• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pdoherty and Gravy debate thread

LashL

Goddess of Legaltainment™
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
36,711
This is being created at pdoherty's request to debate one on one with Gravy. First topic up is "Operation Northwoods". In keeping with the tradition of the JREF forums, it would be appreciated if others refrain from posting on this thread as it is specifically for the one on one debate as set out above.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to do this, but from what I hear of Pdoherty76, he is unable to back his claims with evidence. If that is the case, I won't be sticking with this long. As people here know, I don't suffer fools gladly.

I've already addressed the Northwoods claim. Agreed that you got the facts backwards, PD?
 
PD said:

i never claimed you prevented people gravy, i said you went to harass the people that exercise their right. You do characterise people. The Jewish thing wasnt necessary. i am not anti semitic, in fact judaism is one thing I really do know nothing about, i know there was a holocaust thats about it.
Your evidence that I went to harass anyone, PD, rather than to counter their false claims? Have you been to Ground Zero when I was there?

Remember, you're on a forum for critical thinkers. You need evidence to back your claims.

My mention of Silverstein being Jewish? Hello? The person whose story I was using in my WTC 7 paper, "Treez," talked about being approached by "Some Jew looking dude" just paragraphs before he proudly talked about chanting "Murderer!" outside Silverstein's office. I linked to that account in my paper. I encourage you to read it.

Do you condemn what was said about Silverstein, or support it?

You can use the "search" feature to find many posts in these forums about anti-Semitic people in the "Truth movement." Here's a sample:

It’s one thing to rely on crackpot sources, which, as you will see (if you haven’t already from the passage above), the AFP clearly is. But it’s another thing to rely on a crackpot source that’s run by Willis Carto, the racist Holocaust denier whom the Anti-Defamation League calls “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years.” The AFP is published from the same office as Carto’s The Barnes Review, which ran a serious story titled “Adolf Hitler – An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize.”

Carto: "If Satan himself, with all of his super-human genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."

Thanks to reader Ralph Hernandez for alerting me to this connection, which reminds me of a disturbing fact. There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to label people who disagree with Israeli policy or a Zionist political agenda as anti-Semitic. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include:

– Eric Hufschmid, author of the 9/11 conspiracy book “Painful Questions” and video “Painful Deceptions” is so proud of his Holocaust denial that he calls himself a “HoloHoax exposer.”

– The owners of the popular 9/11 conspiracy website Serendipity.li, who publish articles such as “In Defense of Anti-Semitism” and “Jewish media myths leading us to World War III.”

– The host of the webcast “Wing TV,” who goes by the pseudonym “Victor Thorn,” and who pub-lished a booklet titled “Christ Killers.”

– Carol Valentine, who runs the comspiracy website Public-Action.com, where the current headline is “The American Coup d’Etat and the War for Jewish Supremacy,” and who writes, “Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11.”

– “Scholar for Truth” Rick Rajter praises Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and has a website that links to the neo-Nazi site Stormfront. More about him on the Screw Loose Change blog: http://tinyurl.com/qg24b

– The writers and editors of The American Free Press, whose work is cited here several times. They formerly published The Spotlight, a harsher anti-Semitic paper, which was shut down when a lawsuit bankrupted Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby organization.

– 9/11 conspiracy promoter “Killtown,” who presents the idea that fewer than 300,000 Jews may have died at the hands of the Nazis, and who believes that Israel was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and therefore may be lying about the Holocaust.
You may not be anti-Semitic, but some of the prominent members of the "Truth Movement" are. I suggest doing what you can to disassociate yourself from them.

Can you name a Holocaust denier who's a prominent "debunker?"
 
Last edited:
ok maybe so, but as i said why is the chief of the joint chiefs of staff suggesting this stuff? and why wasnt he indicted for something as a result?

You cant know the ins and outs of it urself because you werent there.

Why did lemnitzer feel that a government would be receptive to such a plan? And did lemnitzer perhaps draw on previous examples of false flag to come up with it?
 
ok maybe so, but as i said why is the chief of the joint chiefs of staff suggesting this stuff? and why wasnt he indicted for something as a result?

You cant know the ins and outs of it urself because you werent there.

Why did lemnitzer feel that a government would be receptive to such a plan? And did lemnitzer perhaps draw on previous examples of false flag to come up with it?
 
if this site is for critical thinkers then surely thoughts will suffice not reams of evidence. There is such thing as original thought which by definition has no evidence to back it up
 
ok maybe so, but as i said why is the chief of the joint chiefs of staff suggesting this stuff? and why wasnt he indicted for something as a result?
What crime did he commit?

You cant know the ins and outs of it urself because you werent there.
Why did lemnitzer feel that a government would be receptive to such a plan? And did lemnitzer perhaps draw on previous examples of false flag to come up with it?
Please refer to the portion of your reply that I bolded. The answer to your question in the second paragraph is there. If this is going to be the way you "debate," let's stop this now. I can't waste my time with people who bring nothing but speculation to the table. If you have evidence that the declassified Operation Northwoods was influential in any way, on any person involved in 9/11, present it.
 
if this site is for critical thinkers then surely thoughts will suffice not reams of evidence. There is such thing as original thought which by definition has no evidence to back it up
No, this is about your evidence, not about your brainstorming ability.

Your evidence about the events of 9/11 against mine. Fair enough?
 
ur a typical debunker.i cant possibly produce the evidence you require because if it exists i wouldnt have access to it. What is wrong with speculation?(or as i call it putting forward a posiibility) the existence of the northwoods documents shows, in my obviously worthless opinion, that the a mindset of false flag terrorism possibly exists in the government.

You are clearly one of these people who believes governments are groups of peace loving hippies that dont harm people.

By the way the definition of a debate is not an evidence swapping session, its a verbal discourse in wich ideas are exchanged and points are refuted. If i was dared to come here to produce documents crossing every t and dotting every i of what i say then yes: it was pointless of me coming here.

I dont have to have evidence to have an opinion, and nobody in the world could possess evidence you require because it would be secret documents etc

Ur MO is good, i will admit that and i dont doubt ur a very intelligent man but it wont work.

Im sorry I came
 
ur a typical debunker.i cant possibly produce the evidence you require because if it exists i wouldnt have access to it. What is wrong with speculation?(or as i call it putting forward a posiibility) the existence of the northwoods documents shows, in my obviously worthless opinion, that the a mindset of false flag terrorism possibly exists in the government.

You are clearly one of these people who believes governments are groups of peace loving hippies that dont harm people.

By the way the definition of a debate is not an evidence swapping session, its a verbal discourse in wich ideas are exchanged and points are refuted. If i was dared to come here to produce documents crossing every t and dotting every i of what i say then yes: it was pointless of me coming here.

I dont have to have evidence to have an opinion, and nobody in the world could possess evidence you require because it would be secret documents etc

Ur MO is good, i will admit that and i dont doubt ur a very intelligent man but it wont work.

Im sorry I came

You said you could destroy any of us here. How did you plan to do that?

Here's how it works. You've made a claim, several times now, that I've harassed people at Ground Zero and tried to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional rights.

Please provide the evidence to back that claim, or withdraw it.

That's my "MO." Asking that you present evidence to back your claims. Is this surprising to you?
 
im afraid the autistic black and white world you would like to live in doesnt exist.
No idea what it's got to do with autism. We're not talking theory, here, PD. YOU made a claim about ME.

If that claim was baseless, then do the adult thing and withdraw it and apologize. That sort of thing goes on around here all the time. We live, we screw up, we hopefully learn from our mistakes.
 
my evidence is that you proudly boast to going to ground zero every saturday to take the piss out of the truthers there, and boy do u pick the easy targets. Oh and u take a stand up comedian with u. you do not have evidence yourself.

may i remind you that the FBIs website still does not state that osama is wanted for 911 cos they have no evidence against him. You will no doubt claim he admitted it but as i pointed out to ur cohorts James Files admitted to shooting kennedy but ur not so keen to accept that confession

whenever theres a terrorist attack people queue up to falsely claim responsibility for it.
 
this site is the very antithesis of a critical thinking site. thats an opinion by the way so i cant qoute sources for it
 
this so called debate proved everything i knew it would.

I suspect that when gravy sits down to lunch with a friend and the friend says "this steak is good" gravy replies " wheres ur evidence"

I dont think i shall stay very long at this site. It is not a debating site or a critical thinking site, it is a site where you are not allowed to have an opinion. Any thing you say must be referenced to a source. Its ridiculous
 
my evidence is that you proudly boast to going to ground zero every saturday to take the piss out of the truthers there,
False. These are the reasons I gave in the paper you're referring to, for why I go to Ground Zero.

– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a Jewish "conspirator."

– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."

– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks (than I was) to debate the creeps with dignity.

– Because firefighters (on 9/11) thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.
Oh and u take a stand up comedian with [you]
False. Abby Scott was going to Ground Zero before me. It was her idea. I followed where she bravely led.

you do not have evidence yourself.
False. I bring a tremendous amount of evidence to Ground Zero. In addition, in May I wrote a 36-page analysis of NY911truth.org's one-page pamphlet and sent it to them. You'd know that if you read my WTC 7 paper.

Some of the papers I've put together, just brimming with evidence that refutes the "Truth Movement's" specific claims:

The Truth About the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide (being updated)
http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

Loose Change Creators Speak
http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

may i remind you that the FBIs website still does not state that osama is wanted for 911 cos they have no evidence against him.
False. He hasn't been indicted because there isn't SUFFICIENT evidence to do so, not because there is no evidence.

You will no doubt claim he admitted it but as i pointed out to ur cohorts James Files admitted to shooting kennedy but ur not so keen to accept that confession
The difference is that there is no corroborating evidence to support Files' story, whereas there is corroborating evidence of bin Laden's involvement.

Anyway this is a straw man argument. I never said bin Laden was the prime mover behind 9/11. Claiming that he wasn't does not bolster your claim that the US government was involved.

whenever theres a terrorist attack people queue up to falsely claim responsibility for it.
Please list three instances of this happening.

So, that's four false statements, one straw man argument, and one claim that you'll need to back up.

(I assume you're exaggerating about "whenever there's a terrorist attack." I assume you mean "sometimes." I don't know of instances of people or organizations falsely taking credit for acts of terrorism, so you'll need to provide those.)
 
Last edited:
this so called debate proved everything i knew it would.

I suspect that when gravy sits down to lunch with a friend and the friend says "this steak is good" gravy replies " wheres ur evidence"

I dont think i shall stay very long at this site. It is not a debating site or a critical thinking site, it is a site where you are not allowed to have an opinion. Any thing you say must be referenced to a source. Its ridiculous
There are plenty of internet forums that are essentially workshops for conspiracy theories. The Loose Change forum is one. I will not indulge your fantasies. If you'd like to have your misconceptions about 9/11 corrected, this forum is an excellent place to start, if you approach it with some humility and honesty. You can always lurk here. If you don't want to engage with critical thinkers directly, I suggest 911myths.com as the first place to go for answers to your 9/11-related questions.
 
i cant name 3 but i know a palestinian organisation claimed 911 at 11am on that day. when we had the troubles in northern ireland, bombings were claimed by numerous groups as a matter of course.

great, so u admitt there isnt sufficient evidence against osama. so could you please explain why u have bombed the **** out of afghanistan based on insufficient evidence?
 
i cant name 3 but i know a palestinian organisation claimed 911 at 11am on that day. when we had the troubles in northern ireland, bombings were claimed by numerous groups as a matter of course.
You mean you can't name any. You say that false claims of responsibility follow all terrorist attacks, but are unable to produce a single name. Great. I'll help you out. Perhaps you're vaguely remembering accusations that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks. They didn't. I suggest you look it up.

great, so u admitt there isnt sufficient evidence against osama. so could you please explain why u have bombed the **** out of afghanistan based on insufficient evidence?
I don't "admit," because I never claimed the US had enough evidence to indict bin Laden. Personally, when I see him look straight at the camera and say he was involved the planning and will continue to attack the US and its interests as he's done in the past, I take him seriously.

When did I bomb Afghanistan?

bin Laden was wanted by the US since 1998. Remember his fatwas in '96 and '98? Remember the embassy bombings? The US declared war on terrorism. bin Laden was terrorist #1. The Taliban said they would not turn him over. They were driven from power.

Now, unless you have actual evidence to present, please retract your claim about why I go to Ground Zero, and apologize.

I won't do your homework for you. If you make another post with unsubstantiated claims, we're done.
 

Back
Top Bottom