chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Nice! Are you planning on making the index navigable?
Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux
- Thread starter Gravy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gravy loose change
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
For whatever it's worth, the aircraft which the FAA remote-controlled in a fuel experiment was a 727, not a 720. I can't see the document from work, but it's pretty early in.
Also, I might put together a bit on options trading with an eye toward making that section easier to understand.
Also, I might put together a bit on options trading with an eye toward making that section easier to understand.
CurtC
Illuminator
Yes, I think that would be a requirement. As I'm making edits, I'm preserving the index info in the text as anchors, and will have to link them later.
I'm not sure whether the voice in LC says "720" or that's just in the transcript that Gravy copied, but the plane is an old 707.Manny said:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
727's do not have engines on the wings....
and to make more of a point, the remote pilot was Fitz Fulton, one of the best pilots I have ever known, with many thousands of hours experience in all kinds of aircraft, including the Blackbird.
He missed the landing by quite a bit. Remote piloting is not as easy as one would think
Anders W. Bonde
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 445
The B720 was a medium range version of the B707 with a slightly different wing and a slightly shorter fuselage - so if it looks like a B707 off-hand (4 wing-mounted engines), then it could very well be a B720. BTW, I'm sure that test sequence is out there on the Web somewhere...
Great work, CurtC, and of course, Gravy! The HTML version comes just at the right time - I was wanting to link to either the pdf or the doc (in another forum) but wasn't sure which one, but this is better because the links and pics both work. Many thanks.
contra
Scholar
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 104
Its pretty awesome 
Its not a blow by blow counter, its sentence by sentence...
I bet they will still try to say it is fact in places. Saying you have wrong info, or it is misinformation... you know.. the usual
If you don't mind i'll post it in a few places, whenever someone brings up LC.
Its not a blow by blow counter, its sentence by sentence...
I bet they will still try to say it is fact in places. Saying you have wrong info, or it is misinformation... you know.. the usual
If you don't mind i'll post it in a few places, whenever someone brings up LC.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Thanks. Yes, please spread it around. The Loosers are working on a new "Final Cut" version, which I assume will be out before 9/11. Dylan Avery says he wants it to be "100% accurate," which I guess means he'll only use the opening and closing credits from the current version.Its pretty awesome
Its not a blow by blow counter, its sentence by sentence...
I bet they will still try to say it is fact in places. Saying you have wrong info, or it is misinformation... you know.. the usual
If you don't mind i'll post it in a few places, whenever someone brings up LC.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
If someone wants to do a counter video, I'm available for voice over work.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Gravy, pretty good work so far.
I suggest checking the claim that a Richard Wagner of Convar actually made the claims he made, by dropping that company's press officer an email. Ask whether they helped recover data from harddisks found at Ground Zero, NY after 9/11, whether a Richard Wagner actually works there and if so he said the things he supposedly said.
I'm not saying that no German today could possibly have the name "Richard Wagner" but I do find it funny that the guy has the name of a world famous composer and that this name only appears in relation to data recovery on 9/11 conspiracy sites but not on the website of the company he supposedly works for. Sounds to me like some joker at Unknown News used a famous name to pull an obvious prank.
I suggest checking the claim that a Richard Wagner of Convar actually made the claims he made, by dropping that company's press officer an email. Ask whether they helped recover data from harddisks found at Ground Zero, NY after 9/11, whether a Richard Wagner actually works there and if so he said the things he supposedly said.
I'm not saying that no German today could possibly have the name "Richard Wagner" but I do find it funny that the guy has the name of a world famous composer and that this name only appears in relation to data recovery on 9/11 conspiracy sites but not on the website of the company he supposedly works for. Sounds to me like some joker at Unknown News used a famous name to pull an obvious prank.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Kilometres per hour: km/h
Minor nit in an otherwise superb document: In Canada (don't know about the rest of the world) the abbreviation for kilometres per hour is km/h, not kph.
"k" is simply "kilo" and leaving out the "/" implies multiplication, not division. So kph would logically expand to "1000 units of <any word that beings with p> multiplied by one hour" ... such as "thousands of page-hours" (=10 people reading 100 pages each over 60 munites) or "thousands of phosphorus-hours" (=1 kilogram of phosphorus consumed in one hour, or 250 g/hr consumed over 4 hours, assuming you're measuring your consumption in grams.)
Minor nit in an otherwise superb document: In Canada (don't know about the rest of the world) the abbreviation for kilometres per hour is km/h, not kph.
"k" is simply "kilo" and leaving out the "/" implies multiplication, not division. So kph would logically expand to "1000 units of <any word that beings with p> multiplied by one hour" ... such as "thousands of page-hours" (=10 people reading 100 pages each over 60 munites) or "thousands of phosphorus-hours" (=1 kilogram of phosphorus consumed in one hour, or 250 g/hr consumed over 4 hours, assuming you're measuring your consumption in grams.)
CurtC
Illuminator
I have finished the conversion of Gravy's paper to HTML. It's at http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 .
I just added the hyperlinked index at the front. Now I guess it's time to make updates.
I just added the hyperlinked index at the front. Now I guess it's time to make updates.
OK, hold on to your hats...
As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for:
"gravy" AND "loose change"
produces 'about 25,200 results'.
About 6 hours ago the same search produced 'about 24,500 results'.
This thing has got legs like a millipede!
Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...
As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for:
"gravy" AND "loose change"
produces 'about 25,200 results'.
About 6 hours ago the same search produced 'about 24,500 results'.
This thing has got legs like a millipede!
Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...
Hey all, new to your forum.
The other night, I spent a couple hours (that I'll never get back) going through many of the pages of the previous thread on 9/11 CTs. It just amazes me how so-called critical thinkers like Alek (what a piece of work) can similtaniously believe contradicting theories without thier heads exploding.
You all showed extreme patience with guy who clearly didn't deserve it, and you should be commended.
I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.
The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.
Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:
1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.
a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?
b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.
2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.
anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work.
The other night, I spent a couple hours (that I'll never get back) going through many of the pages of the previous thread on 9/11 CTs. It just amazes me how so-called critical thinkers like Alek (what a piece of work) can similtaniously believe contradicting theories without thier heads exploding.
You all showed extreme patience with guy who clearly didn't deserve it, and you should be commended.
I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.
The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.
Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:
1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.
a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?
b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.
2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.
anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work.
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,108
9/11 nuttiness
The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature.
Even guys who did the Holocaust talked about it...yes, they rationalized, evaded, sometimes lied...but in the end, they did not resile from the proven narrative...the Nazis massacred millions of people in a systematic manner. Ohlendorf, Hoess, Eichmann, all spouted their stories, and they match the evidence and the other narratives. Just like 9/11 in that regard.
Of course, deniers and CT theorists just say all the books are fakes, created at the same place. But nobody has been able to present the alternative narrative by which the fakery was done. Nobody has been able to produce an actual conspirator to admit, "Yup, I'm the guy who faked the Holocaust records," or "Yes, I'm the fella who wired the World Trade Center with C4 to blow it up."
Why not? Because they don't exist.
The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature.
Even guys who did the Holocaust talked about it...yes, they rationalized, evaded, sometimes lied...but in the end, they did not resile from the proven narrative...the Nazis massacred millions of people in a systematic manner. Ohlendorf, Hoess, Eichmann, all spouted their stories, and they match the evidence and the other narratives. Just like 9/11 in that regard.
Of course, deniers and CT theorists just say all the books are fakes, created at the same place. But nobody has been able to present the alternative narrative by which the fakery was done. Nobody has been able to produce an actual conspirator to admit, "Yup, I'm the guy who faked the Holocaust records," or "Yes, I'm the fella who wired the World Trade Center with C4 to blow it up."
Why not? Because they don't exist.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Right.Kiwiwriter said:
Plus, as I've opined before, if such a massive inside job were conceived and executed in the service of the globalists' critical goals...
1) Where was a follow-up "attack" or "attacks," necessary to ensure the continued support of the American public for the present administration?
2) Would it not be, by comparison, the easiest thing in the world to plant WMD in Iraq, post-invasion?
Holocaust Deniers bother me much, much more. They have a vested interest in perpetuating fascism, racism, genocide. It's not just a Conspiracy Theory, it's "denial" in the deepest sense of the word.
The Loosers are just a bunch of paranoiacs who need help.
Loosers: Thousands of people at the highest levels of fifteen governments. Explosives lying in wait for over three decades. Holograms and anti-gravity devices. Planes from secret bases. The prize, hundreds of billions in gold, wars in foreign lands, the Patriot Act, world domination. I mean, it was the perfect plan...
... and you would have gotten away with it too, except three punk kids just happened to overhear Rumsfeld mumble the wrong word at a press conference!! I mean, you can't explain that, now can you? I mean, it all just unraveled, like ripples across a pond.
Make-Believe Cabal: I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
The Loosers are just a bunch of paranoiacs who need help.
Loosers: Thousands of people at the highest levels of fifteen governments. Explosives lying in wait for over three decades. Holograms and anti-gravity devices. Planes from secret bases. The prize, hundreds of billions in gold, wars in foreign lands, the Patriot Act, world domination. I mean, it was the perfect plan...
... and you would have gotten away with it too, except three punk kids just happened to overhear Rumsfeld mumble the wrong word at a press conference!! I mean, you can't explain that, now can you? I mean, it all just unraveled, like ripples across a pond.
Make-Believe Cabal: I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!