Gravy's new document: "half-baked theory"

[TruthSeeker1234]

I have read NIST, most of it, it took months. I've read FEMA, 9/11 commission, and seen the NOVA show. I've read the NIST FAQ and Popular Mechanics "debunking", the debunking 911 site and the 911 myths site. OK?

This is why I know your theory is specious. That is why none of you will state it or defend it.

The truth movement does not have a complete alternative theory, nor do we need to in order to prove the falsity of the official theory. We know the WTC was blown up, although we do not know exactly which kind of explosives. We know there was no plane in that hole in Shanksville, although we do not know what really happened.

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

Come to the bright side. We also have cookies.

 

[twinstead]

OK, which part of my run-on sentence is not what you guys think happened? I'm seriously trying to get it right, so I can understand it. I spell it out, and now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

Dude. You're not a total idiot. You know exactly what you are doing; it's in the CT handbook for God's sake. The official story is spelled out in minute detail in the NIST report and others.

Perhaps you should show where in the official story, for example, it claims that

where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby

or

pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths

or

another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself

or any other of the lame strawman crap you posted?

It's as if, for example, we laughed at you and suggested that you think the plane that went into the Pentagon should have left an exact outline in the building of a jet airliner, just like a cartoon, and every square inch of the plane should have popped into the central courtyard already tagged, and every passenger should have been found strapped to their seats in the lunch room. Right?

 

[bob_kark]

If you have no evidence, how exactly do you know what happened? Does Sylvia Brown work for you all?

 

[twinstead]

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

BS. And by the way, almost every structural engineer and demo expert on Earth will also say BS.

How can a situation like that lead you to declare the official story is provably false? If you mean provably false to those who are unqualified to even know, and are predisposed to believe it is false, then yes, you are right.

If you mean provably false to experts world-wide who have studied the event, then yea, I'll say it again. BS

 

[stateofgrace]

The truth movement does not have a complete alternative theory, nor do we need to in order to prove the falsity of the official theory. We know the WTC was blown up, although we do not know exactly which kind of explosives. We know there was no plane in that hole in Shanksville, although we do not know what really happened.

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

Come to the bright side. We also have cookies.

You don't have a complete alternetive theory ? yet what you do have points to the US administration.

Tell you what TS, Just do this , in a few short sentenses put together what you think happened. No need to be specific, no need to name the explosives used. Just ,without sounding like a loony put together what you think happened.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was referring to my paper on WTC 7. Do you have a sentence on that?

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7 causing damage to the roof, and carving a 20-story hole in the south face, an injury which somehow escaped all photographs, except for the photographs held by NIST, which they have shown to the editors of Popular Mechanics and no one else, which ignited fires on two floors of the building, fires which eventually spread throughout the building due to the lack of firefighting effort, a decision which was precipitated by the loss of water pressure in lower Manhattan, so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighters out of the building" when there were no firefighters in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure) and at a time when speakers of standard English do not normally refer to human beings as "it", allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors), then suddenly, at around 5:20 p.m., copious quantities of smoke began pouring out of the south face of the building from every floor, and the invisible raging inferno significantly weakened the remaining undamaged vertical supports underneath the east penthouse, causing it to collapse completely and abruptly down onto the roof, and then, while no motion of any kind was visible on the outside of the building, a violent chain reaction was occuring within the building, and the vertical supports at the bottom of the building in the center gave way, allowing the main roof line to "kink" down in the middle, then all of the remaining veritcal supports on all four walls and throughout the highly asymmetrical structure gave way simultaneously, allowing the main roof line to begin falling down in what appears to all observers to be gravitational freefall, remaining remarkalby parallel to the ground through its rapid decent, imitating a classic controlled demolition in every facet, with the main roofline hitting the ground in about 6.5 seconds, something very close to (if not identical to) freefall with air resistence, initiating billowing clouds of smoke and dust which expanded along the concrete canyons of Manhattan, leaving a very small rubble pile (considering the size of the building), rubble which was almost completely contained within the footprint of the original structure, and which contained steel members that were partially evaporated (according to Jonathan Barnett) in a eutectic reaction, a phenomenon which was deemed "mysterious" in a New York Times article of November 29, 2001, an aritlce which has subsequently disappeared and been replaced by one which blames the whole thing on the obvious culprit - diesel fuel!

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

 

[Gravy]

I have read NIST, most of it, it took months. I've read FEMA, 9/11 commission, and seen the NOVA show. I've read the NIST FAQ and Popular Mechanics "debunking", the debunking 911 site and the 911 myths site. OK?

No, not "OK." If you've read all these things, then why do you insist, with every post you make, on completely misrepresenting what they say?

You know what that's called? Lying. Please stop doing it. Your lies neither impress us nor advance your argument.

 

[twinstead]

Okay, I take that back troothydude. You ARE an idiot.

By the way 'it' wasn't people, it was a thing. The FIREFIGHTING EFFORT.

And that's just the beginning of your mistakes. You think your little ignorant diatribe falsifies the official story? Please dont tell me you think your strawman can do that.

I think the only reason you won't come up with your own theory is because any one of us could come up with a run-on sentence even more crazy sounding about IT than you did about the official story.

Yippee! It's a fun game; anybody can play it. Now if you'll go back to debunking, with logic and facts, a specific part of the NIST report you have a problem with?

Oh, and what about those experts world-wide who have studied the event? What would you say to any one of them if you met them face to face?

 

[Gravy]

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7...

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

No, you got that wrong also. I highly recommend that you read my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my sig, so you don't make a fool of yourself like that again.

 

[R.Mackey]

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted [...]

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

Well, you think wrong.

You made that up, admit it.

Tell you what. How about you read Gravy's paper, and then try again. And when you do it next time, write it properly, as a number of sentences.

Reference each sentence to something in Gravy's paper. Page number and paragraph will be fine. Shouldn't take too long.

We'll look it over and correct you as needed.

This can be done. This will give you an accurate representation, at some level of granularity, of what we and the non-retarded 75% of the US believe happened. I have no problem at all with this process.

What you've done so far, besides exposing your lack of research and tendency toward mystification, is create yet another unsupported strawman.

 

[Pardalis]

I found them!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, you got that wrong also [that the official story maintains hundreds of tons of debris impacted WTC7]. I highly recommend that you read my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my sig, so you don't make a fool of yourself like that again.

I have searched the Gravy paper, there appear to be no mentions of debris quantity. OK, I'll change it to "an unknown quantitiy of debris". Is that better?

 

[twinstead]

What you've done so far, besides exposing your lack of research and tendency toward mystification, is create yet another unsupported strawman.

Sadly, what this means is he cannot refute the official story without making a caricature of it.

Without it being 'cartoonized', he can't falsify it. It's as simple as that.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

WTC7 summary, ver 2.0


Meanwhile, an unknown quantity of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7 causing damage to the roof, and carving a 20-story hole in the south face, an injury which somehow escaped all photographs, except for the photographs held by NIST, which they have shown to the editors of Popular Mechanics and no one else, which ignited fires on two floors of the building, fires which eventually spread throughout the building due to the lack of firefighting effort, a decision which was precipitated by the loss of water pressure in lower Manhattan, so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighting effort out of the building" when there was no firefighting effort in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure), allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors), then suddenly, at around 5:20 p.m., copious quantities of smoke began pouring out of the south face of the building from every floor, and the invisible raging inferno significantly weakened the remaining undamaged vertical supports underneath the east penthouse, causing it to collapse completely and abruptly down onto the roof, and then, while no motion of any kind was visible on the outside of the building, a violent chain reaction was occuring within the building, and the vertical supports at the bottom of the building in the center gave way, allowing the main roof line to "kink" down in the middle, then all of the remaining veritcal supports on all four walls and throughout the highly asymmetrical structure gave way simultaneously, allowing the main roof line to begin falling down in what appears to all observers to be gravitational freefall, remaining remarkalby parallel to the ground through its rapid decent, imitating a classic controlled demolition in every facet, with the main roofline hitting the ground in about 6.5 seconds, something very close to (if not identical to) freefall with air resistence, initiating billowing clouds of smoke and dust which expanded along the concrete canyons of Manhattan, leaving a very small rubble pile (considering the size of the building), rubble which was almost completely contained within the footprint of the original structure, and which contained steel members that were partially evaporated (according to Jonathan Barnett) in a eutectic reaction, a phenomenon which was deemed "mysterious" in a New York Times article of November 29, 2001, an aritlce which has subsequently disappeared and been replaced by one which blames the whole thing on the obvious culprit - diesel fuel!

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

 

[Pardalis]

so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighters out of the building" when there were no firefighters in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure) and at a time when speakers of standard English do not normally refer to human beings as "it"

"It" could just as easily meant "the firefighter's operation at WTC7". I'm not even an anglophone and I understood that from the beginning.

TS, stop cherry picking Gravy's paper, you're theories about 9/11 are impossible.

 

[Gravy]

I have searched the Gravy paper, there appear to be no mentions of debris quantity. OK, I'll change it to "an unknown quantitiy of debris". Is that better?

I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?

ETA: Ah, R.Mackey beat me to it.

 

[twinstead]

LOL yea, that fixed it.

Again. You can't falsify the official story without 'cartoonizing' it, can you?

And, you realize we could do that with any alternative theory you have right? (I can just picture the fun we could have with the stealth ninjas planting explosive charges in all 3 buildings under the noses of thousands of people)

 

[R.Mackey]

I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?

Bingo.

The only purpose to be had in "summarizing" your paper is that, that way, he doesn't have to take it on directly.

He knows he can't debunk the paper, so he has to make up something and hope we won't notice.

That tactic probably works among the "Scholars for Truth", but it won't work here.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?

I read your paper Gravy. Very nicely written, well researched. Hard-hitting, yet conversational. It's great. You have a flair.

My summary was in response to your question " (Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)?"

I think that is a great question. What is your theory? I am trying to state it, and everybody else here is noticing how absurd it is, and blaming me for it! Guys, it ain't my theory.

 

[Pardalis]

TS, I would call your "summaries" of Gravy's paper blatant strawmen... But I'm not an aficionado in "strawman".

But be careful with such big strawmen, I hope you don't smoke.