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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

I haven't seen such intellectually dishonest ******** since Killtown's Plume thread. No wonder they can't hold a decent discussion on the matter; they simply can not wrap their brains around what the evidence based conclusion is that most people accept.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Sometimes I think we need a roadside sign for these CTs that says "Welcome to the JREF Conspiracy Theories Forums. We Notice Things."

TS has 466 posts, most of which have to do with arguing against strawmen that he invents, or avoiding answering direct questions about claims he makes. Extraordinary.

TS: ready to tell us what explosive can cause the effects that you posit, or do you need some more time?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I haven't seen such intellectually dishonest ******** since Killtown's Plume thread.

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

 

[Gravy]

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.

Nor is it mine. I'm glad you read my paper. What, specifically, would you like to discuss about it?

 

[bob_kark]

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.

Holy handgrenade! You must be on your third set of lungs to be able to blow that much smoke! Your lack of integrity is truly astounding. Well played sir, well played.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

Everything after

I think it's that . . .

19

and

WTC7 summary, ver 2.0

 

[T.A.M.]

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,

So do you have any photographs of the south side of WTC 7 that do not show any damage? If so, bring them forward. If not, shut up talking through your anus about it.

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,

Sounds good to me, but I havent read Gravy's paper yet.

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),

I would revise this part of your summary as follows,

...so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander, and said, that they should pull back the firefighting/rescue operation, which though not fighting the actual fire, was still near the building, so that there would be no further loss of life...

allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors),

So are you saying Gravy has stated there are no visible flames at the time of the raging infernos, except on two floors. If not, you are putting words in his mouth, and you are not summarizing his paper, but rather injecting your own evidenceless, baseless view into it.

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,

SO here, you have added what, that the inferno is invisible, as I am sure Gravy did not say this, and I doubt he said that "sudddenly at 5:20" smoke began to pour out of the south face.

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,

Free fall can only occur in a frictionless vacuum scenario, you idiot. So identical, as you have suggested possibly, is infact IMPOSSIBLE.

your description doesn't sound anything like what I have read from Gravy in the past. I think your making this up

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!

What pages in Gravy's paper can I find the above little snipet?

You get worse, the longer you are here. For your sake, and the sake of the movement which, despite your refusal to admit, you represent (the twoofers), you should just hang it up and go on with your life.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS: ready to tell us what explosive can cause the effects that you posit, or do you need some more time?

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

 

[twinstead]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

you have been given many.

I think if you take out all of the exaggeration and strawman building, you would be left with about 3 words.

A good example is when you say the damage to WTC has no photos. Gravy has posted some in this very forum, and has them in his paper. Also, you ignore the DOZENS of eye witness accounts of said damage. Are all those people lying?

Do you think perhaps when you tie in the photographic evidence and eye witness testimony of what was going on in WTC7 before the collapse it might make more sense than just declaring "there were no photos" and making it seem like that's all we are basing the theory on?

Cartoonizing.

 

[Scientologist]

OK, let me just say this one more time as it appears as though I was completely ignored the first time.


Truthseeker, GET LAID. Stop researching 9/11 and GET LAID. Concentrate your efforts on GETTING LAID. If you are not the ogre I am thinking you are and if you are able to talk to a woman without mentioning CONCRETE CORES or FREEFALL SPEEDS, I can assure you that GETTING LAID will make everything better.

If you need some tips, feel free to pm me. I promise that, if you are capable of GETTING LAID, you will wake up in the morning and all of this 9/11 conspiracy drivel will be meaningless to you. Dear God, I can only imagine how much of your life you have spent on the internet talking about the goddamn twin towers and the 9/11 conspiracy. What a waste of ****ing space. Do you realize when you are old and grey (I'm assuming that you cannot be that old yet because usually old people have some semblance of wisdom), you will hate yourself for spending your youth hunched over your computer trying to prove people that are much smarter than you are wrong?

First step: Look at yourself in the mirror and just admit that you are wrong.

 

[twinstead]

I do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

And what is your response to anybody, even those more qualified than little ol' you, who looks at the same evidence as you but disagrees?

Quite an arrogant position for just some dude posting on a web forum.

 

[Pardalis]

Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know.

snip

Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. I don't know.

But yet, somehow...

I do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

Wow!

 

[T.A.M.]

So what about the Leprachauns? There is a lot of published literature on these guys, and they surely are small enough to get in, un-noticed. Especially with their majik. I am sure they could have planted the horizontal acting Thermite. As well, they could explain the removal of the Billions of Gold.

JHC, if you are willing to entertain the extremely unlikely, unfounded, evidenceless, baseless scenarios you have suggested above, than why not Leprachauns. They have more evidence on their side.

TAM

 

[bob_kark]

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

 

[R.Mackey]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

Dude, I already showed you how to do it right. You haven't produced anything solid enough to edit so far.

This will take a little time, of course. It's called "work." It's good for you.

 

[Scientologist]

Can someone tell me how anyone with a working brain would think that the US government and thousands of other people would build this intricate plan to demolish the twin towers and then Larry Silverstein would just RUIN it by going on the air and admitting it?

Not even a fart would follow that logic train.

 

[Pardalis]

usually old people have some semblance of wisdom

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember Fetzer? There were to my knowledge two elderly posters here by the names of Sir Knight and Christopher7... Not the most wise people I've encountered.

Besides, alot of our politicians are over 60.

 

[Gravy]

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

Thank you for finally answering that you have no idea what explosives could cause the pyroclastic flow, powderization, and shredded steel that you posit.

Now, specifically what about my WTC 7 paper would you like to discuss? I'm right here, right now, TS. Let's go. Stop with the strawmen and deal with what's right there on the page. Now.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I would revise this part of your summary as follows,

...so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander, and said, that they should pull back the firefighting/rescue operation, which though not fighting the actual fire, was still near the building, so that there would be no further loss of life...

I can't put false stuff in there TAM, he said "pull it" not "pull back". Sorry, no.

So are you saying Gravy has stated there are no visible flames at the time of the raging infernos, except on two floors. If not, you are putting words in his mouth, and you are not summarizing his paper, but rather injecting your own evidenceless, baseless view into it.

SO here, you have added what, that the inferno is invisible, as I am sure Gravy did not say this, and I doubt he said that "sudddenly at 5:20" smoke began to pour out of the south face.



Free fall can only occur in a frictionless vacuum scenario, you idiot. So identical, as you have suggested possibly, is infact IMPOSSIBLE.

your description doesn't sound anything like what I have read from Gravy in the past. I think your making this up

What pages in Gravy's paper can I find the above little snipet?

TAM

No, you misunderstand. I am not reviewing Gravy's paper. That could also be done. I was responding to Gravy's Request. He requested

(Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)

-Gravy

I am trying to honor that request. You guys seem to, for the most part, be understanding how ludicrous the official theory of events actually is.

 

[bob_kark]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember Fetzer? There were to my knowledge two elderly posters here by the names of Sir Knight and Christopher7... Not the most wise people I've encountered.

Besides, alot of our politicians are over 60.

Folly is for the youth, crazy is forever.