Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

[Pardalis]

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.)

Exactly. If our democracy was so much in jeopardy, as they are saying, wouldn't they be out on the streets manifesting, everyday? Wouldn't they be demanding directly to their representatives for answers, instead of through the internet?

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

Exactly (again). That's why if Avery thinks he can get LC3 to the mainstream distribution, he's up for a world of hurt. I guess he's going to learn about life the hard way...

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome.

Then let me add my appreciation to the others. Nicely done.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits

You know how, when people talk about pollution, we often hear that nature will eventually regain control? Well, this time it's reality fighting back. When too much woo and nonsense is generated, you eventually get an equal and opposite reaction. Reality always gets the last word (let's hope).

What you did is exactly what the truthseekers should be doing if only they trully believed anything they are saying. Wich is to take action, directly forward their questions and worries to the ones concerned, and to the proper authorities. You were trully sickened by the awful and gratuitous libel that was directed at the Naudet brothers (as all of us), and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it. This is a great example of integrity.

And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it? That's because, as Shrinker said, they know they are wrong, and they are just fondling with the idea (no matter how dangerous the idea is), and they have NO integrity.

Once again, nicely done.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it?

Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...

 

[Pardalis]

and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it.

It should have read "and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and did something about it."

Sorry for my english.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thankyou very much, Gravy. And thankyou, Pardalis - your post brought a tear to my eye. I've been having a bad day, but both posts made me smile. I then visited the Looser Forum, and I find I can claim a small victory.

I've been following the 2 recents LC threads "Naudet brothers sue Dylan" and "Questions about the Naudet brothers" (in the "Investigate 9/11" section). In the first thread I'd posted the names of Loosers who'd said elsewhere that they'd sent emails (that may have been threatening) to the Naudets' lawyers. I'd also listed the names of people who'd expressed beliefs that the Naudets were complicit in the 'cover-up' and asked them whether Dylan had 'capitulated to conspirators'. This prompted DJLegacy2k1 to post a statement in the "Questions about the Naudet brothers" thread saying (I have to paraphrase) "we have not taken a stance". He had started the thread, posting links to the Raphael article. I quoted his statement, then quoted one of his posts made half-way through the thread where he said ~"Don't worry guys, the Naudets' reputation will be finished after this [legal action]", then I wrote: "This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

So, links to the Raphael article have been removed from the web, as have 3 pages of speculation and malicious allegations. OK, so my victory over DJLegacy2k1 is also gone, but that's no skin off my penguins' beaks.

 

[Gravy]

"This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

Oh, I like the cut of your jib, Orphia. And the snap of your jab! I'm constantly amazed that the Loosers can make it through a day without "Darwin Awarding" themselves out of existence. Where else can you find a whole group of people who need to be reminded not to send threatening letters to lawyers? I feel like I'm watching a race of beings who have inhabited human brains but haven't found the owner's manual.

 

[Ducky]

Thankyou very much, Gravy. And thankyou, Pardalis - your post brought a tear to my eye. I've been having a bad day, but both posts made me smile. I then visited the Looser Forum, and I find I can claim a small victory.

I've been following the 2 recents LC threads "Naudet brothers sue Dylan" and "Questions about the Naudet brothers" (in the "Investigate 9/11" section). In the first thread I'd posted the names of Loosers who'd said elsewhere that they'd sent emails (that may have been threatening) to the Naudets' lawyers. I'd also listed the names of people who'd expressed beliefs that the Naudets were complicit in the 'cover-up' and asked them whether Dylan had 'capitulated to conspirators'. This prompted DJLegacy2k1 to post a statement in the "Questions about the Naudet brothers" thread saying (I have to paraphrase) "we have not taken a stance". He had started the thread, posting links to the Raphael article. I quoted his statement, then quoted one of his posts made half-way through the thread where he said ~"Don't worry guys, the Naudets' reputation will be finished after this [legal action]", then I wrote: "This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

So, links to the Raphael article have been removed from the web, as have 3 pages of speculation and malicious allegations. OK, so my victory over DJLegacy2k1 is also gone, but that's no skin off my penguins' beaks.

Two words:

Google cache.

Someone should archive those threads from it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Two words:

Google cache.

Someone should archive those threads from it.

Thanks, fowlsound. I tried that, and managed to find page 1 of the thread ("Questions about the Naudet brothers") which I've saved.

I might try some web archives next.

Cheers.

 

[les raphael]

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
You've written to the Naudet lawyers, have you ? I beat you to it - I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ? I haven't heard back ; have you ? As for getting in touch with the Naudets themselves, I have been writing to them and others involved in the making of their film - as well as MPs, journalists, film-makers, MI5, CIA, FBI, DoD, Bloomberg, Pfeifer, Hanlon, etc etc - for nearly four years now. If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay - but you seem to have some kind of problem articulating your criticisms of it, apart from the personal abuse. I have what's known as the courage of my convictions - I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets. The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed. What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ? The justification is in the essay, if you're remotely interested in reading it - and I'd advise having a copy of the DVD to hand, to see that everything I say about it is accurate. Your claim, incidentally, that the film has raised "millions of pounds" for victims' families - what's your source for that ? How much, precisely ? My understanding was that they gave the entire proceeds, bar personal expenses, to the UFA Scholarship Fund - period - but I've never seen a figure quoted. I like to get my facts right, and I'd advise you to do the same, if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one. What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ? The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise. If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right. How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Gravy]

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?

No special kind. Just a regular idiot.

 

[The_Fire]

To Raphael in regards of copyright:

There is a difference between "fair use" (your two stills) and "blatant violation of copyright" (the loosers vid).
You may want to research it.
The rest is just....idiotic.

 

[Gravy]

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

...it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

Fair enough. Let's give your masterpiece of reasoning another perusal:

How probable is it that not only did Naudet (or whoever) capture Flight 11 - as if that were not enough on its own - but that he and his brother Gédéon then went on to record the rest of that day's events ? Who else could be almost simultaneously inside the towers, out on the streets and back at Duane Street firehouse, eight blocks away, than a pair of miracle workers like these ? They even managed - by "pure accident" - to record the totally unexpected collapse of No. 7 World Trade Center, seven hours after No. 1 fell.

1 The photographer is outside, not - like most people in Manhattan at any given time - in a building (like the firehouse he was in 15 minutes before) or a vehicle (like the car he was in 5 minutes before), where filming a plane would be far more difficult.

Okay, that's plenty. I retract my previous email. Les, I'm sorry to tell you that your idiocy is at an advanced stage, and we may not have caught it in time. PM me and I'll refer you to a hospidiotce that gives great palliative care.

Seriously, Les, get some help. Medication, education, recreation: whatever helps you to think more clearly. Please.

eta: By the way, the collapse of WTC 7 had been expected for hours. You accuse others of not doing their research, but you haven't done your own.

 

[MarkyX]

Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...

No it isn't

Learn to get rejected buddy!

 

[Orphia Nay]

"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.

Les,
You must have some problem recognising personal abuse. It is rampant in your post, whereas there is none in my email. I said your article was possibly libellous, which is not a criticism of you personally. Can you see the difference?

Here some examples of personal abuse:

...they must be blind and deaf. So must you...

if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one

a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday

If I state what I believe, I'd be here until I die. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. Actually, no, I'm not sorry.

It would be more expedient to state what I do not believe. I do not believe you have provided proof to back up your allegations that the Naudet brothers are liars and frauds. Questions are not evidence (as Regnad Kcin has succinctly put it in this forum).

Thankyou, The Fire, for your apt words.

 

[chipmunk stew]

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
....
I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ?
....
If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay
....
That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why.

For the "and others" out there who, like me, have been blind and deaf this whole time and have no idea who this guy is or what this essay is:
http://911foreknowledge.batcave.net/

 

[Apollyon]

Thankyou very much, Gravy. And thankyou, Pardalis - your post brought a tear to my eye. I've been having a bad day, but both posts made me smile. I then visited the Looser Forum, and I find I can claim a small victory.

I've been following the 2 recents LC threads "Naudet brothers sue Dylan" and "Questions about the Naudet brothers" (in the "Investigate 9/11" section). In the first thread I'd posted the names of Loosers who'd said elsewhere that they'd sent emails (that may have been threatening) to the Naudets' lawyers. I'd also listed the names of people who'd expressed beliefs that the Naudets were complicit in the 'cover-up' and asked them whether Dylan had 'capitulated to conspirators'. This prompted DJLegacy2k1 to post a statement in the "Questions about the Naudet brothers" thread saying (I have to paraphrase) "we have not taken a stance". He had started the thread, posting links to the Raphael article. I quoted his statement, then quoted one of his posts made half-way through the thread where he said ~"Don't worry guys, the Naudets' reputation will be finished after this [legal action]", then I wrote: "This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

So, links to the Raphael article have been removed from the web, as have 3 pages of speculation and malicious allegations. OK, so my victory over DJLegacy2k1 is also gone, but that's no skin off my penguins' beaks.

Hmmm. In the land of CT-dom, wouldn't an action such as completely removing statements from public viewing regarding legal matters be classified as a "cover up?"

Or do their own rules not apply to them?

 

[WildCat]

I haven't heard back

Maybe because you're obviously a loon?

I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets.

I don't doubt that at all.

The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed.

Unfortunately your deductions were 100% wrong.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?

:

What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ?

"Gospel" truth? No. Most likely scenario offered by far? Absolutely!

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ?

Short answer, yes.

I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ?

Skepticism must be accompanied by critical thinking skills, otherwise, well just look at your essay.

If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right.

And this may well be the heart of your problem - Bush Derangement Syndrom. If Bush says it's true, it must be false.

How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

We've all spelled out why in this and several other lengthy threads. Perhaps you should read some of them.

 

[WildCat]

To Les Raphael:

Have you actually done any research on the film yourself? And by this I don't mean surfing conspiracy web sites. Have you gone to NYC and talked to any of the firemen involved in the Naudet documentary? Have you obtained any of the 911 calls about the gas leak (obtainable by a FOIA request if you encounter problems)? Did you contact anyone in the FDNY about normal procedures when investigating gas leaks (maybe the street is blocked off, especially since people are entering manholes in the middle of said streets)?

This would be the least you could have done before you go off accusing the Naudet Bros. as well as the FDNY and 911 call center operators and managers of complicity in the deaths of nearly 3000 people.

 

[delphi_ote]

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise.

We believe things based on evidence. So far, your side of this argument has produced nothing even close. We're not interested in things that make us "question the official version." We're not interested in vague hints. If you're going to make these wild accusations, you need to show some evidence.

When I say "evidence," I'm not talking about five frames of a video that look weird to you. I'm not talking about quote mining from official's speeches and local news reports. I'm not talking about interviewing people who believe what you say. I'm not talking about pages and pages of raving insinuation.

Even the weak evidence that I've seen presented from your side of the argument has proven to be false over and over again. In fact, there is now an instance we suspect is an outright forgery.

How dare you come over here and claim we'll believe everything we hear when you've bought all of this nonsense hook line and sinker?

 

[kookbreaker]

To Les Raphael:

Have you actually done any research on the film yourself? And by this I don't mean surfing conspiracy web sites. Have you gone to NYC and talked to any of the firemen involved in the Naudet documentary? Have you obtained any of the 911 calls about the gas leak (obtainable by a FOIA request if you encounter problems)? Did you contact anyone in the FDNY about normal procedures when investigating gas leaks (maybe the street is blocked off, especially since people are entering manholes in the middle of said streets)?

This would be the least you could have done before you go off accusing the Naudet Bros. as well as the FDNY and 911 call center operators and managers of complicity in the deaths of nearly 3000 people.

Sounds like work! He might find out that his accusations of mass murder have no basis and then what would he be? Can't you feel for the little lazy scumbag?