Gravy at Ground Zero

[Trigood]

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

very good, Oliver.

 

[WildCat]

Then, when people actually protest the war itself, they get treated like this: assaulted, arrested, manhandled, hand-cuffed and held overnight in jail with no charges. (This is that guy who self-immolated in Chicago a couple weeks ago to protest the war.)

Why do you think he was assaulted, manhandled, and held overnight?
The pics and lawsuit mention no such thing. Basically, he wouldn't move off the street/sidewalk when ordered to by police (this is obviously a planned demonstration or there wouldn't be cops there in their tremendously effective new riot gear otherwise), so they arrested him for disorderly conduct, booked him and let him go on a personal recognizance bond - he didn't even have to post one cent to go free! And no chance he spent a night in jail for that.

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

 

[gumboot]

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

Wow...

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

-Gumboot

 

[WildCat]

Was he mentally ill?

-Gumboot

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

 

[Crungy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RandFan]

I'm a Gravy fan.

 

[Free Thinkr]

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

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

 

[Pardalis]

 

[LashL]

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

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

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

Anyone know anything about this guy?

 

[gumboot]

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

I personally agree with this sentiment to a degree.

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

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

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

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

-Gumboot

 

[~enigma~]

Sadly, about all his self-immolation accomplished was making me and 50,000 other people late for work due to the traffic jam he caused. The traffic reporters were reporting it as a fiery car wreck... no one knew what really happened until that Reader article. The rerst of the media it.

Would you believe that I had a truther, twoofer, woowoo, CTer (just plain nutcase) blame this guys suicide on the government!!!! I was waiting to hear him pin it on Bush

 

[Pardalis]

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

BLAME THE FREAKING TERRORISTS for crying out loud!

 

[Matthew Best]

I just watched the video.

Gravy is my hero.

 

[gumboot]

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

BLAME THE FREAKING TERRORISTS for crying out loud!

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

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

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

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

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

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

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

 

[Spins]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Oliver]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

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

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

-Gumboot

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

-Gumboot