• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Gravysites: Where 9/11 Conspiracies are Laid to Rest

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:



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.
 
Incredible work as always, Gravy. Thanks!

The NWO has approved an increase to your monthly beer rations. Use those 1.7 pints wisely.
 
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.
 
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, 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
Thanks Aggs, and welcome to the forums. You should be able to post links, BTW. I think it's after 15 posts.
 
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.
 
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,

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!
 
Last edited:
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. :)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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=
 
What on Earth?

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)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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!
 
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).
 
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
 
Fabulous

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

It's a reduced quality of the original 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
 
You can just bookmark the Links page. The two other sites are linked from there.
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
 
The Gravy Train never disappoints. Superb work, I'd send you a big box of homemade cookies if I could.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Passing the Gravy

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.
 
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
 

Back
Top Bottom