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.
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"
Di0genes wrote: » Please provide evidence of specific pieces of disinformation on the 911myths site. Please provide evidence of a deliberate omission on the site.
Di0genes wrote: » Please provide a example of these "assumptions".
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.
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)
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.
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.
weisses wrote: » Nope its not a question ... didn't see a question mark ... its their conclusion
Please try harder
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.
davoxx wrote: » fair enough, so the evidence that you need is at www.goggle.com
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
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
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.
If that paragraph qualifies as a fact for you ...fine
Could we discuss building 7 now ?
Di0genes wrote: » So you can provide no evidence of deliberate omissions and disinformation at 911 myths. Thank you.
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.
Di0genes wrote: » Off you go, since you don't seem capable of providing any assumptions on the part of 911myths.
davoxx wrote: » that is an unfounded assumption. proof please.
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
For me its lots of assumption and maybe's
sorry it was an attempt to stay on topic .. nothing to do with my lack of capabilities
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?
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.
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
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
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.
no reply.http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermite&fulltext=Searchhttp://www.911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=thermate&fulltext=Search
Di0genes wrote: » I'm sorry you were claiming the site was full of "disinformation" and "deliberate omissions". The above is neither of those things.
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.
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.
Di0genes wrote: » http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.htmlhttp://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.htmlhttp://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html Discusses thermite.
Di0genes wrote: » Because there aren't any building that were hit by rubble from another skyscraper, and left burn for hours upon hours.
Di0genes wrote: » Even if they were Omitted, and we can see they were not. How can you prove it was deliberately omitted.
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.
Di0genes wrote: » None of the above is proof of disinformation or deliberate omissions.
We know there were fires burning at ground zero for months after the attacks.
“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.
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.
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.
this is disinformation - even if it was at near full occupancy, does not mean it is making a profit.
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 are deliberately omitting the figures (rent for each tenant, cost of maintaining building wtc ..) in order to determine whether it was a profit.
the possibility of use on WTC7? i must have missed that, can you copy a quote?
meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.
can you substantiate this please?
davoxxx wrote: no mention of how no other building like wtc 7 ever collapsed from fires in such a manner
huh? so they were not omitted? can you provide a quote from the site please?
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.
if you really believe it is not, then continue to use the website of one person's views as an unbiased reference.
davoxx wrote: » http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html then:http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
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?
Di0genes wrote: » The writers of 911 myths don't have access to Larry Silverstein's company's financial records.
Di0genes wrote: » I've tried to explain how you're wrong, in the above sentences. I hope you'll pay attention.
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
Di0genes wrote: » I'm sorry, what do you think this proves?
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.
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.
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.
