Skeptic4Sure's Gravy Debunking Thread!

[jaydeehess]

Alcoholism is bad
Having a few beers is not bad
Extropolating Alcoholism from "Bet you a 6 pack" (Not many blokes turn down beer ) is lunacy.

Betting a "6 pack" proves he is NOT an alcoholic.
6 beer is an appetizer to atrue alcoholic, he'd have bet a whole case(which in my part of the world means 24 beer)

 

[chipmunk stew]

Okay, give it a whirl:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#26m19s

BUMP for Skeptic4Sure, because he's online RIGHT NOW!

 

[JonnyFive]

BUMP for Skeptic4Sure, because he's online RIGHT NOW!

Come on! Let's see some evidenciary action!

 

[Horatius]

So what you're saying is that Gravy is really a covert CIA MIB telepathic psychic disinfo agent who masterminded the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, and the entire war in Iraq (which is faked in a sandlot behind a Hollywood production company)?

...or am I a covert FBI Illuminati Rockefeller mind slave bounty hunter sent to spread counter-counter info about him?

I'm so confused.

You should be confused, because the real answer is, that both are true!

Kneel in awe at the realization of the complexity of Our Plot!

 

[aggle-rithm]

What's so bad about alcoholism?

I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but it's always worked for me.

 

[JonnyFive]

You should be confused, because the real answer is, that both are true!

Kneel in awe at the realization of the complexity of Our Plot!

I would talk about this more, but I think I have some people to erase.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

1) W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush. Greg Palast is a professional journalist for the BBC and like many journalists, has anonymous sources, one of those sources was an FBI agent. Palast provided a scan of the documents, http://www.prisonplanet.com/W199I.gif, and went as far as to publicly level the charges against the Bush Administration...are you calling Greg Palast a liar, Gravy? The only person, besides Gravy, who has seemingly tried to defend the Bushes on W-199i is "Mike Williams" of 911myths.com. Let's see what Mike has to say, let's hear his "take" as he likes to put it...

But once you know that happened under Clinton, then this is just a second-hand account of a comment from an unnamed source: it may be accurate, it may not. There's no way to tell, and it's certainly not sufficient to prove the original claim.


It's accurate. It's certainly accurate when the US State Dept website on 9/11 Conspiracy theories makes absolutely no correction or statement about this issue. Tell me Gravy, do you have any statements from the Bush Admin correcting this issue?

Mike uses the same strawman argument as Gravy regarding the term "Executive Order"...

In fact some people actually misinterpret this to the point of taking the 1996 FBI case number, then describing it as a “Bush Executive Order” telling the FBI to “back off bin Ladin”.

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.

 

[TheGrunion]

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.

Honestly though, you're wrong.

An Executive Order is a type of Presidential Directive.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

Your google-fu is weak, young grasshopper.

You may want to brush up on your understading of sets and sub-sets while you are at it.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Honestly though, you're wrong.

An Executive Order is a type of Presidential Directive.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

Your google-fu is weak, young grasshopper.

You may want to brush up on your understading of sets and sub-sets while you are at it.

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

 

[LashL]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

Mark lisps? Evidence, please.

W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush.

Yes, he is absolutely correct that it was not an Executive Order, which was the point, in case you missed it.

Evidence that the "Presidential Directive Decision" was "re-enacted by Bush", please.

It's certainly accurate when the US State Dept website on 9/11 Conspiracy theories makes absolutely no correction or statement about this issue.

Um, no, I don't think so. That's like saying that if I write and publish an untrue story about you and you don't correct it, that makes it accurate.

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

Really? I don't think so. Evidence, please.

 

[TheGrunion]

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

Good grief. You may need more remedial help than S4S. I'll give you a couple of style points though. I find it cute how you gallantly came to his defense, kind of like he is a damsel in distress.

S4S made a statement that was clearly incorrect. I corrected it. Please explain to me how that is a strawman arguement?

At this point, I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman arguement is.

Regarding the rest of S4S's post (the part that directly pertains to 9/11), that's not for me to respond to. Not in this thread anyway. This is Gravy's thread.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".

As if it matters.

The idiot Silverstein already showed he was lying, in his response from his company spokesperson Dara McQuillan, they stated:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.




Meanwhile,

-Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting >in< WTC 7."

-The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

-And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."


Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

And does evacuating the firefighters because of safety reasons mean they knew the building was going to collapse because of damage?

Did they evacuate "3 hours before" because they knew the WHOLE building was going to fall straight down into a pile? Or were they just unsure of the integrity of the building because they thought a PORTION may collapse OVER or a PIECE OF BUILDING DEBRIS may fall on a firefighter. They had lost hundreds of fellow firefighters, maybe they thought the rescue efforts and safety of the remaining firemen was more important. Does that make them structural engineers that know a whole building is going collapse?

Hey Mark did you ever speak with Indira Singh?

Did you ever see Rick Seigel's video, hear the boom? Or the "Clap of Thunder" and "shockwave" as reported by an eyewitness on the scene?

 

[LashL]

At this point, I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman arguement is.

I suspect that you're right about that. It seems that nearly all troofers are hopelessly inept at identifying logical fallacies and hopelessly bereft of proper debate skills.

 

[LashL]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".

As if it matters.

The idiot Silverstein already showed he was lying, in his response from his company spokesperson Dara McQuillan, they stated:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile,

-Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting >in< WTC 7."

-The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

-And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

And does evacuating the firefighters because of safety reasons mean they knew the building was going to collapse because of damage?

There were, in fact, firefighters in the building and they did initially intend to try to fight the fires. They found that their firefighting capabilities were compromised to the point of being non-existent because the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of the towers. Still, the firefighters remained on the scene at building 7, and continued to ensure that everyone had been successfully evacuated from the building, and continued to assess the building even though they could not engage in active firefighting operations in the building because of the loss of firefighting capacity mentioned above.

You do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "manual firefighting operations"? And you do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "firefighting capacity"? If not, perhaps you could consult your fellow CTer, Russ Pickering, as it is rumoured that he worked for a fire department once upon a time. Perhaps he can enlighten you on the terminology if you don't understand it.

 

[rwguinn]

The same point still stands.

Do you not understand S4S's post or are you using the same strawman tactic that Gravy did?

The map is not the territory.
The subset is not the set.
Don't you folks get tired of being wrong All the time?

 

[Gravy]

Now that I've had some time, I was able to go through a bit of Mark's lisp filled rant.

1) W-199i-WF-213589...Mark says that it wasn't an executive order. That's correct, the gentleman was using the wrong terminology--it's actually a "Presidential Directive Decision". It was originally drawn up by Clinton admin, and then re-enacted by Bush.

False. W-1991 is neither an Executive order nor a Presidential Decision Directive (not "directive decision, btw). It is an FBI case file number from the Washington Field Office. You can view actual PDDs here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html

...are you calling Greg Palast a liar, Gravy?

Palast says it's an FBI case number. I agree. It's not a "presidential" anything. http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html

Honestly though, a Presidential Directive Decision is a form of an executive order.

Honestly, though, you are woefully misinformed. This is what comes of believing Alex Jones.

I have to take some more time out to go through the rest of his crap.

Good luck with that. I hope your research skills improve.

So this was what you meant when you said you knew "exactly what you'd say to me?" Consider me underwhelmed.

 

[Gravy]

Then he gets into the debate with the guy about who said "pull it".

Wrong. The guy said that Silverstein said "We made that decision." He was wrong. The fire department made the decision to pull their men away from the building, which Silverstein acknowledged.

It doesn't matter who made that decision?

Uh, yeah, it does.

Hey, I wrote a whole paper about WTC 7! It's linked in my signature. It should clear up your misperceptions.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "manual firefighting operations"? And you do realize, do you not, that there is a difference between the presence of firefighters and "firefighting capacity"?

No, he does not realize any of those things. And probably never will.

 

[kookbreaker]

Why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about pulling a firefighting operation from the building?

Why do you think he wouldn't? Owners (or lease holders) of prominent buildings are going to be involved in discussions of firefighting plans when they are ablaze. They have to be for severeal reason, not the least of which is all building changes/modifications are not in a convenient file they Fire Chief has handed to him when he shows up on site.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

False. W-1991 is neither an Executive order nor a Presidential Decision Directive (not "directive decision, btw). It is an FBI case file number from the Washington Field Office. You can view actual PDDs here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html

Palast says it's an FBI case number. I agree. It's not a "presidential" anything. http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html

Honestly, though, you are woefully misinformed. This is what comes of believing Alex Jones.

Good luck with that. I hope your research skills improve.

So this was what you meant when you said you knew "exactly what you'd say to me?" Consider me underwhelmed.

You're calling something I remember from memory "research"????

Please.

It's also called a "Presidential Directive", hence me misplacing the words.

Which part is the PDD and which part is the case number Gwavy?

And now that we've got the strawman tactics out of the way, are you admitting that w-199i existed and was re-enacted by Bush?

Any comments on my buddy Rick Siegel's video? The "Clap of thunder"? Indira Singh?

Didn't think so.