Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

They have been having more and more people who have been saying things like, "well, I agree that not all the questions are answered but (fill in particular crap) is just not true." I think LC is being chipped away rather than being demolished. Gravy's piece is perfect, because it is a billion chips rather than a single blow.

Also, Dylan has basically said that he doesn't read the message board. He hasn't undertaken to correct even the painfully obvious stuff like the tarp/tent. So I think his me-too corps is feeling left without a captain.
 
manny said:
Maybe that's a good sign. Even some of the Loosers are all like, "well, he's got some good points..."

Looks like the new fallback position is going to be <>popol vuh's: "So a couple of young men barely out of high school... It's not the Bible, it's an amateur film... I don't pretend to know who did it, what their motives were." Which is all a tortured way of saying, "well, we know it's full of crap but it ASKS QUESTIONS!!!!!" And that from a super-mod over there.
Click to expand...
I got suspended yesterday after asking a newbie to look at the PDF:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3366&view=findpost&p=4046773
 
I've started an account over there and I'm pointing out the obvious here and there.

There are some serious loonies over there though.
 
heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it

Its too late about the contact info. Its already readily available even off my site so Ive been dealing with the harrassment for years now.

I am kind of tired of recounting the event over and over again but I will reitirate that it was indeed an American Airlines 757 that hit the pentagon and not a missle.

Steve
Click to expand...

this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!
 
Ramooone said:
heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it



this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing that Ramooone.
By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.
 
I haven't had a chance to look at the new treatise yet, but was wondering, is it indexed?

Yeah, it would be a major task, but with an index, this could be a great general and easy to use source for all matters 9/11.

Just wondering...
 
Another question I have - what is the best format? I know Gravy considered PDF, but couldn't get the hyperlinks to work in it, so stuck with DOC. I'm not crazy about DOCs because you get all the red squiggly underlines where Word tries to correct the grammar, and I'm not crazy about PDFs for computer viewing - PDFs are good for documents that you plan to print.

Would a conversion to HTML be better? I tend to think it would, and it would make hyperlinks very straightforward.
 
CurtC said:
Another question I have - what is the best format? I know Gravy considered PDF, but couldn't get the hyperlinks to work in it, so stuck with DOC. I'm not crazy about DOCs because you get all the red squiggly underlines where Word tries to correct the grammar, and I'm not crazy about PDFs for computer viewing - PDFs are good for documents that you plan to print.

Would a conversion to HTML be better? I tend to think it would, and it would make hyperlinks very straightforward.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Also Word should do the HTML conversion w/o issue.
 
Gravy said:
By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gravy. I'm sharing it on Emule as well.
 
pgwenthold said:
I haven't had a chance to look at the new treatise yet, but was wondering, is it indexed?

Yeah, it would be a major task, but with an index, this could be a great general and easy to use source for all matters 9/11.

Just wondering...
Click to expand...

Yes, it's indexed.
 
Ha! In this thread chucksheen claims your paper has been debunked already... :roll:

He must have forgot to include the link! :D
 
Gravy-

Just getting through your excellent work, and I must say: you've got WAY too much time on your hands, and we're all better off for it! It's efforts like yours (and many others on this forum) that make this such an enlightening place to hang out. Thanks.
 
jond said:
Gravy-

Just getting through your excellent work, and I must say: you've got WAY too much time on your hands, and we're all better off for it! It's efforts like yours (and many others on this forum) that make this such an enlightening place to hang out. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jond, but blame delphi, Randfan and Chipmunk Stew for all of this. In fact, here's what I wrote in one of my first posts on the subject, a month ago
The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.
Click to expand...
Oops. Guess I failed at that!
 
Gravy said:
The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.
Click to expand...
It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Good idea. Also Word should do the HTML conversion w/o issue.
Click to expand...
Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.

If you do use Word to convert the document to HTML, please find someone who can run the result through HTMLtidy to clean it up. (I could do it; I have a copy on my computer here at home.)
 
Regnad Kcin said:
It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.
Click to expand...

9/11 theories blow me away. They are immensly illogical. I cant even fathom how some of them came to be. My mind cant break reality that much. Even UFO's have more credence.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.
Click to expand...
I'm in the process of doing a decent HTML version right now. I saved the DOC file as HTML, which as you know produces horrible results, then used a regular-expression text editor to strip out all of Word's verbose formatting, except for the hyperlinks and image tags, which I've kept. Now I'm going through and tagging Gravy's notes and his third-party quotes with separate tags, using CSS.

You can get a preview of the work in progress: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom