Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

: I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. .


Libel is a a tough one to prove; since you have to demonstrate damages.

Not responding is hardly conclusive - what could they gain? You can sue O.J. Simpson for $40.mil, but if he hasn't got $40.mil, you don't get it.

The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them
 
Raphael:
What did you expect? A pat on the back? Some sort of recognition? From the lawyers point of view you are simply not worth it. And from mine you aren't either.
But your martyr complex probably tells you differently.
 
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Someone help me out here. I thought I saw a video clip of 7 with someone saying they were afraid the building would collapse.
 
It's probably the one I'm hosting at 911myths, the last one on your list.
Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.
 
Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.
This one?? "Watch that building it will be coming down soon."


http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv


If that link doesn't work try this....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p...1+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&vback=Results
 
Last edited:
From : Les Raphael, Monday 12 June 2006
To Orphia -
"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.
Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.
My original post was addressed "To Orphia Nay and others" - the bit about abuse was aimed at "you" plural : but you're quite right - your own post didn't contain any. Just an accusation of libel, which I deny. I know my claims are distressing to some folk - I'm not exactly living a stress-free life myself because of it - but I think we have to face the truth, however ugly it
is, and I think my claims are the truth, or at least heading towards it. I could be wrong, but after all this time, and all the messages of support I've had, I don't think I am - generally - I may have some aspects wrong. Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ? I've written several times - and they never come back as undelivered - but he won't talk. Or at the William Morris Agency - or via the lawyers - or at the address for Goldfish Films. I've tried all of them - and a PO Box address for Goldfish that vanished from the net not long after I wrote to it in September 2002 - my first attempt to confront them, with the very earliest version of my convenience list - only a couple of dozen in those days. Still enough to make the case. I don't think you'll get any more response than I've had, but if you do, let me know, and it can be discussed.
To MikeW : I think the 911 calls would be c/o the NYPD, and I don't believe
that's covered by the federal FOIA. The New York State rules are different -
and I think you do have to be a resident.
bjb : I've no idea why folk who don't like Bush hate conspiracy theorists even
more - just as I can't understand Chomsky's position - I don't know what's
wrong with the guy. What are his arguments ? 1. Too many folk involved -
it always leaks ; Northwoods didn't. (Don't tell me they didn't do it - it was
still a conspiracy, and it stayed classified and unknown for nearly 40 years).
2. The one he offered me - "they wouldn't do it." Well, who could argue with
that pearl of wisdom ? Not me, for a kick-off.
The very reasons you give - being a sceptic, and hating being fooled, are the
reasons I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. But then, as I point out in my essay -
and I'm hardly alone in saying it - the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Heading for five years later, and how many convictions do we have ? ONE -
of a guy whose claims even the judge didn't believe - but she wasn't on the
jury. Hundreds locked up in Guantanamo, four years later, nearly all of them
not charged with anything, let alone 9/11. Not a shred of evidence Saddam
had anything to do with it. Isn't there rather a gigantic hole where all these
guilty and convicted fanatical Muslim conspiracists are supposed to be ? If
they didn't do it - and, legally, to date, they didn't - who did ? When does
KSM's trial start ? Aren't any of you interested ? When do we see the 9/11
"mastermind" in the dock ? Not a whisper of a date. What's the problem -
still collecting the evidence to prove he's the mastermind ?
 
Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ?
Here's an idea: why don't you try leaving the Naudets alone, you sad, disturbed person, and while you're at it you could do us a favor and not darken the doorway of this forum again.

As I said before, you are not thinking clearly. Please seek help.
 
From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ?

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? ??

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies? ??Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because all day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? ??Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ??Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? ??Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. ?

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.* [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Sources are linked in the "Loose Change Viewer Guide" shown in my signature below.
 
From : Les Raphael 12 June 06
The Fire - YOU seem to think I'm worth your attention - I wish you didn't,
because you're not worth any more of mine.
I mentioned writing to the lawyers because one of your contributors seemed
to think I should be crapping myself at the thought. Sorry to disappoint you.
"The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them."
Even less does it prove I have. Let's get this clear : I didn't say the non-reply from the lawyers proved anything. It's just a fact - read into it what
you like. Meanwhile, since I'm not being sued, I'll carry on my campaign.
If I was being sued, I'd carry it on.
Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?
Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.
For those who made the effort :
"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
 
Well, Gravy, I don't mind that he's here. Though I'll add this is not really the thread to engage him in regard to his "essay."
Understood. I just get pissed off because he has harrassed the Naudets and made baseless accusations against the FDNY. He's getting a kick out of being an ass to people who risk their lives to help others. I have no patience for jerks like that.
 
Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?
You're one to talk about being civil, you libeling cur.
 
I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
I see. You suspect they're all lying. Classic conspiracy nuttery. Perhaps there's something in the tapes from that day. Have you searched?
 
Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil
to folk ?
Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.
(emphasis added) Oh, the delicious, delicious irony...

But wait, it gets better:

This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
I'm sure you took the time to carefully read Gravy's collected commentary. It clearly states that the Fire Department "predicted" that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

You are, therefore, calling the named members of NYFD a bunch of liars.

It's bad enough that you apply a double standard to members of the forum.

Did you have any evidence worthy of discussion? All I could find was completely unsubstantiated accusations at the Naudet brothers.
 
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11 2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come down ?
How many news reporters were down in the heart of the WTC complex, after both towers had collapsed, on that day? And how many firefighters there do you think stopped what they were doing to grant an interview?

Are you nuts? Wait - you don't need to answer that.

FWIW, on the evening of 9/11, when I watched WTC7 collapsing, I recall that the news people were talking about how its collapse was expected before it happened. That and detailed reports, after that day, of the people who were actually there, is as good as you're going to get.

ETA: now why don't you try to find a firefighter who says something like "gee, we were really surprised when WTC7 collapsed! Good thing we didn't have any people in there fighting those fires!
 
Last edited:
From : les raphael

Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.

http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v

Reporter Ashley Banfield is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 comes down in the background.

In the studio, Brian Williams says, "What we were fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We were watching #7 World Trade..."

edit: grammar
 
Last edited:

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