Gravy Cleanses Silverstein Quote

TruthSeeker1234 said:
This is no minor point, for the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.
Click to expand...
I'll grant that you're correct about the word being left out of the quote.

But I have to say, I'm a native English speaker, and those two sentences mean exactly the same thing to me whether it has "then" there or not. Is there anyone who would disagree?
 
Truthseeker, why would Silverstein admit he was involved in the WTC7 controlled demolition? Why would he say that on camera?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Reading on, I see Gravy gets tremendous mileage out of his deceptive misquote, even going so far as to hand the misquote to a truth activist and have him read it.

Gravy, perhaps next time you can get the quote right, then have people read it. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I can only assume the word "then" means something totally different to you than it does to me...

This is all you got, huh?

Ready to stop being such an Internet Tough GuyTM, and learn something?
 
TruthSeeker, if your only complaint is that he left out a word, does this mean you agree with the rest of the paper?
 
Even if Silverstein was on tape saying, "And then we blew up the building with explosives," the next step would merely be to figure out if he was joking and if not, was he delusional or confused.

Because CD is physically impossible in this case. No time to plant the explosives, impossible to cover it up. So trying to pry around a quote to find words that edge it one milimeter toward him mentioning CD doesn't get you within a million miles of actual evidence.
 
Because CD is physically impossible in this case
Click to expand...

Orwellian. Here we have otherwise intelligent people who think that buildings crushing themselves into fine powder and shredded steel under their own weight is physically possible, yet controlled demolition is not physically possible in this case.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Orwellian. Here we have otherwise intelligent people who think that buildings crushing themselves into fine powder and shredded steel under their own weight is physically possible, yet controlled demolition is not physically possible in this case.
Click to expand...
Wow. The only way there could be anything else incorrect in the above... Well, actually there isn't; the glass is full to the brim.
 
Who amongst us have claimed the buildings were crushed into fine powder?

In fact, I have seen several posts where the posters have made a point of saying that much of the bulding did not turn into dust. Some of it did, but much of it didn't. Why do you ignore these facts?

And based on the complete lack of physical evidence for demolition with bombs, why shouldn't anyone conclude that hey, without any evidence, it's not possible?
 
Lisa Simpson said:
They mean the same thing to me. I don't get what the difference is supposed to be.(between Silverstein's quote without the word "then" vs with the word "then"
Click to expand...

The difference is: Absent the word "then", we could see the decision to "pull it" as seperate from "we watched the building collapse". One happened after the other, but no causal connection. With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.

Let me turn this around. We all now agree that the word "then" is what the man said. If it is so insignificant, why not just get the quote right? Shouldn't Gravy get the quote right? Here he was, making a bid deal out of the fact that Truth Activists couldn't recite the quote correctly, then he botches the quote himself on tape, then when he publishes his paper, even after pointing out that he botched the quote on tape, he still doesn't get it right.

Let's just get it right. That's my point.
 
"That's... one small step for man... then one giant leap for mankind."

TruthSeeker1234, you have abhorred precision in every single statement you've made since you got here. Starting with your first post, where you claimed 50% or more of the WTC towers was reduced to 100 microns or smaller.

And never backed it up.

Your fixation on Gravy here is even more hilarious than your usual antics.

By the way, how's the debate planning going? Decided to follow through on your promises yet?
 
Last edited:
Hawk one said:
Who amongst us have claimed the buildings were crushed into fine powder?

In fact, I have seen several posts where the posters have made a point of saying that much of the bulding did not turn into dust. Some of it did, but much of it didn't. Why do you ignore these facts?
Click to expand...

What facts am I ignoring? Please show me any picture with any significant part of the 200,000 tons of concrete in it. Thus far I have seen evidence for about 1 ton. What happened to the other 199,999 tons of steel-reinforced concrete? Where is the carpet? Where are the desks? The computers? The human beings?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The difference is: Absent the word "then", we could see the decision to "pull it" as seperate from "we watched the building collapse". One happened after the other, but no causal connection. With the word "then" included, the two halves of the statement become portrayed in a cause-and-effect relationship, as in an "if...then" logical construction.
Click to expand...

No, we can't. not when you have a grasp of the english language, and you understand the context in which the story is told. There is no two halves, there is a timeline, and causality is not implied.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let me turn this around. We all now agree that the word "then" is what the man said. If it is so insignificant, why not just get the quote right? Shouldn't Gravy get the quote right? Here he was, making a bid deal out of the fact that Truth Activists couldn't recite the quote correctly, then he botches the quote himself on tape, then when he publishes his paper, even after pointing out that he botched the quote on tape, he still doesn't get it right.
Click to expand...

I am sure Gravy will happily correct the paper. It is insignificant and the only person making a big deal out of it is you. but to answer "why not just get the quote right?" I will point out that you used the word "bid" instead of "big" in the above quote. Do you understand what I mean?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let's just get it right. That's my point.
Click to expand...


I have yet to see you get anything right. How's that debate thread going, coward?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let's just get it right. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Someone makes a minor mistake that doesn't make a difference, because the meaning actually stays the same for those of us living in a fairly sane world. And the meaning is not one of causality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Whereas the "troofers" are already infamous for hideously misquoting people and also mis-interpret what they say. Without any real evidence that, say Silverstein is in on a plot, of course. How about you go over to the LC forum and make sure to correct all the quote-mining that's happened there?

I do enjoy getting things right, but the way I do it, is that I make it a priority to get facts right first and foremost. Granted, if I want to quote someone, I also want to quote him or her correctly, but it's not a big deal as long as the meaning isn't actually changed (which several people have pointed out is what is the case here). Especially not if there are far more important things to get right first. Such as admitting that the WTC towers didn't all crumble into fine dust. Are you getting that one right yet?
 
By the way, how's the debate planning going? Decided to follow through on your promises yet?
Click to expand...

Triterope has accepted the challenge, and has requested time to craft his case. Chimpmuck Stew posted a thread which included a rather pathetic attempt to make a case. His effort does not qualify, because I already accepted triterope, and because his effort did not contain any evidence or reasoning. I replied to CS thread anyway, as a show of good faith.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Triterope has accepted the challenge, and has requested time to craft his case. Chimpmuck Stew posted a thread which included a rather pathetic attempt to make a case. His effort does not qualify, because I already accepted triterope, and because his effort did not contain any evidence or reasoning. I replied to CS thread anyway, as a show of good faith.
Click to expand...

No comment on my pointing out your egregious error of language? You misquoted YOURSELF man! How are we to believe anything you say? Why not just get the post right from the beginning? You used the wrong word! Why didn't you use the right one?


Oh wait, we could all tell the meaning through the mistake. Right.


Tool.
 
Hawk one said:
the WTC towers didn't all crumble into fine dust. Are you getting that one right yet?
Click to expand...

No, the WTC towers didn't crumble into fine dust. They exploded into fine dust, along with shredded steel. If you wish to dispute this, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, please, present some evidence. Where is the concrete? I'm waiting.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Last i checked, I had completely demolished CS naked assertions with evidence, reasoning, and calculations.
Click to expand...

Whatever you're smoking, please do share.'

once again:

No comment on my pointing out your egregious error of language? You misquoted YOURSELF man! How are we to believe anything you say? Why not just get the post right from the beginning? You used the wrong word! Why didn't you use the right one?


Oh wait, we could all tell the meaning through the mistake. Right.


Tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom