observations:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTg3MmQ4MjE1NjQyMGM5OTZlMzYzZGM3NTMxZWMzYjg=
VDH is a shill.

History's Verdict
The summers of 1944 and 2004.

By Victor Davis Hanson

About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success—and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. Blunders were daily occurrences—resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq.
In an Army of over 12 million. No body armor. Far poorer combat medical capability.

Does he have a point? Not really, he is comparing elephants to iguanas.

Incisive? Not hardly.

His line on Sherman tanks needs an answer.

The Sherman tank's dimensions, by design, were constrained by width due to having to be shipped overseas efficiently to fight a war. They didn't use the CHristie suspension that the T-34, Russian, used, partly for that reason. Logistics influenced the final size and shape of Shermans as much as any combat capability. Yes, quantity has a quality of its own.

A free people and its amazing citizen army liberated France and went on in less than a year to destroy veteran Nazi forces in the West, and to occupy Germany to end the war. Good historians, then, keep such larger issues in mind, even as they second-guess and quibble with the tactical and strategic pulse of the battlefield.
While the Red Army fought the bulk of the Wehrmacht. (Yes, the Red Army used a lot of American built trucks for logistic support.)

There is more, but his article is rather pointless, in focussing on "military blunders."

In professionalism, equipment and training advantage, the US Army does not resemble its 1944 predecessor. The core error in Iraq is, and has always been, at the political strategic level, where policy is formed and then tasked to the armed force to carry out. The policy end chose to assume away reality as a method, political reality, even in the face of competent Army advice on the Phase IV stage: Shinseki was fired, not heeded, even after the US Army built a considerable library of Lesson's Learned on nation building in Bosnia.

Blaming the Army for creating the immense mismatch between means, ends, and the political/military interface is intellecually dishonest, for all that the Army, given the play book by the suits, made a number of tactially questionable decisions on the ground. These were exacerbated by the failure, in the 12 year planning phase running up to the war, to grow even a modest Arabic language facility within the force. The doctrine was to rely on allies, local, to supply interpreters (at one point) which, when push came to shove, all failed to materialize.

If you can't talk to people, your CI effort is gonna suck. Hell, the Brits could talk to the Irish, and look at how damned hard Northern Ireland is and was!

Hansen misses the point, completely, and he should know better, as a military historian.

DR

[sackett]

A poor soul here in the College of Engineering (!) has been posting Trootherism links on our in-house email. He even has one defender. I answer back with Gravy links. Yes, that's sinking a leaky canoe with a broadside from the Missouri, but I'm a great believer in overkill.

Neither of these guys is an engineer, need I say -- although it's still discouraging to meet this kind of stuff in higher education. See above re overkill.

[gumboot]

In an Army of over 12 million. No body armor. Far poorer combat medical capability.


Just a minor quibble, the author is primarily talking about the initial push into France of June and July 1944.

By the end of July, the allies only had 1.4 million men in France, and that included all allied forces, not just Americans. (About 800,000 Americans).

His numbers do seem to be misleading, however.

The Battle of Normandy lasted a total of 70 days from June 6 until August 25, and in that time there were 57,000 allied dead and 173,000 allied wounded or missing, giving an average of 3,200 casualties a day.

That's (obviously) a lot lower than the author was claiming (over 2,000 dead a day).

I agree with your assessment that the comparison is pointless - the situations are grossly different, but it does raise an interesting point.

In modern times, the course of war undertaken by western nations is far more driven by the opinion of the masses than in earlier times. The problem is, this greatly affects how much punishment a nation is willing to take in order to achieve a goal, and how long they will wait.

Partly due to liberal leanings, partly due to mass media, partly due to ambiguous objectives, and a lot to do with the unusual success of Desert Storm, the American public has very little willingness to engage in costly warfare for any length of time. A war must be won quickly and decisively, or it will not be won at all.

The point is valid, I think, in that, were the western populace of today behind the war effort of 1944, I think the allied powers would have lost the war. The USA would never have even made it as far as invading Normandy. And reports on June 7 would have focussed on the disasters in the first hours at Omaha, rather than the greater success that the allies now had a foothold in Europe.

This is the nature of modern society. I would propose, the west, collectively, is no longer capable of winning a major war.

-Gumboot

[oxfordrocks]

Ha Ha...Thanks Gravy, these links are priceless.
Lucky it's a bank holiday and I've got plenty of time on my hands.
Keep up the good work.

[The Demon's Head]

Glad to see debunking sites that have been given a 'Sticky' at the top of the page. Maybe the theorists will take a look at the sites before bringing some of the more rehashed conspiracy theories to this part of the forum.

[Kent1]

Gravy have you ever seen this interesting elevator layout. From my understanding however it is an early design. Not the finalized version.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ardoucette/ElevatorLayout-page146rb.png

[Gravy]

Yes, it's a good overview but it doesn't offer anything new over the more detailed elevations recently released.

[Kent1]

Does this help. Here's another good video of WTC7. Some of this is footage is repeat, but there is also some new stuff mixed in here also.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6790722824543352916&hl=en

Then combine with this. And its gets very interesting.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

[cohen avshalom]

there is connection between the-organize -black September-terror group from the 70-80(plo)-and the killing of 11 athlete-on the Munich Olympic game???

cohen avshalom charly
israel-haifa
www.icarus5.com

[Slayhamlet]

there is connection between the-organize -black September-terror group from the 70-80(plo)-and the killing of 11 athlete-on the Munich Olympic game???

cohen avshalom charly
israel-haifa
www.icarus5.com

Err... hasn't it been established for decades that the '72 Munich massacre was carried out by the Palestinian group Black September? I don't think it was ever in dispute. What's this have to do with 9/11?

[chipmunk stew]

Err... hasn't it been established for decades that the '72 Munich massacre was carried out by the Palestinian group Black September? I don't think it was ever in dispute. What's this have to do with 9/11?
He underlined it for you. Don't you see? Don't you SEE???


(He's a numerology guy, apparently)

[Slayhamlet]

He underlined it for you. Don't you see? Don't you SEE???


(He's a numerology guy, apparently)

Yes, now I can SEE it clearly! How could I not SEE it before??? 9/11 INSIDE JOB LOL!!


Oh, good grief...

[cohen avshalom]

this is not lol-because ben laden-using point from the history in his action-i am very sure that he will work from algiria-north africa-and make the next step of him-in french and itealy-in the same time.-more accuracy (south french+and north itealy-what will be the date-see the day french was retreat of algiria(60 th)
sorry a bout my english.


cohen avshalom charly
isreal/haifa
www.icarus5.com

[Viper Daimao]

Gravy- I see you included Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant and others' paper called "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It".

However the link doesn't work anymore. I fear I may have caused this as I submitted it on digg and it got to the front page. I would guess it started using up too much bandwidth and NWU took it down. Do you know of any other links or know when the next draft will be out?

[Sin City Teacher]

Very nice Gravy.

-A conspiracy theorist that tries to poke holes in what happened on 9/11 is like a creationist that tries to poke holes in evolution.

[BillyRayValentine]

When Bermas is talking to Abby Scott he also talks about something else.
He mentions bomb claims and a huge explosion in WTC7 on the 8th floor.
...

It's impossible to watch that video and not get the sense you're seeing severe mental illness at work. At least among the leaders, anyway. The "troops", as it were, are another story. Not the sharpest tools in the shed, but tools nonetheless.

That Bermas cretin, though...what a despicable piece of trash. I feel sorry for his parents.

[Gravy]

Gravy- I see you included Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant and others' paper called "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It".

However the link doesn't work anymore. I fear I may have caused this as I submitted it on digg and it got to the front page. I would guess it started using up too much bandwidth and NWU took it down. Do you know of any other links or know when the next draft will be out?Sorry, I just noticed this. Thanks for pointing it out. Here's the working link: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

[anticonspiracy911]

Gravy,

Add this excellent link to your logic and critical thinking section.

Propaganda and Debating Techniques: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html

[Twilek]

Oooh cool, another interesting link to e-mail home to myself for later reading.

You guys sure keep me busy. Thanks! :D

[Obviousman]

Do you have arguments for and against Jeff King's "analysis"?

[BillyRayValentine]

Do you have arguments for and against Jeff King's "analysis"?

Is this the analysis by "Jeff King, MIT Engineer" (who, uh, graduated with a degree in electrical engineering, went to medical school, and has been a small-town family doctor since the 1970's)?

[Obviousman]

Yep.

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Add this excellent link to your logic and critical thinking section.

Propaganda and Debating Techniques: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.htmlDone. Thanks!

Do you have arguments for and against Jeff King's "analysis"?I haven't read his stuff. I heard a radio interview in which he posited WTC destruction via directed energy weapons, and tuned him out after that. I don't think I've seen his name mentioned in the past year, so his influence seems to have evaporated like so much structural steel.

[Obviousman]

It was brought up on another board; his claims that there was not enough potential energy to "pulverize" concrete into dust.

I wanted to read up on the pros (if any) and cons of his argument, but I normally just run into truther sites. I wanted to see see a critical analysis of his claims.

Thanks!

[Gravy]

That argument usually has two aspects, which were popularized by Jim Hoffman:

1. The claim that a very high percentage of tower concrete was pulverized into very fine powder.

2. The claim that the towers contained insufficient GPE to do that work.

The most thorough refutation of this argument that I know of is Frank Greening's (Apollo 20 here): http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

[Max Photon]

---

Gravy,

Your collection of links in your first post is awesome.

It is obviously from the heart, and I respect that.

(It is also hella-useful!)

Thanks,

Max

---

[Obviousman]

Ta - appreciate the link.

[MikeW]

I haven't read his stuff. I heard a radio interview in which he posited WTC destruction via directed energy weapons, and tuned him out after that. I don't think I've seen his name mentioned in the past year, so his influence seems to have evaporated like so much structural steel.

Jeff King's site is http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html . Nothing revolutionary, but worth a look just to familiarise yourself with what he believes (and most of his arguments are very familiar, anyway).

[RedIbis]

Since this is my first day here I expect to get my requisite jref beating. I'll take it like a man. I do have questions about the official story. I don't know if that makes me a twoofer, crazy, a commie, or what, but I've studied the official explanations, as well as alternative explanations.

I'll apologize in advance for asking all of the questions asked a thousand times on here.

[ref]

Welcome, RedIbis :)

[Grimlorn]

Is there any footage of a piece of the airplane hitting wtc7? I think someone mentioned that something from one of the airplanes hit it, thats why it came on fire. I just find it odd that I heard about the 2 world trade center buildings being hit but never heard about the third. Although I was in highschool the day it happened.

[ref]

Is there any footage of a piece of the airplane hitting wtc7? I think someone mentioned that something from one of the airplanes hit it, thats why it came on fire. I just find it odd that I heard about the 2 world trade center buildings being hit but never heard about the third. Although I was in highschool the day it happened.

WTC 7 was hit by falling debris from the collapsing towers, not any aircraft. It wasn't on fire until the building debris damaged the structure.

[Grimlorn]

Is there any footage showing this or some sources on the 9/11 that talk about this?

I'm kind of curious how a fire can transfer from building to building like that.

[Gravy]

Although some flaming debris certainly did head towards WTC 7, both from the aircraft impacts and the collapses, the assumption is that the fires started because of the massive damage done to WTC 7 by the collapses. A fire alarm went off in WTC 7 at 10:00, just after the collapse of the south tower. Most of the damage to WTC 7 was done by the north tower.

You'll see a link to my site about WTC 7, with photos and links to videos, at the site linked in my signature – which is what this thread is about. ;)

[Grimlorn]

Yeah you have a lot of data and sites, which is good, but for someone like me who just has specific questions and things I'm looking for its really hard to find stuff.

Also a little off subject, but I saw a map and apparently WTC6 was inbetween WTC7 and 1. I know 6 was a lot shorter than 1 and 7 but did it get damaged or destroyed at all?

[Slayhamlet]

Yeah you have a lot of data and sites, which is good, but for someone like me who just has specific questions and things I'm looking for its really hard to find stuff.

Also a little off subject, but I saw a map and apparently WTC6 was inbetween WTC7 and 1. I know 6 was a lot shorter than 1 and 7 but did it get damaged or destroyed at all?

6 WTC:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1660346aa9565a400b.jpg

It did not suffer total collapse, but the damage was so extensive that it had to be torn down completely.

[Grimlorn]

Thanks.

Wow thats pretty much how I thought it would look. I'm guessing if something steel was hot enough or some kind of building material was on fire and fell through one of the windows and caught some paperwork or whatever on fire it would cause that.

[twinstead]

Anybody notice those round death ray beam marks on that building?

[Grimlorn]

Yeah it looks like a satellite shot right through the building. It probably has nothing do do with millions of pounds falling down on it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey guys! This is my first time here. I've been using YouTube alot and debating with moronic 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorist. I go by the screen name "WhyAskQuestions". Of course there's some here that know me and I know them.

Mark does a fantastic job at debunking the conspiracists claims. Great Job there Mark (Gravy). I've seen his debunking videos and they're hilarious and comical. I can't contain myself from laughing at the conspiracists.

Here's a quote that I kind of made:

"Arguing with a 9/11 Truther or Conspiracy Theorist is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if they win, they're still retarded."

[Dabljuh]

Why's the WTC building 7 falling straight down, rather than toppling over, when it was damaged only on one side?

Why did the fires in WTC building 7 start? Was there a fire in building 6, which was, unlike 7, really crushed by the debris?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dabljuh, do yourself a favor and please open your eyes, research the pictures and the evidence.

Asking a bunch of questions over and over again about WTC7 isn't getting you conspiracists any where.

"Arguing with a 9/11 Truther or Conspiracy Theorist is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if they win, they're still retarded."

[Dabljuh]

Dabljuh, do yourself a favor and please open your eyes, research the pictures and the evidence.

Asking a bunch of questions over and over again about WTC7 isn't getting you conspiracists any where.

"Arguing with a 9/11 Truther or Conspiracy Theorist is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if they win, they're still retarded."I note a distinct absence of argument in your post, instead, I get childish insults. If you don't know the answers to my questions, you don't have to give a pointless response just so you can hear yourself talking. That's just... babbling.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Everyone knows what exactly happened to WTC7. People like you just like to bring up stupid questions. I'm not the 1 being a child asking questions about a building that we know was brought down by fire and it's own weight.

Asking the same questions about WTC7 is babbling. You want to act like a little child pointing the finger at me? Go right ahead!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You couldn't handle the truth about WTC7 Dabljuh.

[Viper Daimao]

dabljuh, read the links this whole thread is about. One side collapsed, then the other side fell on top of it. Basically you're whole premise is wrong.

[Gravy]

Why's the WTC building 7 falling straight down, rather than toppling over, when it was damaged only on one side?For two reasons:

1) A 47-story steel-framed skyscraper cannot "topple over" without a very large lateral force being applied. Where would such a force come from? No, such buildings are made of thousands of interconnected parts. When those parts loose crucial support or become misaligned, they fail. One major failure can rapidly lead to others, resulting in collapse. When the building collapses, it falls down, not over, as it must.

2) The damage that brought WTC 7 down was fire in the center interior of the building, not the external damage you see in photos. YouTube is not a reliable guide to forensic engineering.

Why did the fires in WTC building 7 start?No offense, but you are aware that two quarter-mile high buildings collapsed across the street, aren't you? And that fires started in many buildings after those collapses?


Was there a fire in building 6, which was, unlike 7, really crushed by the debris?Yes. The severe fires in WTC 6 burned for hours. If you are suggesting that WTC 7 wasn't hammered by debris, you are wrong, and I strongly encourage you to read about WTC 7's condition in my paper, which is linked in my signature. These pages in particular will tell you what the conspiracy fools won't:

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mark, I mean Gravy! You're a legend man, I mean the way you prove all of these Conspiracists wrong is making me laugh beyond all reason. I've watched your video about the 9/11 Truthers at Ground Zero: "The Ground Zeros" and I couldn't contain myself. We all know that Les is an idiot and he's always attacking your 1st Amendment. I like how you got him scared on that subject. And that guy in the glasses, I call him "Gilliagan" because in Abby Scotts video he's wearing a "fishing" hat.

I've also seen you debate with Loose Change director Dylan Avery and his "researcher" Jason Bermas on Hardfire. Dylan only had very little to say and not much rebuttal from him. Jason on the other hand is just wrong. They're both wrong! And Dr. James Fetzer! He's another one that got proved wrong by you.

Thank god there's people on this earth like you Gravy!

[Dabljuh]

For two reasons:

1) A 47-story steel-framed skyscraper cannot "topple over" without a very large lateral force being applied.That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.

Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.

2) The damage that brought WTC 7 down was fire in the center interior of the building, not the external damage you see in photos. YouTube is not a reliable guide to forensic engineering.Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it. Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.

The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.

P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey Dabljuh, do you really want to pi$$ with Mark Roberts (Gravy)? Do you really want to challenge his claims and say he's "wrong"?

Gravy's got links out the wazzoo about everything including WTC6. What links do you got of WTC6 BTW?

[Viper Daimao]

That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.

And what do you base this belief on?

[Gravy]

I'll reply here, but if you wish to discuss these issues further I ask that you do so in new threads. You will do well to use the forum search feature before making claims that have been discussed here ad nauseum.

That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center.First, you do not address the fact that, as I noted above, the worst damage to WTC 7 was caused by the fire, which was in the interior of the building.

Next, there are several ways that you could have supported your opinion.

1. You could present an example of a similarly-constructed building toppling for any reason.

2. You could cite engineering texts that support your claim.

3. You could do your own analysis of the structure, damage, and fires.

You have done none of these things.


If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.Again, please provide examples of this happening to similar structures, cite structural experts who agree with you, provide evidence that WTC 7 was "blown out on one side," etc.

Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.The cases of the twin towers should be instructive to you. The collapses of both initiated on one side of the building: the east side of the south tower and the south side of the north tower (sides with 60-foot floor trusses, btw). In each case, the tops of the towers tilted significantly to those sides. However, you'll note that the tilting did not continue until "toppling" occurred. Instead, once the tilt had reached a few degrees, the bending columns, which were not designed for such off-axis loads, buckled, and the collapse progressed straight down. These are basic engineering concepts. See also Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II (http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm)

Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it.
If you believe that the NIST floor truss fire tests were done to reproduce conditions in the towers, you are mistaken and clearly haven't read the reports. From NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b3911de6310.jpg

When you read that report, take note of which truss failed the test. You should also read NCSTAR 1-5B.

Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central coreI have no idea where you got this information, which has no bearing on reality.

so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.Ditto.

The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.If you have specific disagreements with specific findings of the investigations, state them and be prepared to back your claims with facts. For example, if you want to pursue your claim that WTC 7 should have toppled over, you'll need to show that either:

1. The collapse did not initiate in the area circled in red below, or

2. If you agree that the collapse did initiate in that area, as NIST's working hypothesis states, why a major failure there would cause the building to topple. Be sure to include the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse in your analysis.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b386eac9d95.jpg

P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b3885913a03.jpg

See also FEMA 403, chapter 4, and videos shot by Steve Spak.

Again, if you wish to continue this discussion, please do so in a new thread, and search the forum and links in my signature to be sure your questions haven't been answered a thousand times.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Gravy, once again you're knowledge is overwelming and powerful. I salute you my fellow American!

[chipmunk stew]

Gravy, once again you're knowledge is overwelming and powerful. I salute you my fellow American!
No, you cannot have the Great and Awesome Gravy's autograph. :nope:

He'll let you kiss the toes of one of his minions, but that's as far as it goes.

Come back with a Truther scalp and 30 pieces of silver and we'll reconsider.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've got so many truther scalps I could make a gorilla suit out of them.

I'm a debunker, just like so many on the streets and the internet. Truthers can go to hell!

[beachnut]

That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.

Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.

Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it. Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.

The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.

P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?
Do you get anything right? Three strikes in one posts. Out. Wonder which part of the NIST report you skipped?

[cmcaulif]

I posted some papers on progressive collapse here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2871016&postcount=185), they were intended for this thread, I put them on CS's thread by mistake.

[Gravy]

I posted some papers on progressive collapse here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2871016&postcount=185), they were intended for this thread, I put them on CS's thread by mistake.Thanks! I've added them to the site and credited your nickname.

[cmcaulif]

Thanks! I've added them to the site and credited your nickname.

my pleasure:) Here is a full text of the Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl study in case it is not included in the press release about the study on your site as well:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC%20%20Blast%20Paper%202003.pdf

I think a look at these mechanisms is really important in understanding the demise of building 7, given that the failure originated at the east penthouse, and is likely to have propagated from there. I wish I had more time to really get into them though!

[jp834618]

Being an ex-truther, I think your websites need some nice videos with lots of quotes and truthers walking around to ominous music. Also, would it kill you to put up a few blog buttons and a countdown timer of some sort?

I'm not sure your movement is going to be very good..

[8den]

Being an ex-truther, I think your websites need some nice videos with lots of quotes and truthers walking around to ominous music. Also, would it kill you to put up a few blog buttons and a countdown timer of some sort?

I'm not sure your movement is going to be very good..

I know, we have all are these pesky facts logic and science making the place look untidy...

[CJOKUSAP]

A fantastic amount of research details there Gravy, but it's not what is there that is interesting, more like what is NOT there. How about a detailed explanation of Condoleeza Rice's comments after 9/11? You can make all the sand-castles you like, but when the tide comes in , they 'll all be washed away. All that vast researching shows to me , is you have about as much of a life as the average "twoofer" away from this subject!

[CJOKUSAP]

Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation; and only someone devoted to maintaining the status quo would deny that some members of the current administration had each of those factors!

p.s. How was your trip to Barbados, or wherever it was you were going the other night?

[Gravy]

A fantastic amount of research details there Gravy, but it's not what is there that is interesting, more like what is NOT there. How about a detailed explanation of Condoleeza Rice's comments after 9/11? You can make all the sand-castles you like, but when the tide comes in , they 'll all be washed away.I don't make sand castles. I present facts. You want me to do your work for you? Sorry. You have a claim? You do the homework and write your report. Whining on the internet will never advance your claims.

All that vast researching shows to me , is you have about as much of a life as the average "twoofer" away from this subject!Like the rest of the 9/11 deniers, ad hominems are all you've got. Good luck with that program.


Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation;Why not gather evidence instead of idly speculating and arguing from ignorance? Are you afraid of what you'll find? I look forward to reading the results of your investigation.


and only someone devoted to maintaining the status quo would deny that some members of the current administration had each of those factors!Only a fool would apologize for terrorists while making accusations of mass murder against others that aren't supported by a single shred of evidence.

Think I'm wrong? Then tell me who you have evidence against that allows you to make a charge of complicity to mass murder, and present your evidence. Right now.

Nothing? I thought not. Okay, please explain which parts of the 9/11 terrorist plot and attack would require U.S. government involvement. You may want to read the 9/11 Commission report before you try to tackle this one.


p.s. How was your trip to Barbados, or wherever it was you were going the other night?Bermuda. I'm there now. It's cloudy and warm, thank you.

[CJOKUSAP]

Look, you're the "investigator", I'm just a critic. You do your work, I'll do mine. When the information comes in, I'll be back to you.

Don't forget your sun-cream.

[CJOKUSAP]

Only a fool would make this claim;

"Only a fool would apologize for terrorists while making accusations of mass murder against others that aren't supported by a single shred of evidence."

[CJOKUSAP]

And stop being so righteously indignantIncivility removed!

CJOKUSAP, name-calling like this is unacceptable. Either keep your posts within the bounds of the Membership Agreement or stop posting.

[RedIbis]

And stop being so righteously indignantIncivility removed!


A word to the wise, you won't last long here if you just sling insults and obscenities. If your arguments with Gravy are strong you won't have to rely on any personal attacks and name calling.

Trust me, civility is a well sharpened sword.

[CJOKUSAP]

As long as he doesn't refer to me as a fool Redibis, we'll be fine!

[RedIbis]

As long as he doesn't refer to me as a fool Redibis, we'll be fine!

Then be a better debator and don't rely on similar tactics.

I'm well aware of the incongruent strategies employed on a forum devoted to critical thinking and skepticism.

[CJOKUSAP]

Then enlighten me!

[CJOKUSAP]

Then be a better debator and don't rely on similar tactics.

I'm well aware of the incongruent strategies employed on a forum devoted to critical thinking and skepticism.

BTW. "critical thinking" involves being criticized!

[CJOKUSAP]

I've noticed that most of the objections to even the slightest possibility of any conspiracy accusations being likely, is the matter of complicity. "How dare you imply that G.W. could be involved in such a heinous crime!", "So, the entire administration are murderers are they?", etc, ad nauseum. But, consider (Now you need an open mind to do this properly, but don't be scared; it can actually be a quite liberating experience.) the possibility that Bush is simply the 'puppet-master's' head, and the military, etc. relate to different parts of the body. Do you not want to know who has his, or her hand up your governments arse? Because I WOULD, and do. Forget quibbling over the cost of an entirely independent, full inquiry,i.e. Done by a different country, into the events a month either side of September the 11th, 2001. The outcome either way would be the best money your country has ever spent. If it concludes that the initial inquiry was correct, and the only fault of your government was to underestimate 'the enemy', then the government is absolved of any involvement, and you all can shout, "Told ya so!" until you are hoarse.

Does that not seem like a reasonable request or demand, when the future of "Democracy" is at stake?

[Corsair 115]

Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation; Yes, but unless actual evidence of guilt is found, then having all the motive and opportunity in the world to commit a crime means nothing.

[CJOKUSAP]

Yes, but unless actual evidence of guilt is found, then having all the motive and opportunity in the world to commit a crime means nothing.

Would you like to address my point in post #150 as well?

[Pardalis]

This is not a thread for discussion.

[CJOKUSAP]

This is not a thread for discussion.

Well, where would you like to address it then?

[Pardalis]

Start a thread.

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks, Gravy.

I was visiting a friend of mine yesterday, and when I got ther,e he was watching some truther videos with his roommate. When he asked me what I thought of Alex Jones, I told him. "He's a liar, and there's no evidence to support anything he says."

Even when Alex Jones quotes a "zombie survey" as saying that 92% of New Yorkers "agree with us" and the next scene in the truther movie showed results of 50% (probably a bogus survey in any case) he stuck to his conspiracy theory. "You're insulting my intelligence," he said. "No, I'm not. I'm telling you there's not a shred of evidence to support his clams. Look, I'd believe him if he had evidence. What would it take to change your mind?" "Nothing! Nothing can change my mind!"

Oi. Thanks, Gravy. Sometimes, however, facts are of no use.

[Gravy]

You should feel good for speaking up. Your friend may come around eventually, remember your words, and not be so quick to jump on the woo wagon next time.

Facts are always useful, if only as a defense in your trial for wanton dope-slapping.

[Toro]

Cool.

Thanks for your work.

[terryfunk4life]

Just wondering any chance of a ground zeros part 2? Also make sure you are there on sept 11 because someone needs to be there so they don't get there "facts" across. Or better yet just send mongo!

[cmcaulif]

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

Recent advances in fire–structure analysis
Fire Safety Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 20 August 2007,
Dat Duthinh, Kevin McGrattan and Abed Khaskia

Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Prasad and Baum is somewhat redundant since it is used directly in NCSTAR1-5F and G, but it is worth reading nonetheless.

and also:

http://nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf

sorry if any of these are repeats, I tried to find new sources that I had found personally useful.

[Gravy]

Cool.

Thanks for your work.My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

Just wondering any chance of a ground zeros part 2? Also make sure you are there on sept 11 because someone needs to be there so they don't get there "facts" across. Or better yet just send mongo!There is another, better GZ video in the works. I've put it aside for a while because I've been busy with other things, but it should be done this month. I've dispatched Mongo to deal with the truthers.

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

Recent advances in fire–structure analysis
Fire Safety Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 20 August 2007,
Dat Duthinh, Kevin McGrattan and Abed Khaskia

Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Prasad and Baum is somewhat redundant since it is used directly in NCSTAR1-5F and G, but it is worth reading nonetheless.

and also:

http://nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf

sorry if any of these are repeats, I tried to find new sources that I had found personally useful.Good stuff. I shall add them. I highly recommend the Scheuerman paper. He's an ex-FDNY Battalion Chief and an expert on high rise fires and building collapse.

[bofors]

So you are Mark Roberts?

[bofors]

Is Ronald Wieck here too?

[bofors]

What is the relationship of JREF with the Hardfire program?

[uruk]

No official relationship that I'm aware of. Meaning they do not speak officialy for or represent JREF in any capacity. They just happen to post here. And they just have alot of fellow posters here who agree, for the most part, with thier views.

[Gravy]

So you are Mark Roberts?I am. Hello.

Is Ronald Wieck here too?
Yes, he posts here as "pomeroo."
What is the relationship of JREF with the Hardfire program?There is none, nor do members of this forum speak for the JREF, except for administrators posting about JREF policy or the infrequent post by James Randi. Ron Wieck is an occasional host of Hardfire, which is a cable-access TV show in New York City.

[WhiteLion]

Does that not seem like a reasonable request or demand, when the future of "Democracy" is at stake?

Indeed you should be inquisitive, skeptical and doubt aspects presented mainstream'ishly if you will, however, one shouldn't make crap up or throw wild speculations around like candy (like Alex Jones does all too often).

Naturally the US Government, from a variety of intelligence sources, reports etc, recieve threats and information about possible terrorist activity and plans every day throughout the year. But... was the information concerning 9/11 enough for an interception?
Did the Government simply drop the ball on obvious enough information, or was it too inconclusive and too late? Or did they purposely turn a blind-eye to very specific information that could have caused and interception of the hijackers?
This is what I ment with it leading to wild speculation.

To establish a link between Mossad, CIA, FBI and prior knowledge of the actual hijackers and the actual plans is prone to cause such short-handed speculations, chasing after rainbows and theories that are virtually impossible to establish from any bits of known information, satisfyingly that is.
To establish such a link, we would first have to see that the Mossad, CIA and or FBI had enough information on the specific terrorists and their plans, to intercept the actual hijackers before they could have acted on their plans. We must know that they did have it, not just assume or guess.

This is exactly where the unfalsifiable pitch comes calling;"Well the Feds must have buried the evidence" or what have you. It sounds cute and it could be true but so "could" a lot of things. It is not coherent nor advisable to use such an excuse as a way of maintaining an already handicapped thesis.

If they (the US Government) didn't have enough information to intercept them (the perps), then the issue is a non-sequitor. Because, if the US Government were to close down airlines over the country or parts of it, airports due to every threat as so, me thinks that they would more or less have to be shut down for most parts of the year. I doubt there's a shortage on threats and warnings about terrorist activity, nor plans thereof.

A further comparison necessary for people eager to connect Mossad or the US Government with the "prior knowledge" issue as so, would be to find some sort of comparison between the plethora of different threats, warnings etc during the months before 9/11. Studying the nature of each and every element of threat, evaluating the necessities for investigating a particular threat more closely, evaluating the possible ways to circumvent the threat before hand through gathering up enough information to pin-point the dates, targets, suspects etc without causing too much social chaos or disturbance (shutting down airports, grounding planes and so forth due to suspicions based on too inconclusive reports or rumours is generally shunned, this is something I do know about law enforcement and intelligence work)

The main point is that, if it is to be called an "inside job" by any stretch of ones imagination, there had to have been enough incriminating information and viable leads for the US Government to do an interception on the given hijackers prior to 9/11.
If there wasn't enough leads/information leading up through the terrorist-string to these specific muslims and their specific plans prior to 9/11 then not any branch of the Government can be considered a co-conspirator as so.

[anticonspiracy911]

Gravy, I have more 9/11 debunking links from our good friends at PhysicsForums. :D

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85541v
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=79062

[Gravy]

Gravy, I have more 9/11 debunking links from our good friends at PhysicsForums. :DThanks, but those are pretty old, and I don't see anything that hasn't been covered concisely elsewhere. I didn't read all the pages, though. :)

[AlexChiu]

i wasn't sure exactly where to make this post, but i just wanted to say to gravy in particular, thank you for helping me realize how stupid it was to believe what was said in loose change. the first time i saw it i just accepted most of what they were telling me (not everything they said tricked me) i think partially because i just gave them the benefit of the doubt and also i suspect illogically because of a dislike for the bush administration.

in any event, that all changed when i saw your debate with the loose change kids on hardfire. it was like it woke me up from a nonsensical dream or something and i immediately realized how ridiculous it was for me to have agreed with what was presented in that "documentary". since then i've tried to educate myself a lot on this subject so that i can debate the conspiracy theorists and try to make them realize how wrong their views on september 11th are or at least so that i can offer a voice of reason to people who are hearing about it for the first time.

again, i just wanted to thank you personally for helping me realize the errors of my ways, and to thank you in general for all of the work you're doing.

[anticonspiracy911]

Thanks, but those are pretty old, and I don't see anything that hasn't been covered concisely elsewhere. I didn't read all the pages, though. :)

Yeah, I know they are, but it's still a good reference. They don't accept any more threads about that nonsense on that forum and for good reason.

[anticonspiracy911]

i wasn't sure exactly where to make this post, but i just wanted to say to gravy in particular, thank you for helping me realize how stupid it was to believe what was said in loose change. the first time i saw it i just accepted most of what they were telling me (not everything they said tricked me) i think partially because i just gave them the benefit of the doubt and also i suspect illogically because of a dislike for the bush administration.

in any event, that all changed when i saw your debate with the loose change kids on hardfire. it was like it woke me up from a nonsensical dream or something and i immediately realized how ridiculous it was for me to have agreed with what was presented in that "documentary". since then i've tried to educate myself a lot on this subject so that i can debate the conspiracy theorists and try to make them realize how wrong their views on september 11th are or at least so that i can offer a voice of reason to people who are hearing about it for the first time.

again, i just wanted to thank you personally for helping me realize the errors of my ways, and to thank you in general for all of the work you're doing.

We've all had our doubts and temptations in our mind before. Just think of Gravy and inspire to be him. :D

[anticonspiracy911]

Gravy,

I've got to ask you about your binder. Do you have other stuff on other subjects in it or is it just a 9/11 conspiracy binder?

[anticonspiracy911]

Gravy,

I found a very good source that discusses the nuttery of 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as science and pseudoscience in general.

9/11 Nuttery: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

(EDIT: Nevermind. I see you have this link posted already. The link to the index is a worthy link though.)

Index Page:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSCINDX.HTM

[Sherman Bay]

In page 1 of this thread are several complimentary references to "Gravy's video," the super-big one. Would anyone care to clue me in on which of the hundreds of links offered here we are talking about? I have a fast connection and I don't mind downloading anything under a Terrabyte.

[chipmunk stew]

In page 1 of this thread are several complimentary references to "Gravy's video," the super-big one. Would anyone care to clue me in on which of the hundreds of links offered here we are talking about? I have a fast connection and I don't mind downloading anything under a Terrabyte.
The video is on Google Video now, so you don't have to download it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

From the Papers, Videos and Appearances page:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme

[lisabob2]

Have you read "Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11 " by David Griscom?
Griscom with 185 peer reviewed papers is one of the worlds most respected scientist.
I was wondering why anybody would take Mark Roberts take on scientific issues over somebody like Griscom? Roberts has no qualifications that I can find. While Griscom is one of the most sourced scientist in the world. Nist's own James Quintiere says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" and Quintiere wants a new independent investigation. Doesn't that prove what Steven Jones & company have been saying all along?

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, lisabob2.

Feel free to start a thread about what's wrong with physical explanations provided by the 9/11 investigators. I recommend that you first use the forum search function, since these issues have likely been discussed before.

As for my errors, there is an active thread about them. If you have a problem with my work, please discuss it there.

lisabob2, what do I get wrong?

Oh, and for people who prefer videos, I'll have a little video available tonight that demonstates how incompetent and dishonest Steven Jones et al are.

[Gravy]

i wasn't sure exactly where to make this post, but i just wanted to say to gravy in particular, thank you for helping me realize how stupid it was to believe what was said in loose change. the first time i saw it i just accepted most of what they were telling me (not everything they said tricked me) i think partially because i just gave them the benefit of the doubt and also i suspect illogically because of a dislike for the bush administration.

in any event, that all changed when i saw your debate with the loose change kids on hardfire. it was like it woke me up from a nonsensical dream or something and i immediately realized how ridiculous it was for me to have agreed with what was presented in that "documentary". since then i've tried to educate myself a lot on this subject so that i can debate the conspiracy theorists and try to make them realize how wrong their views on september 11th are or at least so that i can offer a voice of reason to people who are hearing about it for the first time.

again, i just wanted to thank you personally for helping me realize the errors of my ways, and to thank you in general for all of the work you're doing.Sorry I missed this post last month, Alex, and thanks!

Gravy,

I've got to ask you about your binder. Do you have other stuff on other subjects in it or is it just a 9/11 conspiracy binder?It's just 9/11 stuff and recipes. I use different binders for tour guiding, mostly with old photos.

[Gravy]

Big site update complete. See here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102734

[anticonspiracy911]

Gravy,

Here's another great video to add to the video links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1yjD0N5Qo&feature=PlayList&p=829E8C12869D3338&index=0

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Here's another great video to add to the video links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1yjD0N5Qo&feature=PlayList&p=829E8C12869D3338&index=0

I appreciate his frustration, but the "Choke and die already" haranguing is a bit much for inclusion in a debunking video, IMO.

[jaydeehess]

Mark, nice site.

I have been looking for one bit of info though which I don't see here.

I have a 'truth mover' trying to tell me that cutting torches do not leave slag. He is looking at the cuts made on the still standing vertical columns made by the rescue/clean up crews and, of course, claiming thermite(ate).

Do you have an authoritative site of steel cutting and perhaps pictures of columns being cut at the WTC 'pile' illustrating that when an operator does not care if the cut is nice and smooth then a fast cut will indeed leave slag solidifying on the piece?

[Gravy]

Yar: Photos of WTC torch-cut steel, comparison to thermite cut (http://pages.google.com/edit/WTC7Lies/photosoftorch-cutsteel)

It's important to point out that not only do the cut WTC columns have all the characteristics of torch cutting, but that they have none of the characteristics of being cut by an incendiary like thermite. Truthers really need to take a trip to their local welding shop.

[Humanoid]

I'm new here *waves* - but I can't resist this subject. I started with one of the links in the original post and burrowed through everything I could find, 5 hours later I must say that is the most informative collection of 9/11 anecdotes and eye witness accounts I have ever come across. Thank you, Gravy :)

I live in Western Australia. I wasn't watching TV the night the attacks happened, and I rocked up at work and everyone was abuzz - the WTC has been attacked! The buildings have collapsed! Yeah right, is all I thought, these guys are pulling my leg... But as the day wore on, everyone was talking about it, and I managed to find some time to catch the ceaseless news reports, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing.

So many people lost their lives, I think that is what hit me the hardest was the simple waste of it all, and while I do not necessarily agree with every US foreign policy I absolutely abhor the use of terror attacks on innocent people, regardless of the situation. I think the way my mind works is after I've witnessed a tragedy - even if I'm on the other side of the globe - I try and find a way to reason it out, why did it happen, how could it have been prevented, could similar events be prevented in the future...

I got dragged into the whole conspiracy aspect for a while, I guess it gave easy answers, as they take seemingly logical arguments based on the US political interference in the middle east, trade sanctions, starving children in third world countries or whatever the emotional plea may be for the specific brand of conspiracy, then weave in these little snippets of extra stuff that I guess just gets accepted along with the convincing side of the argument.

As time has passed I began to see through these competing theories... It all came down to this for me: Why spend the time and expense rigging a building with high explosives - when you could just get a few of your minions, train them in basic flight simulators, give them some box cutters and get them to steal a jumbo jet which being full of jet fuel would basically be a thermobaric and incendiary weapon rolled into one. Why go to all those covert little secret plans that would be difficult to plan and execute if you have a simple and cheap alternative that would be just as effective? And if you did rig the explosives, why in dogs name would you crash a plane into the building?

These were questions I could not answer for myself satisfactorily.

So I saw through the conspiracy lies, but I never came across anything that presented the other side of the story as fully and as detailed as this thread.

Again, thank you for lending more weight to my new perspective that this was a simple and horrific act of terror. I feel a bit silly about my previous perspective, although I think to an extent fear was responsible for my latching onto something, anything to explain why so many people died.

I still think there is a possibility of twisted political motivations, but I'm tired of trying to untangle the web of conspiracy, counter conspiracy and counter-counter conspiracy. I just want to come home and have a beer after work and not worry about all the problems of the world anymore...

But thanks for laying it all out so clear, you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.

I hope my admissions to being a former conspiracy-considerer don't cop me too much flak. I was only going off the information available to me at the time. Yeah thats my excuse :D

[orphia nay]

Thanks for your honesty, Humanoid. Kudos on finding a rational path out of the conspiracy mire. I'm sure Gravy appreciates your gratitude, even though he no longer posts in this sub-forum.

Welcome to the JREF forum, by the way.

[Humanoid]

Thanks Orphia Nay, I guess the one advantage of having being a sucker is knowing how to spot the signs that I am being drawn in again. It was a very educational experience.

Thankfully there are the Gravy's of the world to gently nudge (or sledge) us back to the other side.

[anticonspiracy911]

Thanks for your honesty, Humanoid. Kudos on finding a rational path out of the conspiracy mire. I'm sure Gravy appreciates your gratitude, even though he no longer posts in this sub-forum.

Welcome to the JREF forum, by the way.

Why does he no longer post in this subforum?

[TjW]

As I understand it, there was a pay dispute with the NWO. Ordinarily, that couldn't happen, but it seems his pictures of NWO Kitty and that French poodle are distributed around the internet in the form of a widely dispersed computer virus. The virus is passive, but if it doesn't receive the correct encrypted token periodically, it goes active, and begins releasing the photos to all the big media, like People, and National Enquirer, and Cat Fancy.

[WhiteLion]

Why does he no longer post in this subforum?

He's spent so many years, with painstaking research, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He felt there was else in life for him to pursue as it is, besides... Gravy has pretty much rambed the tombstone down enough times for his shift to be covered infinitum.

[Blender Head]

Does Gravy know a lot of links are dead?

[SaiGirl]

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear like they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

Please see mod box posted in #193.

[SaiGirl]

Pseudo operations are those in which forces of one power disguised themselves as enemy forces and, more specifically, when the power is a state, and the other power an insurgency, then as insurgents, often with the aid of defectors, to operate as teams to infiltrate insurgent areas. [8] The aim of such pseudo-operations may either be to gather short, or long-term intelligence, to discredit the enemy, to reduce the civilian support of the enemy, or to engage in active operations, in particular assassinations of important enemies. However, they usually involve both, as the risks of exposure highly increase with time, and thus lead to violent confrontation. Pseudo-operations may be directed by police forces, military, or both. Police forces are usually best suited to intelligence tasks; however, military provide the structure needed to back up such pseudo-ops with military response forces. According to US military Lawrence Cline (2005), "the teams typically have been controlled by police services, but this largely was due to the weaknesses in the respective military intelligence systems."

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

Please remember to provide a link when copying and pasting information. Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement: You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.

[RicHard-59]

So you are Mark Roberts?

In Wikipedia: Mark_Roberts_(Debunker)

I feel the article related to him is a stub. Can someone help by expanding it?
:D

[Gravy]

In Wikipedia: Mark_Roberts_(Debunker)

I feel the article related to him is a stub. Can someone help by expanding it?
:D
Give me a few minutes. I usually expand quite a bit after eating at Happy Fresh Taco.

[Chorduroy]

Total noob here. Just wanted to thank Mark Roberts for his tireless work. I recently became fully aware of just how deep the "truthers" had become entrenched in the pile of garbage that is their theories. I have a co-worker who is entirely convinced that the buildings were imploded, the government is behind it, etc. etc. So I decided to do my own research and found Mark's contributions to be invaluable to my inevitable conclusion.

Arguing with a truther is an exercise in futility. I won't be able to convince my co-worker of the accuracy of my point of view, just as he won't be able to convince me of his. But it is settled in my own mind, and that is the most important thing.

[orphia nay]

Welcome to the forum, Chorduroy. I'm glad to see that doing your own research led you to Mark's site and to reason. As for your friend, I'm glad you have seen the futility of the debate. It must be hard enough being a twoofer, what with all the paranoia, frustration and contradictions, without having facts rubbed in your face too. :)
Hope you stick around. The forum has a lot to offer besides good 9/11 debunking.

[Chorduroy]

Welcome to the forum, Chorduroy. I'm glad to see that doing your own research led you to Mark's site and to reason. As for your friend, I'm glad you have seen the futility of the debate. It must be hard enough being a twoofer, what with all the paranoia, frustration and contradictions, without having facts rubbed in your face too. :)
Hope you stick around. The forum has a lot to offer besides good 9/11 debunking.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to digging in and sharpening my critical thinking skills in general.

[TruthersLie]

Hey Gravy.

I have a question. I have been following your work, and I greatly appreciate all of it, but some of the things you have done are missing from the net.

For example your video, World Trade center not a controlled demoliton was on google video at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**
but now it says

We're sorry, but this video may not be available.

If this video was recently uploaded, it may still be processing.
If this video is yours, you can check its status.

To see more videos visit our home page.


did you remove it? Or was it taken down for some other reason?

I have found a few more places on your wtc7lies page where there used to be information, but now they are missing/broken links.

[Gravy]

Hi, TL.

Thank you for your kind words. Google has a bot that compares uploaded videos to videos in their database, for potential copyright infringements. U.S. law "fair use provisions," which I would invoke if a lawsuit were involved, don't apply here.

I don't spend any time on this stuff in the past few years, and I recommend that you move on as well. In my opinion, giving attention to a tiny smattering of "truthers" remaining, only encourages their idiocy.

Best,
Mark


Hey Gravy.

I have a question. I have been following your work, and I greatly appreciate all of it, but some of the things you have done are missing from the net.

For example your video, World Trade center not a controlled demoliton was on google video at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**
but now it says


did you remove it? Or was it taken down for some other reason?

I have found a few more places on your wtc7lies page where there used to be information, but now they are missing/broken links.

[lisabob2]

You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.

Links for 9/11 Research
A thousand or so categorized links, and several "mini sites" that are expanded versions of longer posts I've made here.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (now online and updated)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
here are some good sites for sourced articles and some common sense:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://www.911truth.org/

Anybody who has any critical thinking skills at all can figure out that the official conspiracy theory is full of holes and not back up by the physical evidence.
Use reason as your guide, not what you wish the facts to be, but what the real facts are, and you will be wise. Don't use reason and be blind.

[twinstead]

here are some good sites for sourced articles and some common sense:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://www.911truth.org/

Anybody who has any critical thinking skills at all can figure out that the official conspiracy theory is full of holes and not back up by the physical evidence.
Use reason as your guide, not what you wish the facts to be, but what the real facts are, and you will be wise. Don't use reason and be blind.

Perhaps you could start a thread and debunk gravy's information. I'd be curious as to what he got wrong.

[R.Mackey]

Ah, a drive-by-truthing....

I guess the fastest way to show how stupid this is would be to point out that, at this moment, two of those cited references (the "Journal" of 9/11 Stundies and the "Pilots for Truth") are at present going to war (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088) with each other (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf).

Obviously at least one of them is full of crap. Which one, Truther? How can you tell?

What? You can't tell?

That's because you don't know anything. Dismissed.

[JAStewart]

I've never witnessed such an eloquent destruction. Epic.

[LibraryLady]

I have split SaiGirl's posts to a new thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5195562#post5195562).