Building 7 ???

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

can you come back when you can answer the questions i asked of you?

i know that you're incapable of backing up any of your claims.
but you just won't admit it.

as i know you can't use the search function, do you need me to link you the post?

I know you will never address the above, but will have a compulsion to get jump in trying to seem smart or something, no doubt misunderstanding and making up facts that are stated elsewhere but you just can use the search function to find it.

if you want to debate properly, you know what you have to do.
in case you don't i'll say it again:
answer the questions that were asked of you before that you avoided.
provide the post "which i can't find via search but you can"

other than that, sure i won't be inclined to provide evidence to someone who won't provide theirs and then whines.

Please provide evidence of specific pieces of disinformation on the 911myths site.

Please provide evidence of a deliberate omission on the site.

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

911myths.com/index.php/

After reading a few pages i just have to say that They are making assumptions as well to make "their case"

Please provide a example of these "assumptions".

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Please provide evidence of specific pieces of disinformation on the 911myths site.

Please provide evidence of a deliberate omission on the site.

Please reply to previous questions first.

Please provide evidence as was requested of you for your several of your claims.

Please provide evidence as was requested of you for your several of your assumptions.

Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you have not read the item in question.
Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you fail to provide evidence when asked.
Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you ignore requests for evidence from others.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Please provide a example of these "assumptions".

http://911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

Quote// Maria speaks with a strong accent, so it might be possible to argue that she meant to say that she saw the van "parked", rather than park. Of course, even then, Maria's statement says she doesn't see them until some time after the initial attack, so there's nothing here to say that they were set up filming beforehand //end quote

That's just one example after looking 5 minutes on that site


I wish there was a building 7 page on that site as well (just to stay on topic)

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

Please reply to previous questions first.

Please provide evidence as was requested of you for your several of your claims.

Please provide evidence as was requested of you for your several of your assumptions.

Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you have not read the item in question.
Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you fail to provide evidence when asked.
Please understand that people will not jump to providing you with evidence when you ignore requests for evidence from others.

I pointed you to the search function of this site. I just checked and the thread in question is very easy to find.

Now please provide evidence of disinformation on the 911 myths site.

Please provide evidence of deliberate omissions.

I am beginning to suspect you are simply incapable of doing either.

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

http://911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

Quote// Maria speaks with a strong accent, so it might be possible to argue that she meant to say that she saw the van "parked", rather than park. Of course, even then, Maria's statement says she doesn't see them until some time after the initial attack, so there's nothing here to say that they were set up filming beforehand //end quote

That's just one example after looking 5 minutes on that site


I wish there was a building 7 page on that site as well (just to stay on topic)

Thats not a assumption. Thats a question. The fact that Maria speaks with a strong accent isn't in dispute.

In addition the key part of Maria' statement is that she did not see the "dancing Jews" filming prior to the attack, therefore her witness testimony cannot be used to prove "foreknowledge" in the Israelis actions.

Please try harder.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats not a assumption. Thats a question. The fact that Maria speaks with a strong accent isn't in dispute.

In addition the key part of Maria' statement is that she did not see the "dancing Jews" filming prior to the attack, therefore her witness testimony cannot be used to prove "foreknowledge" in the Israelis actions.

Please try harder.

Nope its not a question ... didn't see a question mark ... its their conclusion

Please try harder

TheoBane

Hey guys

Just want to ask a quick question,

How many other buildings beside WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 got destroyed aswell.

I was just looking at the pic at the start of the thread and it show's the building's on either side of WTC 7 still standing,



also what about the buildings across the road from WTC 1 and 2, how come they did't get hit and destroyed. Is there any explanation for this, just curious.

p.s. i know this pic i put up isnt the one at the start of the thread, but this one should more area around GZ

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I pointed you to the search function of this site. I just checked and the thread in question is very easy to find.

Now please provide evidence of disinformation on the 911 myths site.

Please provide evidence of deliberate omissions.

I am beginning to suspect you are simply incapable of doing either.

fair enough, so the evidence that you need is at www.goggle.com

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Nope its not a question ... didn't see a question mark ... its their conclusion

Do many "conclusions" include the word "might"?

Please try harder

The key point in that paragraph is that Maria did not see the Israeli's prior to the attack, so cannot be used a witness in a case to "prove" the Israelis had foreknowledge.

There's no assumption there.

Please provide a clear example of one of the assumptions you claim they are using to make their case.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Do many "conclusions" include the word "might"?



The key point in that paragraph is that Maria did not see the Israeli's prior to the attack, so cannot be used a witness in a case to "prove" the Israelis had foreknowledge.

There's no assumption there.

Please provide a clear example of one of the assumptions you claim they are using to make their case.

It might not be clear enough for you ... sorry my conclusion

In that sentence the word Might is used to express a possibility not based on any facts .... so for me its an assumption yes

If that paragraph qualifies as a fact for you ...fine

Could we discuss building 7 now ?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough, so the evidence that you need is at www.goggle.com

So you can provide no evidence of deliberate omissions and disinformation at 911 myths.

Thank you.

Di0genes

TheoBane wrote: »

Hey guys

Just want to ask a quick question,

How many other buildings beside WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 got destroyed aswell.

I was just looking at the pic at the start of the thread and it show's the building's on either side of WTC 7 still standing,



also what about the buildings across the road from WTC 1 and 2, how come they did't get hit and destroyed. Is there any explanation for this, just curious.

p.s. i know this pic i put up isnt the one at the start of the thread, but this one should more area around GZ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Other_buildings

Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

It might not be clear enough for you ... sorry my conclusion

In that sentence the word Might is used to express a possibility not based on any facts .... so for me its an assumption yes
/quote]

No. If they assumed Maria had a heavy accent because of her name, that would be an assumption. However, because they've listened to the interview they know her accent is strong, and are suggesting or proposing that there might be some confusion due to her poor english.

They are not assuming anything.

If that paragraph qualifies as a fact for you ...fine

It is a fact that Maria did not see the dancing Israelis arrive. It is a possibility that she mis spoke about parking or parked

Could we discuss building 7 now ?

Off you go, since you don't seem capable of providing any assumptions on the part of 911myths.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

So you can provide no evidence of deliberate omissions and disinformation at 911 myths.

Thank you.

that is an unfounded assumption. proof please.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

No. If they assumed Maria had a heavy accent because of her name, that would be an assumption. However, because they've listened to the interview they know her accent is strong, and are suggesting or proposing that there might be some confusion due to her poor english.

so it might be possible to argue that she meant to say that she saw the van "parked", rather than park

Hey if that above statement is the definition of being factual and accurate fine by me mate

For me its lots of assumption and maybe's

When a CT er comes up with that kind of crap you will go out of your way to debunk it

Di0genes wrote: »

Off you go, since you don't seem capable of providing any assumptions on the part of 911myths.

sorry it was an attempt to stay on topic .. nothing to do with my lack of capabilities

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

that is an unfounded assumption. proof please.

You've made the original claim when you there was disinformation and deliberate omissions on the 911 myths website.

I've repeatedly asked you to provide supporting evidence for these assertions.

You've either been incapable or unwilling to do so.

Which is it?

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

so it might be possible to argue that she meant to say that she saw the van "parked", rather than park

Hey if that above statement is the definition of being factual and accurate fine by me mate

It's a hypothetical. However you ignore the following sentence which makes it clear that Maria definitely didn't see the Israelis prior to the attack.

For me its lots of assumption and maybe's

Thats one example, of what you think is assumption.

One isn't lots.

sorry it was an attempt to stay on topic .. nothing to do with my lack of capabilities

If you want to stay on topic. perhaps steer the conversation onto the topic, don't expect others to do it for you.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You've made the original claim when you there was disinformation and deliberate omissions on the 911 myths website.

I've repeatedly asked you to provide supporting evidence for these assertions.

You've either been incapable or unwilling to do so.

Which is it?

how does that prove i can provide no evidence?
it proves i have not, nothing else.

so once again i ask for proof that i "can provide no evidence", thanks.

humanji

Davoxx, stop being argumentative.

Di0genes, stick to the topic.

davoxx

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

We see no evidence to suggest that the WTC "had been losing money for years", was "a disaster", or "under-tenanted", as the original story claims. In fact it seems the reality was just the opposite: it was doing very well. There's no reason to believe the asbestos problems were unmanageable, or that the WTC was a "legal and financial timebomb", either. So the next time someone tells you that the towers had to be demolished because they were a white elephant, don't let it go: ask them for supporting references, and see if their claims really stand up to scrutiny.

"In fact it seems the reality was just the opposite" this is an opnion ... not really based on any fact in the article.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

no mention of the possibility of thermite?
no mention of how no other building like wtc 7 ever collapsed from fires in such a manner

it is deliberately omitted.

from xxx@xxx.com
to mike@911myths.com
date 1 October 2009 11:36
subject account on 911myths.com

dear mike,

how can i make an account at the new wiki page?
i'd love to help out and contribute to this site.

also you don't seem to have any mention of thermite on the site, which people believe would explain the collapse of wtc 7, is there a reason for this?
also about the accuracy needed to fly jets at such high speed and accuracy?

thanks,

Dave XXXXXXX

no reply.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermite&fulltext=Search
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermate&fulltext=Search

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html


"In fact it seems the reality was just the opposite" this is an opnion ... not really based on any fact in the article.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

I'm sorry you were claiming the site was full of "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions". The above is neither of those things.


The article points out how the building was at near full occupancy, they're making a logical conclusion that based on the fact that the building was near full they Silverstein must have been making a profit.

However I'd really like to know how you consider this disinformation (it's true the building was near full occupancy) or a deliberate omission.

no mention of the possibility of thermite?

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

Discusses thermite.

no mention of how no other building like wtc 7 ever collapsed from fires in such a manner

Because there aren't any building that were hit by rubble from another skyscraper, and left burn for hours upon hours.

They do discuss the WTC7 collapse extensively.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

it is deliberately omitted.

Even if they were Omitted, and we can see they were not. How can you prove it was deliberately omitted.

no reply.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermite&fulltext=Search
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermate&fulltext=Search

So? Why should they allow anyone to rewrite their website? Does boards.ie let anyone come in and be a mod? What is the above supposed to prove.


None of the above is proof of disinformation or deliberate omissions.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry you were claiming the site was full of "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions". The above is neither of those things.

i never said the above was an example of the "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions". it was an example of an opinion which is not based on facts.

Di0genes wrote: »

The article points out how the building was at near full occupancy, they're making a logical conclusion that based on the fact that the building was near full they Silverstein must have been making a profit.

see just because it was at near full occupancy, does not mean it is making a profit.
it can be empty and still be making money.

so his and by connection, your "logical" conclusion is incorrect.
it is also based on assumptions, not facts.

Di0genes wrote: »

However I'd really like to know how you consider this disinformation (it's true the building was near full occupancy) or a deliberate omission.

this is disinformation - even if it was at near full occupancy, does not mean it is making a profit.
they are deliberately omitting the figures (rent for each tenant, cost of maintaining building wtc ..) in order to determine whether it was a profit.

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

Discusses thermite.

the possibility of use on WTC7? i must have missed that, can you copy a quote?

Di0genes wrote: »

Because there aren't any building that were hit by rubble from another skyscraper, and left burn for hours upon hours.

can you substantiate this please?

Di0genes wrote: »

Even if they were Omitted, and we can see they were not. How can you prove it was deliberately omitted.

huh? so they were not omitted? can you provide a quote from the site please?

Di0genes wrote: »

So? Why should they allow anyone to rewrite their website? Does boards.ie let anyone come in and be a mod? What is the above supposed to prove.

they should so that the site is not just one person presenting evidence to suit his belief, and then could actually be used as a reference site.

Di0genes wrote: »

None of the above is proof of disinformation or deliberate omissions.

if you really believe it is not, then continue to use the website of one person's views as an unbiased reference.

davoxx

http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

We know there were fires burning at ground zero for months after the attacks.

then:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

“Molten steel” in February, perhaps 5 months after the attacks? If it’s proposed that something like thermite/ thermate was responsible, then we can’t help wonder how much would be required to maintain high temperatures for so long.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i never said the above was an example of the "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions". it was an example of an opinion which is not based on facts.

Your issue with the website was that it was full of "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions", not baseless opinion.

see just because it was at near full occupancy, does not mean it is making a profit.
it can be empty and still be making money.

Really? Really? Shall I call NAMA and let them know that you've cured our financial crisis because you can gain rental yield from empty properties?

The writers of 911 myths don't have access to Larry Silverstein's company's financial records.

However they leased the WTC complex to sublease it to tenants, and in that regard the building was at near full occupancy,

Their opinion that Silverstein Properties isn't "opinion not based on facts" but exactly the opposite. The fact that the building was nearly full leads them to believe it was not a money losing venture.

[quote[
so his and by connection, your "logical" conclusion is incorrect.
it is also based on assumptions, not facts.
[/quote]

I've tried to explain how you're wrong, in the above sentences. I hope you'll pay attention.

this is disinformation - even if it was at near full occupancy, does not mean it is making a profit.

It isn't disinformation lets look at the quote you so helpfully edited in to provide.

911myths wrote:

We see no evidence to suggest that the WTC "had been losing money for years", was "a disaster", or "under-tenanted", as the original story claims. In fact it seems the reality was just the opposite: it was doing very well. There's no reason to believe the asbestos problems were unmanageable, or that the WTC was a "legal and financial timebomb", either. So the next time someone tells you that the towers had to be demolished because they were a white elephant, don't let it go: ask them for supporting references, and see if their claims really stand up to scrutiny.

They're simply saying that the evidence of the claim that the building was losing money, or had a unmanageable asbestos problem don't seem to be well founded. And that if someone makes these claims you should ask to see their supporting references, and examine them.

Theres no disinformation, or deliberate omissions here. End of discussion.

they are deliberately omitting the figures (rent for each tenant, cost of maintaining building wtc ..) in order to determine whether it was a profit.

I'm sorry they're what?

How do you know they had access to these figures? I imagine it would be impossible or at least extremely difficult to obtain these figures as Silverstein properties wouldn't release them.

911myths aren't deliberately omitting these figures, and unless you can show that they have access to these figures, and choose to not publish it, or indeed if the information is available at all before you can accuse them of deliberately omitting this information.

the possibility of use on WTC7? i must have missed that, can you copy a quote?

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

Is their rebuttal to Steve Jones paper which 911 myths quote,

meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.

can you substantiate this please?

Can I substantiate what?

You claimed that 911myths.

davoxxx wrote:

no mention of how no other building like wtc 7 ever collapsed from fires in such a manner

I've never heard of a building fire like WTC7 (A fire started when rubble from a collapsing skyscraper hit the building and that no attempt was made to fight the blaze for over 7 hours).

However you seem to think there are other building fires like WTC7 and both myself and 911myths are ignoring these buildings.

Well Davoxxx what building fires are like the WTC7? I'm stumped.

But you're accusing 911myths of disinformation and deliberately omitting material, so you'll need to tell us exactly which building fires like the WTC7 911myths are ignoring.

huh? so they were not omitted? can you provide a quote from the site please?

Your claim was that they deliberated omitted information like financial information about the WTC complex, unless you can show they had the information and intentionally decided not to publish it, you cannot say they deliberately omitted it.

they should so that the site is not just one person presenting evidence to suit his belief, and then could actually be used as a reference site.

Irrelevant to the discussion, just because they declined to let this person contribute, doesn't mean that they are spreading disinformation and deliberately omitting information.

if you really believe it is not, then continue to use the website of one person's views as an unbiased reference.

I'll continue to use the website, can you please provide actual examples of disinformation on the 911myths site, and in addition please provide examples of where they have deliberately omitted information.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

then:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

I'm sorry, what do you think this proves?

davoxx

what do you think disinformation means?

Di0genes wrote: »

Really? Really? Shall I call NAMA and let them know that you've cured our financial crisis because you can gain rental yield from empty properties?

yes, right now, you should call them and tell them whatever you want, since you came to that conclusion it must be right.

Di0genes wrote: »

The writers of 911 myths don't have access to Larry Silverstein's company's financial records.

so how can they possibly know he was not making a loss?
if they can't why would they say that he was not?

this is why i asked what do you think disinformation means?

Di0genes wrote: »

I've tried to explain how you're wrong, in the above sentences. I hope you'll pay attention.

i did, hence why i found all the errors.

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Because there aren't any building that were hit by rubble from another skyscraper, and left burn for hours upon hours.

can you substantiate this please?

I've never heard of a building fire like WTC7 (A fire started when rubble from a collapsing skyscraper hit the building and that no attempt was made to fight the blaze for over 7 hours).

that is not substantiated evidence.
also i've never heard of a building like wtc7 falling down from just fire and a bit of debris.

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Even if they were Omitted, and we can see they were not. How can you prove it was deliberately omitted.

huh? so they were not omitted? can you provide a quote from the site please?

Your claim was that they deliberated omitted information like financial information about the WTC complex, unless you can show they had the information and intentionally decided not to publish it, you cannot say they deliberately omitted it.

that's not my claim, that might be yours but it is not mine.
but i thought you said it was not omitted?
anyway ... my claim it that the deliberated omitted the fact that they did not have access to the documents so that they can not say if it was loss making or profitable.

this is why i asked what do you think disinformation means?

i can say deliberately as he deliberately did not allow others to verify his claims and logic.
and i can say that it is disinformation, can you please provide evidence that his lack of facts was not designed to be disinformation?

Di0genes wrote: »

Irrelevant to the discussion, just because they declined to let this person contribute, doesn't mean that they are spreading disinformation and deliberately omitting information.

how many authors are there to that site?
are you one?
do you know why people use wikipedia as a reference?

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry, what do you think this proves?

well that the fires that were burning for months might have maintained the high temperatures without the need for wondering about how much thermite/thermate was needed to maintain the high temperatures.

one can't help but wonder what kind of person would forget to include that there were fires there for several months that would help disprove his reason for dismissing the the possibility of thermite/themate when that person uses it else where to disprove something else.

Di0genes wrote: »

Really? Really? Shall I call NAMA and let them know that you've cured our financial crisis because you can gain rental yield from empty properties?

i guess it never occurred to you that someone might rent an empty building?

meglome

weisses wrote: »

911myths.com/index.php/

After reading a few pages i just have to say that They are making assumptions as well to make "their case"

They explain at every step why they believe what they believe. Anything specific? I mean it should be easy to show us, it's a website after all.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Not really. The CT sites are past masters at leaving important information out. A site like 911myths.com gives you their sources and actively encourages you to check. It's why that site is often used as reference.

do you have any examples of these CT sites like i asked for before?

meglome wrote: »

They explain at every step why they believe what they believe. Anything specific? I mean it should be easy to show us, it's a website after all.

yeah i've already pointed some of the flaws. i actually wasted my time reading it, just like i read the NIST report.

i'm still wating for you to show examples of "The CT sites are past masters at leaving important information out" ...

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

well that the fires that were burning for months might have maintained the high temperatures without the need for wondering about how much thermite/thermate was needed to maintain the high temperatures.

one can't help but wonder what kind of person would forget to include that there were fires there for several months that would help disprove his reason for dismissing the the possibility of thermite/themate when that person uses it else where to disprove something else.

Thermite is a chemical reaction and it burns hot and fast so neither explosives or themite would cause there to be high temperatures for a long period of time. What evidence do you have for high temperature for months? And what temperatures exactly?

Actually I realised I have no idea what you're talking about as your text makes no sense, so my reply may be meaningless.