He found it over at the LC forum.
I was answering someone who thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'
I see. So, now you're also a self proclaimed expert in firefighting, too? Ask a firefighter whether WTC7 was fully involved - I have.
Ever notice how Gravy avoids answering the question posed in this thread by talking to and about me.
I've certainly noticed how you avoid answering posts directed specifically to you in this thread - as evidenced by the fact that I had to put the same query to you several times already and you still haven't responded to it properly, as set out above.
I've noticed that Gravy doesn't necessarily respond to the same, old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts such as yours, and I don't blame him for that. One can only answer the same old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts so many times before one starts to simply ignore them.
Ignore the facts you cannot dispute and talk about the messenger.
I agree that you have ignored the facts that you cannot dispute and that you instead talk about the messenger. You really should try harder to address the facts and you really should try harder to address the questions posed to you about the non-facts that you posit. You should also learn some critical and logical thinking skills, as you will find them most helpful in future.
Gravy does a darned fine job of calling you and other twoofers on their BS, doesn't he? I quite agree.
He even implied that Craig Bartmer was a liar.
Did he?
I'm not sure that he did. And whether he did or not, personally, I do not find Mr. Bartmer's account to be internally or externally consistent and I do not find it to be particularly credible as a result.
Craig was a 9/11 hero until he said "I know an explosion when i hear one"
I don't know that "Craig was a 9/11 hero" as you put it, either before or after his comments, but if he was, he still is. That is irrelevant to the fact that "knowing an explosion when you hear one" hardly supports the conspiracy fantasist view of controlled demolitions, bombs, etc. I do not understand why you think that someone saying there was an "explosion" in a burning building is surprising or unusual, and I certainly do not understand why you think an explosion in a burning building means controlled demolition or pre-planted explosives. It does not.
Edit to add: And when, oh when, are you ever going to get around to addressing my repeated query about the opportunity to observe of those witnesses whose statements you've unilaterally declared to be inconsistent without ever addressing any of the elements required to make that assessment?
