POPCORN! Gravy is on...! :D

Any rumours about follow-ups?
11107451d93669e73a.gif
 
Oliver said:
Any rumours about follow-ups? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

After watching this I had images of Apollo Creed from the first Rocky movie, "There will be no rematch, there will be no rematch."
 
JamesB said:
After watching this I had images of Apollo Creed from the first Rocky movie, "There will be no rematch, there will be no rematch."
Click to expand...

They were wining so much at their forum about
"couldn´t address all issues" that i guess they would
make another show for the pentagon and WTC 7.
 
Nah, the big thing at the moment appears to be the ISI connection... pretty much a case of "Yes there were arab hijackers and yes they were sponsored by a government....the united states ...ermmm....... ummmm...of Pakistan"
 
Dylan @ LC said:
I could give Mark Roberts facts until I'm blue in the face.
Click to expand...
Such as:

- The Earth orbits the sun
- First Class postage (US) for a letter under 1 oz is 39 cents
- Jessica Alba is hot

Those kind of facts? Because our conspiro-friend has not fact 1 in regard to Sept. 11. Well, maybe other than asserting the events took place on Sept. 11. And even then I'd check his year.
 
So why did Dylan stay silent the entire two shows?

He's clueless and he knows it.

Viagra won't help.
 
Anyone here of any fencesitters who saw this debate? Or anyone who isn't as familiar with the subject matter? I'd be curious to see their reactions.
 
Gravy said:
Watching the first part again.

Bermas' repeated denials are astonishing.
Click to expand...

Nothing substantial to add here, except to say that the new avatar strikes me as acutely hilarious, for reasons I can't seem to articulate.
 
Abbyas said:
Anyone here of any fencesitters who saw this debate? Or anyone who isn't as familiar with the subject matter? I'd be curious to see their reactions.
Click to expand...

We don't have fencesitters here....though some, i suspect, might be sitting on the pointy end of the fence post.... looking at you christophera
 
Hey Gravy - question.

When you are pressing Bermas for NIST's mechanism of collapse, how come you let off of him and gave him the answer? It was pathetically clear that he didn't know the answer and tried to dodge constantly.

I thought you completely crushed him in this part of the debate, it was almost embarrassing. Was this a brief moment of mercy/pity?

P.S. You also mentioned that you would have some video of deniers at Ground Zero getting this answer wrong - is it up yet or will you be putting it up at a later time?
 
Just watched it all again.

What an excellent show. I really hope that there can be more, regarding Pentagon and WTC7. Or a show with both. CT'ers use pentagon lawn and WTC7 is a means of grasping straws.
 
A good idea for a future debate would be to just focus on one site - one of the towers, 7, Pentagon, Flight 93, etc. It would be a complete rout!
 
Abbyas said:
Anyone here of any fencesitters who saw this debate? Or anyone who isn't as familiar with the subject matter?
Click to expand...

If someone unfamiliar with the subject matter tried to watch this, their brain would melt and run out of their ears. If they wanted a show for those people, it would need to deal just with the broad issues, and taking a half hour just to run down the fact that there are people who believe the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition and listing the things that they claim make it true.

Then you'd have to take time, not with details about the melting point of metal, but the broad debunking of the issue as a whole (too many people involved, the complexity of the supposed plan, the general fact that the experts disagree, etc).

No, this show was for people who had already seen Loose Change, who know what a "nist" is, who generally know the points of debate. And in those terms it was excellent. But for somebody unaware that there was a CD theory at all (which is the majority of the population) I think it would be a maze of confusion.
 
Noted above, but I thought I point out my favorite part again:

Gravy: Every structural engineer [on the planet] disagrees with you.

Bermas: Yeah, government engineers.
 
Hey Mark, this is Jan from Toronto. I met you, Chad and Abby the weekend after 9/11/06 and we spent an afternoon destroying the twoofers at GZ.

This debate with the LC kids was awsome! Avery pretty much threw in the towel at the opening bell with his "we know there's BS in our movie" speech. I believe that's called a pre-emptive surrender. It begs the question though: why include dubious claims in one's own video?

Loved the part about the WTC collapses when Jason had no clue what NIST even claims. Yet, of course, he somehow knows it's wrong...

I wish there had been time for you to ask the clueless lads the question I always use to trip up the twoof brigade: WHO should conduct the new investigation twoofers always call for? What engineers and demolition experts would they trust?

Twoofers NEVER give names because if those people were consulted and they didnt' back the kooks...well then what would they do? Call for another investigation?
 
shuize said:
Noted above, but I thought I point out my favorite part again:

Gravy: Every structural engineer [on the planet] disagrees with you.

Bermas: Yeah, government engineers.
Click to expand...

Funny how twoofers think every structural engineer in the WHOLE WORLD works for the US government. You'd think they could find some in Canada, Europe, South America. But alas, they cannot.

Ditto for that nagging lack-of-demolition-experts problem of theirs.
 
CHF said:
Funny how twoofers think every structural engineer in the WHOLE WORLD works for the US government. You'd think they could find some in Canada, Europe, South America. But alas, they cannot.

Ditto for that nagging lack-of-demolition-experts problem of theirs.
Click to expand...


Iranian structural engineers?

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom