POPCORN! Gravy is on...! :D

pomeroo said:
The 'Hardfire' version will be on Google by Wednesday. DVDs of the two shows will be available soon after.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the headsup, Ron. I'm looking forward to seeing the proper video. (And although I've said it upthread, I'll say it again - great job!)
 
I'm about halfway through the second part, and I'm wondering if anyone else noticed this. Bermas is very animated, leaning forward and addressing Mark directly, but I don't think I've seen one instance where Dylan has made eye contact with Mark. Not once. Especially while Mark is speaking and presenting facts. I'm no psychologist, but if I asked one I'll bet they would say this is very telling.

My opinion? Bermas is a true believer. Dylan knows it's bunk, but has dug his hole so deep, he can't figure a way to climb out.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I'm about halfway through the second part, and I'm wondering if anyone else noticed this. Bermas is very animated, leaning forward and addressing Mark directly, but I don't think I've seen one instance where Dylan has made eye contact with Mark. Not once. Especially while Mark is speaking and presenting facts. I'm no psychologist, but if I asked one I'll bet they would say this is very telling.

My opinion? Bermas is a true believer. Dylan knows it's bunk, but has dug his hole so deep, he can't figure a way to climb out.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Here's a direct quote from Dylan to me just prior to my banning from LC forum:
If you actually believe I walked out of that studio thinking, "gee, Mark and Ron really proved the past four years of my life as a giant waste of time," I'm afraid you have another thing coming.
Click to expand...

Yup...that boy will grow old trying to justify his first 4 years of troof.

-z
 
Last edited:
Just saw Mark explain what an object needs to tip over. Bermas' reply? "I disagree."

Will someone please enroll this guy in a physics 101 class at a community college?!
 
dylan avery said:
I could give Mark Roberts facts until I'm blue in the face. None of it matters. That debate, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Then why did he and Jason bother??

Honestly does he care about "educating" the people of the United States or is he happy with his CT friends in his little forum where he can say whatever he wants and be agreed with?
 
Dylan Avery said:
I could give Mark Roberts facts until I'm blue in the face.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I got as many facts from Loose Change as I would from Avery if he was holding his breath.
 
pomeroo said:
Here are the links to the 'Hardfire' versions (for those who can't get enough of "Live Free or Die"):

http://tinyurl.com/tkfhj

and

http://tinyurl.com/yfkqeo


Gold is allowing me to post on 911blogger.com. Oversight, change of heart, or just a real cold day in Hell?
Click to expand...
That was fast. Thanks, Ron!

Also, I went to school in New Hampshire, so I have a soft spot in my heart for "Live Free or Die."
 
Watching the first part again.

Bermas' repeated denials are astonishing.
 
I think I just heard Bermas say (about 12 minutes into the 2nd part) (and I'm paraphrasing here), that if there were molten aluminum in the towers, and it touched steel which was not yet molten, it should have re-solidified.

Does he really believe that?

And why?
 
OK, what he actually says:

"If you wanna go with this "mix theory" [about the molten material dripping out of the Tower], these are steel-framed structures. Steel doesn't melt until somewhere around 3,000 degrees ... somewhere around there ... so you would think that the aluminum, if that was the only thing that was molten, when it actually hit, you know, these steel beams or steel parts it would end up solidifying again.
Click to expand...

Does this make sense to anyone?
 
Matthew Best said:
I think I just heard Bermas say (about 12 minutes into the 2nd part) (and I'm paraphrasing here), that if there were molten aluminum in the towers, and it touched steel which was not yet molten, it should have re-solidified.

Does he really believe that?

And why?
Click to expand...
Not completely unreasonable "common sense" view, given aluminum's thermal conductivity. Obviously, the amount of liquid aluminum and the amount of solid steel would matter, as well as the temp of the steel, etc.
 
Thanks, Arkan. That's what I thought, but I don't know much about the physical properties of metal at high temperatures. But it seemed counter-intuitive to say the least.
 
Matthew Best said:
I think I just heard Bermas say (about 12 minutes into the 2nd part) (and I'm paraphrasing here), that if there were molten aluminum in the towers, and it touched steel which was not yet molten, it should have re-solidified.

Does he really believe that?

And why?
Click to expand...
Yes, he seems to think that if steel isn't near its melting point, it must be cool. Curious.
 
Just finished watching the debate. Well done, Gravy. I honestly don't know how you keep your composure considering some of the ridiculousness that comes out of Bermas' mouth.

My favorite part was when Bermas was mentioning parts found at Shanksville. He couln't remember something so he looked to Dylan for help. Dylan casually just pointed to you - knowing that you've got the information.

No wonder Dylan titled his blog entry "YAWN". He said very little, except for correcting Bermas and admitting that his conclusions are flawed. He seemed like he was only there to tug on Bermas' leash when Bermas got fired up.

Just saw Mark explain what an object needs to tip over. Bermas' reply? "I disagree."

Will someone please enroll this guy in a physics 101 class at a community college?!
Click to expand...

This is Conspiracy Theorist 101. Bermas "knows" that it should have tipped over based solely on his ignorance. He could quickly and easily verify this by talking to any structural engineer. Instead, he'll continue to argue engineering principles based on his own stupidity.

The phrase "I disagree", especially when coming from someone with no structural background, is not an argument.

Once again, Kudos to you, Gravy.
 
Gravy said:
Yes, he seems to think that if steel isn't near its melting point, it must be cool. Curious.
Click to expand...
Here we go...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4375097979996629155#0h11m40s

...classic, I'm amazed how these people can't visualize or comprehend the immense forces that were involved when the global collapse started, it's as if their overriding desire for a controlled demolition conspiracy is seriously effecting their judgment. For example...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2188357#post2188357
 
Bermas argument seems to be "I don't think so," or "It doesn't seem reasonable to me." But of course he is incapable of explaining why that might be as he has no relevant knowledge to back up his argument. It's completely transparent that that is the case. Then you have Avery talking about conservation of momentum etc. tryiong to sound knowledgeable but again I wager not being able to explain what he actually means. Well done Ron and Gravy for making clear just how ignorant they are. Hopefully the fencesitters will take notice, and who knows a few wavering truthers might too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ron for posting the Hardfire versions so quickly. Interesting to view the debate again, both parts, and NOT from the camera angles of Korey Rowe. Another tactical error by LC: If you don't know the skills and intricacies of film technique, leave it to the experts. The Hardfire edition, using professional filming concepts, is definitely not as hard on the LC guys as the amateur videos shot by Rowe.

But re-viewing the debate absolutely underscores just how well Mark Roberts blunted, and to be honest, destroyed the credibility of "inside job" to all but its most staunch and stubborn believers.

Very well done, Ron and Mark. Your efforts exceeded my expectations. I think it can be fairly stated that the Loose Change guys will never make the mistake of debating in this manner again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom