Gravy Cleanses Silverstein Quote

stateofgrace said:
I can't bare it, everybody seems to be laughing at you TS, you are off my ignore list. I have to see for myself your posts. Surely nobody is this silly.

Oh wait...... I see you are.
Click to expand...

hahaha I admit, I have done this for the people I ignore hahaha
 
JamesB said:
So did you come up with anything to show that "pull it" is an industry term for blowing stuff up yet?
Click to expand...

This afternoon I sat in on a presentation of a 7 story residental building development my company is doing as a design build. Throughout the presentation large watercolor rendering of the project was proped up on the rail below the white markerboard. When the presentation got to a point, where they needed to refer to another display, the CEO loudly barked, "Pull it!" to the presenter. The posterboard displaying the 7 story (WTC7?) immediately fell to the ground. Could this example be used as evidence that the term "Pull it" was used to bring down a building?

Btw, I was the only one in the room that laughed when the order to "Pull it!" was given.
 
I love the "move the goal posts" tactic the TWOOFERS use. They ask for concrete chunks, we show them chunks. Then do they relent, do they admit they were wrong...Nooooooo. Now he simply says there arent enough "chunks".

What is next?

TAM
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.
Click to expand...

OMG!

8790452ce917de76c.jpg


What you see in the above photo is a mountain of rubble. The mountain is 14 stories high (of which 7 stories were below ground) and covered 14 acres.

http://www.bell-labs.com/tech/wireless/wert/Final_Report.pdf

These photos are actually only showing the tip of the iceberg. I think it is very fair to assume that there are considerable amounts of "macroscopic concrete" below surface of that rubble mountain.
 
smother said:
OMG!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790452ce917de76c.jpg[/qimg]

What you see in the above photo is a mountain of rubble. The mountain is 14 stories high (of which 7 stories were below ground) and covered 14 acres.

http://www.bell-labs.com/tech/wireless/wert/Final_Report.pdf
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, that picture does show that the rubble was mostly made up of guys with hard hats.


Although I do admit, it's a mystery how they stacked them so high.....
 
TK0001 said:
Alright, this freaked NO ONE else out?

What am I, some kinda sissy over here?
Click to expand...

For the sake of our own sanity, let's just call that the face on Mars and assume it is a trick our pattern-recognizing brains have decided to play with an innocuous piece of concrete.
 
Loss Leader said:
For the sake of our own sanity, let's just call that the face on Mars and assume it is a trick our pattern-recognizing brains have decided to play with an innocuous piece of concrete.
Click to expand...
I was just going to call TK a sissy but you spoiled that for me...thanks LL :)
 
First Gravy's "cleansing" quotes of pesky adverbs. What's next? "Disappearing" past participles?

This new revelation has not only shaken my trust in Gravy but has convinced me that indeed, 9/11 was an inside job.

I have no choice now but to keep my bum firmly planted in front of my computer for the next decade typing "Gravy left out 'then'", over and over and over on forums dedicated to exposing the truth about that day and to expose the fraud that, thanks to TS1234, I now know Gravy to be.

..... It's a sad day in Mudville. :(
 
In what way does the lack of the word "then" confuse anybody? The building could not have collapsed BEFORE they made the decision to pull, no matter how you look at it. If you claim that the decision to pull was a decision to demolish the building, then obviously the building can't collapse before they even decide to demolish it, lol. If you claim that the decision to pull was a decision to evacuate the building, then that's a very safe assumption, seeing as how nobody died when WTC 7 collapsed.

So what is misleading about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom