Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux
- Thread starter Gravy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gravy loose change
les raphael, I'm glad to see you're back. Could you tell us when you think the Naudet brothers will be exposed? I only want your personal opinion. Will be take a week? A month? A year?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Did you miss this? (Again?)
http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv
And the "alleged" fire: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
les raphael
New Blood
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8
From Les Raphael 15 June 2006
I'm afraid your las vegas/staughton site froze my computer, so I can't confirm what's in it, but if it's more past-tense "predictions," my point stands
and yours fails. The prediction should have been broadcast, and there should
be more than one link proving the point. As for when the Naudets are going
to be exposed, what the hell makes you think I'd know ? Another of your
idiotic misconceptions ?
These are my last observations : I've already said none of you seem to know what the word "contemporary" means. Here's something else you seem never
to have heard of : circumstantial evidence, defined in my dictionary as "that which is not positive, or direct, evidence of a particular fact, but consists of proof of a number of other facts, the cumulative effect of which is to establish a strong presumption of the particular main fact."
That is precisely what I do in my essay : my list of 69 conveniences, and a
whole raft of other facts about the film, has a "cumulative effect" establishing a "strong presumption" of the Flight 11 shot having been set up,
and the Naudets being guilty of complicity.
This is a perfectly legitimate legal method, and circumstantial evidence was good enough to jail - for example - Imad Yarkas for 27 years, before 12 of
those were quashed two weeks ago. I admit in my essay I don't have PROOF - the only kind of evidence you seem to be familiar with, but I do
have a ton of circumstantial evidence, and that is goood enough to get the Naudets charged and convicted - some day - could be next week - could be
in ten years.
I can't take seriously folk who have failed to establish a single factual untruth in my essay, failed to fault my method, failed to justify their own claims - like the Naudet film having raised "millions" for charity or alleged predictions of WTC 7 coming down, who ignore facts that don't suit them
and who use abuse in place of rational debate. Your idea of a discussion
is having your own fatuous, uninformed prejudices confirmed and rubbishing
anyone who disagrees with them - and this little mouthful is more than any
of you remotely deserve. But I'm known for my generosity.
I'm afraid your las vegas/staughton site froze my computer, so I can't confirm what's in it, but if it's more past-tense "predictions," my point stands
and yours fails. The prediction should have been broadcast, and there should
be more than one link proving the point. As for when the Naudets are going
to be exposed, what the hell makes you think I'd know ? Another of your
idiotic misconceptions ?
These are my last observations : I've already said none of you seem to know what the word "contemporary" means. Here's something else you seem never
to have heard of : circumstantial evidence, defined in my dictionary as "that which is not positive, or direct, evidence of a particular fact, but consists of proof of a number of other facts, the cumulative effect of which is to establish a strong presumption of the particular main fact."
That is precisely what I do in my essay : my list of 69 conveniences, and a
whole raft of other facts about the film, has a "cumulative effect" establishing a "strong presumption" of the Flight 11 shot having been set up,
and the Naudets being guilty of complicity.
This is a perfectly legitimate legal method, and circumstantial evidence was good enough to jail - for example - Imad Yarkas for 27 years, before 12 of
those were quashed two weeks ago. I admit in my essay I don't have PROOF - the only kind of evidence you seem to be familiar with, but I do
have a ton of circumstantial evidence, and that is goood enough to get the Naudets charged and convicted - some day - could be next week - could be
in ten years.
I can't take seriously folk who have failed to establish a single factual untruth in my essay, failed to fault my method, failed to justify their own claims - like the Naudet film having raised "millions" for charity or alleged predictions of WTC 7 coming down, who ignore facts that don't suit them
and who use abuse in place of rational debate. Your idea of a discussion
is having your own fatuous, uninformed prejudices confirmed and rubbishing
anyone who disagrees with them - and this little mouthful is more than any
of you remotely deserve. But I'm known for my generosity.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
les raphael:
Setting aside the irellevancies in your post above, what do you do for a living?
Setting aside the irellevancies in your post above, what do you do for a living?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I'm curious to know how you'll deny the relevance of the Ashley Banfield/Brian Williams live broadcast.
Please list excuses here
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
It's not past-tense. Try this:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvideo%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results
"Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon."
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
tinfoil hat= on]
that only proves that the person who said that was in on the Controlled Demolition and was bragging about it [tinfoil hat= off]
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
did you ever meet kilk? Or Kumar? or 1inchrist?
Actually, he probably does beat Kumar.
If you didn't meet kilk, apparently he turned up at the LC forums- even THEY thought he was nuts
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Absolutely correct. As would any predictive statement. Thus making the CD theory unassailable.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
When you build a time machine and take me back to 9/11 and show me that happening live, I may give you credit for it. Until then, you're just a biased, self-congratulatory turkey who isn't worthy of the work I've done.
Les Raphael June 15, 2006
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
No, I haven't been here that long. I saw kilik's post at the LC forum the other day, and was VERY impressed.did you ever meet kilk? Or Kumar? or 1inchrist?
Actually, he probably does beat Kumar.
If you didn't meet kilk, apparently he turned up at the LC forums- even THEY thought he was nuts
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
yeah, that kilk is top notch crazy. He could teach the loosers thing or two about posting "evidence" which bears no relation what so ever to the point which they are attempting to make.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Thank you for showering me with your open-armed generosity.
If you watch the CBS video of the building 7 collapse they are talking about how the firemen had stated that building 7 was going to collapse.
Its a little cut off but listen...
....that building number 7 was going to collapse...that appears to be what has happened now.
http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911.wtc.7.demolition.front.wmv
Here's another video just moments after the collapse where a reporter is stating that the firemen told him that building 7 was going to collapse.
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
There's even more out there.
But I guess these are also past-tense "predictions" LOL!!
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I would imagine that either the firemen were in on the plot and were shouting it out for the whole world to hear, or saw something while inside WTC7 that led them to believe a collapse was imminent.
I wonder which one is more likely?
I wonder which one is more likely?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Well, apparently Occam's Razor Proves 9/11 is a Conspiracy. So I'm going with evil, loud-mouthed firemen.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Welcome Twistead,
Or they saw something from the outside, that would lead them to believe that the building would fall down. If I saw that building, in the condition it was in, I would not go inside it. And I have no experience as a firefighter in NYc,NY.
Overman
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,629
who ignore facts that don't suit them and who use abuse in place of rational debate. Your idea of a discussionis having your own fatuous, uninformed prejudices confirmed and rubbishing anyone who disagrees with themhmmmmm........
Let me think.........
This reminds me of someone....mabye some group.....
mabye some group who comes on here to argue with us.........
hmmmm..................