• 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.

The Gravy Debunks Robert Steele Thread

Usual Suspect

Unregistered
U
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
228
Much like Craig Bartmer it wasn't fair of me to put out Robert Steele and think Gravy would be ready to debunk him in minutes. So just as with Bartmer I will start this thread. I only posted 3 links on Steele and will post the same 3 here however Gravy knows there's more to debunk. I will apologize again for calling Gravy a Straw Man since I didn't give him anytime to get info together to debunk Steele. Gravy asked me to answer some questions which I did. You can ask Russ Pickering and JessicaRabbit about that. So now I ask Gravy to debunk Robert Steele. I will start checking back tomorrow as I wait for Gravy to debunk Steele

Steele 1

Steele 2

Steele 3

Gravy knows he can search for more to debunk. Tomorrow I will start checking in once a day as I wait for Gravy to debunk Steele.
 
For Gravy's convenience, some specific claims from Steele.

"There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

"You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around."

However, dear Usual Suspect, I'm quick to add that in the Times article you link, Steele writes this:
"Armed with new concepts, money, and suicidal pilots, Osama bin Laden has cost us at least $20 billion in damages."
 
Dazed said:
For Gravy's convenience, some specific claims from Steele.
Click to expand...
Dazed, you must have missed my post to you in which I said I wouldn't be responding to this troll.

ETA:
me said:
Dazed, you haven't been folowing this thread so I'll fill you in. We've repeatedly told US that this is a discussion forum, not a place for him to come and dump links and demand "debunkings." We've repeatedly requested him to state specifically what, and why, he found to be important in Steele's writing. US has refused to do so, and has repeatedly lied and otherwise behaved like an ass. I've told him I won't be responding to him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Reported to the forum moderators for trolling.
Click to expand...


Come on Gravy. Now I gave you time to get info together on this. I even apologized for calling you a straw man but honestly what is this reponse?? I'll still give you time and start checking back once a day starting tomorrow. look forward to your debunking.
 
Gravy said:
Dazed, you must have missed my post to you in which I said I wouldn't be responding to this troll.
Click to expand...

I think if you explained to him why Mr. Steele is wrong and 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, it would be a nice step toward a more mature resolution.
 
Dazed said:
For Gravy's convenience, some specific claims from Steele.

"There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

"You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around."

However, dear Usual Suspect, I'm quick to add that in the Times article you link, Steele writes this:
"Armed with new concepts, money, and suicidal pilots, Osama bin Laden has cost us at least $20 billion in damages."
Click to expand...
looking at this theres nothing to debunk, at least nothing that hasnt been debunked a dozen times already
 
Dazed said:
I think if you explained to him why Mr. Steele is wrong and 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, it would be a nice step toward a more mature resolution.
Click to expand...
See the ETA in my post above. You missed the original.
 
looking at this theres nothing to debunk, at least nothing that hasnt been debunked a dozen times already
Click to expand...

Yeah, its not quite a debunk that is in order here, so much as a character assassination... :duck:
 
Last edited:
Gravy you're out of order on this. I've just looked at the threads you have started and there are a lot just like this. One is even just a request by you to get a poster ignored!
 
Look at it this way Gravy, instead of running every CT off the board, and martyring them in the eyes of the LC krew, why don't you either educate them, or ignore them? I don't think he's breaking any rules by creating this thread. If you don't want to answer his threads, then let them stand empty as a testament to that.
 
This is how they do it, Gravy.

What the woowoos cannot answer with arguments, facts, and logic, they seek to suppress with fatigue. I blame you not at all for refusing to answer, and the pile-on by jessicarabbit and Dazed is duly noted.
 
boloboffin said:
This is how they do it, Gravy.

What the woowoos cannot answer with arguments, facts, and logic, they seek to suppress with fatigue. I blame you not at all for refusing to answer, and the pile-on by jessicarabbit and Dazed is duly noted.
Click to expand...

Pile on? Supporting a truther when he is up against everyone here and getting reported for starting threads
 
boloboffin said:
This is how they do it, Gravy.

What the woowoos cannot answer with arguments, facts, and logic, they seek to suppress with fatigue. I blame you not at all for refusing to answer, and the pile-on by jessicarabbit and Dazed is duly noted.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did you call me a woowoo, maam?
 
I won't post again until tomorrow like I said Gravy but if you can't debunk this or Craig Bartmer you can concede now. There's no shame in it.

*Screenshots taken*
 
Last edited:
Dazed said:
I'm sorry, did you call me a woowoo, maam?
Click to expand...

If the post goes woowoo when you read it...

Gravy had said in about three threads now that he's not responding to Usual, because Usual's plainly a fatigue troll. You are giving the fatigue troll assistance by posting info from his links and trying to incite Gravy into a response. Maybe you don't see it that way, but it certainly reads that way.

And why be so formal? I respond better to "[rule8]" anyway.
 
Last edited:
That's exactly what I'm doing. He doesn't know how to conduct himself here, he's in the enemy camp. If he's going to get banned, whatever, but he seems to have calmed down considerably.
 
I don't get it.

Someone saw LC and now thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Gravy has already thoroughly debunked LC. What else is there to debunk? Are you expecting Gravy to somehow PROVE this guy DOESN'T think it's an inside job?

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

Back
Top Bottom