Building 7 ???

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

what do you think disinformation means?

Intentionally false and inaccurate information.

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

They don't know. But they do know that the building was operating at near enough to full occupancy, which as 911myths say

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

They've seen no evidence that the building was making a profit, but the evidence that it was making a loss is incredibly tenuous.

They go on.

911myths wrote:

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 make no claim that they know the building was making a loss or turning a profit, merely that if someone is making a claim that the building was a white elephant that they should present supporting references, which should be examined.

This is not disinformation or a deliberate omission.

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


i did, hence why i found all the errors.

I'm sorry "all the errors". I cannot help but notice you've quietly dropped your claim that they omit thermite from their site.

that is not substantiated evidence.

I never said it was. However you claimed they omitted discussion about building fires and collapses similar to the WTC7.

I'm asking you to give a example of such a building collapse that they did omit.

also i've never heard of a building like wtc7 falling down from just fire and a bit of debris.

A "bit of debris" is a incredibly disingenuous statement, as has been pointed out on the thread already, massive chunks of the WTC 1&2 fell on WTC7 and the surrounding building causing substantive damage.

The rest of your point is simply a Argument from incredulity.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

that's not my claim, that might be yours but it is not mine.

Then you phrased it poorly not my problem.

but i thought you said it was not omitted?

deliberately 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.

So if a sentence like "We don't have access to Silverstein Properties complete financial records" was included in the article you'd be happy?

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

I can tell you that disinformation means "deliberate false information" This isn't what I think the word means it's what the word means.

You havent shown that 911myths wrote anything deliberately untrue, or indeed anything knowingly untrue.

i can say deliberately as he deliberately did not allow others to verify his claims and logic.

Anyone can verify the claims on the 911myths site.

and i can say that it is disinformation, can you please provide evidence that his lack of facts was not designed to be disinformation?

No because simply put thats not the way the world works.

You cannot say "911 myths is full of disinformation and deliberate omissions" and then demand others disprove it.

You made the claim about 911myths the onus is on you to prove it, not for I to disprove it.

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

Thats not relevant to the discussion you made the claim that 911myths was full of disinformation and deliberate omissions, please kindly prove it.

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.

The first quote is about fires in the pile at ground zero. It makes no mention of the fires temperature.

The second quote has to do with the (completely unverified) claim that motel steel, supposedly seen in the pile at ground zero 5 months after the attack was a byproduct of thermite. This claim falls down on two simple points.

1. Thermite, if it had been used in the attacks is a endothermic reaction, (meaning it burns quickly) and therefore could not be still having an effect 5 months after the attack.

2. Theres no substantive evidence of motel steel in the rubble pile at towers.

How do you think the above is "disinformation"?

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

Weirdly I had, I just struggle to comprehend why you think someone would rent a building and leave it empty, or how a landlord would apply a business model to make this turn into a profit.

Idle speculation of the above is irrelevant to the discussion.

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

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

Em no you didn't. For example you posted stuff about molten steel but I still have no idea what point you were making.

davoxx wrote: »

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

I tell you what, get me a site you like and I'll go look. Saves me picking a really terrible one.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Em no you didn't. For example you posted stuff about molten steel but I still have no idea what point you were making.

that a fire burning would produce heat.
heat is needed to keep things hot.
therefore there was heat being generated so his claim of there needing to be something else to keep the metal hot as well is disingenuous.

meglome wrote: »

I tell you what, get me a site you like and I'll go look. Saves me picking a really terrible one.

i have no idea .. i don't follow sites.
i thought you had examples.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

They've seen no evidence that the building was making a profit, but the evidence that it was making a loss is incredibly tenuous.

there is no evidence that they were making a profit, but the evidence that they were making a loss is so incredibly tenuous that the must be making a profit.

what evidence that they were making a loss?

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

that a fire burning would produce heat.
heat is needed to keep things hot.
therefore there was heat being generated so his claim of there needing to be something else to keep the metal hot as well is disingenuous.

Yes a fire would make things hot. The point that is being made is neither explosives or thermite could have made things hot enough for there to be molten steel weeks or months later, as the CT claims. That is not possible. The point he's making is it wasn't molten steel that people thought they saw, but most likely plastics or an alloy which would melt at much lower temperatures.

davoxx wrote: »

i have no idea .. i don't follow sites.
i thought you had examples.

I get one for you.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

1. Thermite, if it had been used in the attacks is a endothermic reaction, (meaning it burns quickly) and therefore could not be still having an effect 5 months after the attack.

i'm pretty sure that Thermite is an exothermic reaction.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Yes a fire would make things hot. The point that is being made is neither explosives or thermite could have made things hot enough for there to be molten steel weeks or months later, as the CT claims. That is not possible. The point he's making is it wasn't molten steel that people thought they saw, but most likely plastics or an alloy which would melt at much lower temperatures.

explosives or thermite, both being exothermic reactions can generate a lot of heat, the amount needed to keep something hot is dependant on other heat sources, and how fast the heat escapes.

see how what i said makes more sense than what you did?

and regarding thermite, the presence of molten steel has not been disproved. the strawman argument that there was molten steel 5 months or so afterwards means that there was thermite is irrelevant to whether molten steel was produced.

that is disinformation.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i'm pretty sure that Thermite is an exothermic reaction.

You're right. That will teach me not to proof read.

and regarding thermite, the presence of molten steel has not been disproved.

The presence of molten steel has not been proven in the first place.

the strawman argument that there was molten steel 5 months or so afterwards means that there was thermite is irrelevant to whether molten steel was produced.

that is disinformation.

No it's a completely dishonest representation of the two article on your part.

You said.

davoxxx wrote:

]http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel...d_the_wtc.htmlWe know there were fires burning at ground zero for months after the attacks.

The full quote however.

is

We know there were fires burning at ground zero for months after the attacks. It seems reasonable to assume that plastics and polystyrene were burning. The total volume of plastics capable of producing 1,3-diphenylpropane must surely have been considerably greater than the “sol-gels [required] to hold the [2,000 pounds of] thermite”, raising questions about Jones’ interpretation of this data,

You've taken two quotes about completely different aspects of different conspiracy theories about 911 and mashed them badly together to try and prove something that isn't there.

This isn't disinfo on 911myths part its profound dishonesty on your part.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You're right. That will teach me not to proof read.

or use terms that you don't understand: exothermic has nothing to do with speed of reaction.

simply: reactants → products + energy

it can be a slow or fast reaction.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

or use terms that you don't understand: exothermic has nothing to do with speed of reaction.

simply: reactants → products + energy

it can be a slow or fast reaction.

And this moves the discussion forward how exactly? You've never mistakenly mixed up two words like "accept" and "except"?

It'd be a shame if I had to go search for proof that you have at some point.

Perhaps we should just move on.

You do admit for example that the 911myths site does discuss the idea of thermite being used on building 7.

While we're on the subject of building 7, where is your evidence that there is a similar building collapse to building 7, and that 911myths intentional omitted it.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

And this moves the discussion forward how exactly? You've never mistakenly mixed up two words like "accept" and "except"?

no you missed the point.

mixing endothermic and exothermic, is easy enough to do.

thinking that exothermic means that the chemical reaction is fast, is not having a basic understanding of chemistry.

Di0genes wrote: »

It'd be a shame if I had to go search for proof that you have at some point.

i don't mind if you want to search for it

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

explosives or thermite, both being exothermic reactions can generate a lot of heat, the amount needed to keep something hot is dependant on other heat sources, and how fast the heat escapes.

see how what i said makes more sense than what you did?

No it doesn't make sense if it was molten steel.

Indeed they would generate heat... but for a very short time - they are both fast reactions. There was no temperature recorded in those buildings that could melt steel, at any stage. The two or three people who saw what they thought was molten steel had no experience whatsoever to judge what it was.

davoxx wrote: »

and regarding thermite, the presence of molten steel has not been disproved. the strawman argument that there was molten steel 5 months or so afterwards means that there was thermite is irrelevant to whether molten steel was produced.

You seem to have serious difficulty in understanding that it would need to be proven there was molten steel in the first place, which has never happened. Let looks at this logically...

1. There was no temperature recorded hot enough to melt steel.
2. The two or three people who thought they saw it had zero experience to tell what it was.
3. Lot's of other things would have melted and appeared to a layman to be molten steel.
4. People with expertise who worked the site have never suggested there was molten steel.
5. No evidence was ever found for it.

So what more likely? Molten plastic would be my first guess.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

No it doesn't make sense if it was molten steel.

Indeed they would generate heat... but for a very short time - they are both fast reactions. There was no temperature recorded in those buildings that could melt steel, at any stage.

recorded how?
can you find an official quote saying that they found no molten steel in the remains?

here is some nice science
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

also regarding the molten steel, i presumed when you say none of it was found, you meant "it was investigated by several independent bodies" ... which turns out not to be the case as the site was effectively locked down and the steel quickly shipped out of america country (as stated by the NIST report they had no access to the metal as it was long gone).

enno99

This looks to be interesting as to the occupancy of the towers on 911

http://v666.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/press-release-world-trade-center-occupancy-foia-panynj-1972-2001-lets-roll-forums/

did not get a chance to go through it yet




We have been told through various sources that their were occupancy issues with the twins and that they also had their highest occupancy at the time of the attacks, which we are told was at 95% occupancy.

We were never informed that the most prime real estate in New York City, in both Towers, never leased until a year or two before 9/11, in most cases. Why?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

recorded how?
can you find an official quote saying that they found no molten steel in the remains?

Can you find a official report that states no leprechauns or molten adamantium was found at the WTC.

Its very difficult to prove a negative.

Do you have any evidence that molten steel was found?

here is some nice science
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

Which parts? Specifically.




Now back onto your claim about disinformation and deliberate omissions from 911myths.

Found any yet?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Can you find a official report that states no leprechauns or molten adamantium was found at the WTC.

i did not know that was the theory you subscribed to.
sorry to break it to you but leprechauns are only found in ireland, unless on patricks day when they seem to be worldwide.
there is not such thing as molten adamantium, adamantium can appear in a liquid state that once solidifies can not be reverted to it's liquid state in the marvel universe.

if you believe that leprechauns caused 911 with fictional characters from the marvel universe, i'm happy for you.

Di0genes wrote: »

Its very difficult to prove a negative.

depends on the claim and person.
it is easy to prove that some people do not understand basic chemistry and physics.

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that molten steel was found?

according to that website i posted, they found molten steel.

Di0genes wrote: »

Which parts? Specifically.

did you read it, and the linked pdf? or did you not bother to read it like the NIST report?

here is the url again. tell me if you find any faults.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i did not know that was the theory you subscribed to.
sorry to break it to you but leprechauns are only found in ireland, unless on patricks day when they seem to be worldwide.
there is not such thing as molten adamantium, adamantium can appear in a liquid state that once solidifies can not be reverted to it's liquid state in the marvel universe.

if you believe that leprechauns caused 911 with fictional characters from the marvel universe, i'm happy for you.

You recently suggested someone

davoxxx wrote:

don't worry about not having no idea what i'm on about most of the time, if you did you would be asking better questions and use similes and metaphors.

Apparently you're extolling the use of metaphors and similes, yet you clearly completely failed to understand it when I used a metaphor.

depends on the claim and person.
it is easy to prove that some people do not understand basic chemistry and physics.

It's even easier to spot someone who isn't consist.

With you it's hardly looking for a needle in a haystack.*

*That by way is a metaphor.

according to that website i posted, they found molten steel.

Who exactly. Please quote the exact quote.

did you read it, and the linked pdf? or did you not bother to read it like the NIST report?

here is the url again. tell me if you find any faults.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

No thank you. Perhaps you'd pull the exact quote by the exact person who you claim found molten steel.




Oh and any more examples of disinformation or deliberate omissions from the 911myths website?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

did you read it, and the linked pdf? or did you not bother to read it like the NIST report?

here is the url again. tell me if you find any faults.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

No thank you.

how do you know it is not there so?
just like the NIST report, you can't be bothered to read it ...

I gave you evidence, if you're too lazy/conceited to read it for yourself then that is your problem and I'd ask that you not comment until you have the decency to read evidence when presented to you.

but do read on ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Can you find a official report that states no leprechauns or molten adamantium was found at the WTC.

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

i did not know that was the theory you subscribed to.
sorry to break it to you but leprechauns are only found in ireland, unless on patricks day when they seem to be worldwide.
there is not such thing as molten adamantium, adamantium can appear in a liquid state that once solidifies can not be reverted to it's liquid state in the marvel universe.

if you believe that leprechauns caused 911 with fictional characters from the marvel universe, i'm happy for you.

You recently suggested someone

davoxxx wrote:

don't worry about not having no idea what i'm on about most of the time, if you did you would be asking better questions and use similes and metaphors.

Apparently you're extolling the use of metaphors and similes, yet you clearly completely failed to understand it when I used a metaphor.

Ah, I get it, it's a metaphor. The the molten steel is represented by leprechauns and the building it represented by the pot of gold, right? And science is the molten adamantium?

if that was your attempt at a metaphor, we can now add basic english to basic chemistry and physics as the list of things that you do not understand.

that was "an argument by exaggeration".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

"With metaphor, unlike analogy, specific interpretations are not given explicitly."

eg: "Her eyes were glistening jewels."

as you'll need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Di0genes wrote: »

With you it's hardly looking for a needle in a haystack.*

*That by way is a metaphor.

it is also an idiom: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/needle+in+a+haystack.html

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

how do you know it is not there so?
just like the NIST report, you can't be bothered to read it ...

You don't know if I have/or haven't read the NIST report. Thats your assumption.

I gave you evidence, if you're too lazy/conceited to read it for yourself then that is your problem and I'd ask that you not comment until you have the decency to read evidence when presented to you.

but do read on ...

I read the "evidence" for example it claims that Mark Loizeaux saw molten steel. However, as 911 myths found out.

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President

So you see, when a website claims Mark Loizeaux as a witness to molten steel at ground zero I am sceptical.

Ah, I get it, it's a metaphor. The the molten steel is represented by leprechauns and the building it represented by the pot of gold, right? And science is the molten adamantium?

if that was your attempt at a metaphor, we can now add basic english to basic chemistry and physics as the list of things that you do not understand.

that was "an argument by exaggeration".

No it can be a metaphor and a argument by exaggeration at the same time.

You seem to think you can force and insist your definition of words on this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

"With metaphor, unlike analogy, specific interpretations are not given explicitly."

eg: "Her eyes were glistening jewels."

as you'll need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy


it is also an idiom: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/needle+in+a+haystack.html

an idiom, jusm like you.

Which is wonderful. Post reported.

I can't help noticing that you go off on these nasty little tangents when threads aren't going your way.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You don't know if I have/or haven't read the NIST report. Thats your assumption.

then you did not understand it? i was sure that you said that you did not read it ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Which is wonderful. Post reported.

thanks.

Di0genes wrote: »

I can't help noticing that you go off on these nasty little tangents when threads aren't going your way.

and sorry that you thought i was calling you an idiot.

Di0genes wrote: »

Can you find a official report that states no leprechauns or molten adamantium was found at the WTC.

Di0genes wrote: »

No it can be a metaphor and a argument by exaggeration at the same time.

can you explain this metaphor for me so? then i might be able to understand your argument.

Di0genes

I notice none of the above moves the argument forward,

To wit you cited a paper that cited Mark Loizeaux as a eyewitness to molten steel. Loizeaux refutes that claim.

Your thoughts.

Furthermore I notice you've still not supported your claim about 911myths being full of disinformation and deliberate omissions, are you incapable of doing so?

If you can't remember whether I said or didn't say in a previous post, I suggest you refresh your memory by using the search function (and davoxxx please don't try and drag the thread further off topic by getting into a discussion about the search function) It's not my place or problem to act as your personal Jim Fixx for your addled memory.

can you explain this metaphor for me so? then i might be able to understand your argument.

You asked for

can you find an official quote saying that they found no molten steel in the remains?

It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Which I illustrated. Now if you want to get pedantic about idiom v metaphor the spell czechs forum can be made available to you.

davoxx

you quoted:

It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

seems like evidence of molten steel ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Furthermore I notice you've still not supported your claim about 911myths being full of disinformation and deliberate omissions, are you incapable of doing so?

i thought you understood the examples? remember your metaphor with leprechauns and marvel universe? you should be clearer if you can't understand something.

Di0genes wrote: »

If you can't remember whether I said or didn't say in a previous post, I suggest you refresh your memory by using the search function (and davoxxx please don't try and drag the thread further off topic by getting into a discussion about the search function) It's not my place or problem to act as your personal Jim Fixx for your addled memory.

thanks for the suggestion, though i'd say the same for you and your theory, but we both know you won't do that, so if were you i'd drop that ... but you won't

and diogenes, since you asked so nicely, i won't ask you to use the search function like i asked in numerous other posts but you avoided because you can't find your theory and are not able to type it again ... that would not be relevant to this thread in the same vien as you demanding it of someone else was.

Di0genes wrote: »

It's nearly impossible to prove a negative.

huh? i thought it was just very difficult

Di0genes wrote: »

Its very difficult to prove a negative.

guess it is now nearly impossible ...

so for you is is nearly impossible to prove that 911 was not a conspiracy? well that explains your posts so

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

If you can't remember whether I said or didn't say in a previous post, ...

i never said i can't remember, i just assumed that you did not read it based on me having to walk you through quotes regarding the 4kg of explosives taking out a column which would lead to the collapse of wtc 7.

you do remember that? i even gave you the link to the report (which was linked in the thread) after you gave me an incorrect link.

so to say i can't remember is incorrect and is merely your assumption, i just presumed that you did not read it as i was baffled by your denial of the 4kg explosives being mention in the report.

now since that is clarified, we can get back on topic ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

you quoted:


seems like evidence of molten steel ...

And it seems like you misunderstand the concept of evidence.

Mark Loizeaux wrote:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with.

While the smoking gun tried to say

Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD., who was involved in the removal of the rubble, was reported as saying that molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7.

The smoking gun is trying to present Loizeaux as a direct witness to molten steel at ground zero.

However with some additional questions it becomes clear that Loizeaux didn't witness it himself, he's just repeating unverified reports he himself heard.

So he's in so much a witness to Molten Steel at ground zero, as someone who's friend witnessed a crime and told them about it.

i thought you understood the examples?

You said 911 myths didn't mention WTC7 and thermite, and I showed you it did.

I understood that the examples were both bad and wrong.

Can you provide clear examples of

A) Disinformation (intentionally false information)

or

A deliberate omission by 911 myths (and show how it was deliberate)

remember your metaphor with leprechauns and marvel universe? you should be clearer if you can't understand something.

And you should stick to the topic at hand, providing clear examples of disinformation and deliberate omissions by 911 myths.


thanks for the suggestion, though i'd say the same for you and your theory, but we both know you won't do that, so if were you i'd drop that ... but you won't

huh? i thought it was just very difficult

guess it is now nearly impossible ...

so for you is is nearly impossible to prove that 911 was not a conspiracy? well that explains your posts so

Yes depending on the negative it ranges from nearly impossible to very difficult.

Much in the way it can be extremely difficult to prove your innocence when accused of a crime, instead the police and prosecution must prove your guilt.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

<stuff>

so that is your theory of what happened? i don't see how it ties into not looking for metaphorical leprechauns at the site ...

see all i can say is that leprechauns are fictional while thermite is a substance that exists in reality.

so can you explain your metaphor? i asked my english teacher and she did not understand it.

i believe that the this is the crux of the wtc 7 collapsing, so we need to clarify why you think that because they did not look for leprechauns, they did not need to look for thermite. is there some connection with leprechauns and thermite that i'm missing?

tfitzgerald

I think the hijackers did it on there own

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

so that is your theory of what happened? i don't see how it ties into not looking for metaphorical leprechauns at the site ...

see all i can say is that leprechauns are fictional while thermite is a substance that exists in reality.

And you can prove Leprechauns are fictional? I'm not saying I think they exist, I'd really enjoy you proving that they fictional.

So what if thermite exists in reality? Likes of chemical compounds exist is reality. Is there a particular reason the NIST should have looked for thermite, and what are those reasons, please.

so can you explain your metaphor? i asked my english teacher and she did not understand it.

Is that a real English teacher or a fictional one?

i believe that the this is the crux of the wtc 7 collapsing,

Are you of the opinion that thermite caused the collapse of the WTC?

so we need to clarify why you think that because they did not look for leprechauns, they did not need to look for thermite. is there some connection with leprechauns and thermite that i'm missing?

Clearly there is.

Now back on your claim about the disinformation and deliberate omissions on the 911myths. Please give specific examples, and your explanation as to why you know they are disinformation or if anything is missing that it's a deliberate omission.

Thank you.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

And you can prove Leprechauns are fictional?

i think i can, you see there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow where you'd find them.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not saying I think they exist,

is that metaphorically speaking?

Di0genes wrote: »

I'd really enjoy you proving that they fictional.

i'm sure you would, since they are somehow related to wtc7. and how they tie into your overall theory of 911 being organised by wee men (leprechauns).
i hope my answer above satisfies your requirements of proof.

Di0genes wrote: »

Is that a real English teacher or a fictional one?

in my case it would be real. in yours, i presume metaphorical.

Di0genes wrote: »

Thank you.

you are welcome. now that we have disproved leprechauns, we can see your theory falls down like a house of stacked leprechauns.

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

so we need to clarify why you think that because they did not look for leprechauns, they did not need to look for thermite. is there some connection with leprechauns and thermite that i'm missing?

Clearly there is.

so what was the connection with leprechauns and thermite with respect to wtc7?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i think i can, you see there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow where you'd find them.

Is that the only place you're supposed to find Leprechauns? What about Tuatha de Danann versions of it.

Are you categorically going to be able to prove that Leprechauns don't exist, and how exactly are you planning on doing so.

i'm sure you would, since they are somehow related to wtc7. and how they tie into your overall theory of 911 being organised by wee men (leprechauns).

I'll think you'll find I never said 911 was organised by wee men. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

i hope my answer above satisfies your requirements of proof.

You answer above is not proof. You've offered a rational as to why you think they don't exist, it's not proof they don't exist.

in my case it would be real. in yours, i presume metaphorical.

Droll. I'll give you full marks for style, but as a coherent argument you are somewhat lacking in substance.

Substance for example would you giving examples of what you claim is disinformation on the 911myths site. Or a deliberate omission.

you are welcome. now that we have disproved leprechauns,

You haven't disproved anything yet.

we can see your theory falls down like a house of stacked leprechauns.

Not my theory. Kindly refrain from claiming it was.

so what was the connection with leprechauns and thermite with respect to wtc7?

With respect do you believe thermite destroyed WTC7?

Oh and you ignored a bit....

me wrote:

So what if thermite exists in reality? Likes of chemical compounds exist is reality. Is there a particular reason the NIST should have looked for thermite, and what are those reasons, please.

and

Please give examples of what you claim is disinformation on the 911myths site. Or a deliberate omission. And how you know it is a deliberate omission

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I'll think you'll find I never said 911 was organised by wee men. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

then why would you mention that NIST should have looked for them? i'm sure you had a point in that metaphor? what was it again?

ps: still don't see your theory anywhere ... just like the Leprechauns?

pps: is the fact that you won't just state your theory because it involves Leprechauns?