• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:823:852:1124:1449]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

This document is virtually unreadable. Inconsistent fonts, random size changes, holds underlines and italics. So, I had to stop after the first argument raised...

Silverstein and his "pull it" comment... And while he makes a legitimate point, he doesn't address why the comment is suspicious, and focuses on what is effectively a strawman as to why the comments are significant.

911myths is a pile of garbage, if debunkers gave that site half the scrutiny the put against any truther site, it would be shockingly clear that the author is a moron. I wouldn't be surprised if the person had a GED at best.

GED beats intentional ignorance any day....

Whining about form while ignoring content.

Last warning...

If you have EVIDENCE to present, present it. If not? Find another thread to contaminate.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

GED beats intentional ignorance any day....

Whining about form while ignoring content.

Last warning...

If you have EVIDENCE to present, present it. If not? Find another thread to contaminate.

He just dismisses everything we put forward without any really valid critique, a typical truther auto-response.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

LOL, that is a pathetic response. Lame. I know you use the term 'strawman' indiscriminately, however, it would be nice if you actually demonstrated how he created this supposed 'strawman'. Just for a change.

What is he harping on about it is way better than 99% of truther sites and the only parts that seem to deserve any of bobs criticisms about inconsistent fonts, size etc are taken directly from truther sites.
I'm guessing he never actually read any of it and just decided to attack the "look" rather than the content without even realizing the "look" he was attacking was taken from truther sites.

In other words Bob just attacked 90% of the truther sites out there without even realizing it
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

What is he harping on about it is way better than 99% of truther sites and the only parts that seem to deserve any of bobs criticisms about inconsistent fonts, size etc are taken directly from truther sites.
I'm guessing he never actually read any of it and just decided to attack the "look" rather than the content without even realizing the "look" he was attacking was taken from truther sites.

In other words Bob just attacked 90% of the truther sites out there without even realizing it

It's not Bob, it's BmanMcFly, and he just attacks every source I post without providing any refutation except claiming 'strawman' a lot without actually understanding the meaning. Just shrug it off as more truther BS lacking substance and of no consequence.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

You should have known that they aren't actually interested in addressing any evidence....

Bm

Help out a bit. I have watched the vids you posted links before.

What specific evidence are the vids are indiciting as "proof", Give us a write up and a time mark for discussions.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

This thread is intended for the TRUTHERS to present their EVIDENCE of explosives in WTC7.

It IS NOT for critiques of the 9/11 Commision Report.
It IS NOT for critiques of the FBI report.
It IS NOT for critiques of the FEMA, NTSB, EPA, military, NORAD/NEADS contributions to the Reports, the MSM, etc.....

Lay out your EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVES....

Evidence of what? I don't even know to what the hell your referring. Want to let me in on the incident?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

It's not Bob, it's BmanMcFly, and he just attacks every source I post without providing any refutation except claiming 'strawman' a lot without actually understanding the meaning. Just shrug it off as more truther BS lacking substance and of no consequence.

Dang that's 2x in last week I've misread who posted something and I'm not even drinking.
Well I can fix that I'll pour myself a scotch immediately!
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Evidence of what? I don't even know to what the hell your referring. Want to let me in on the incident?

Well thread title is: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?
And last line of the post you quoted is: Lay out your EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVES....

So it should be obvious he wants evidence of EXPLOSIVES.
Specifically EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Now this is the CT section so it is assumed you know what WTC7 is referring to. However if not I feel I can answer with no chance of contradiction from our mousy friend that he is referring to the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 911. (that's the terrorist attacks that occurred on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.)

Now I'm off to get that scotch
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

LOL, that is a pathetic response. Lame. I know you use the term 'strawman' indiscriminately, however, it would be nice if you actually demonstrated how he created this supposed 'strawman'. Just for a change.

Did you read that document? Some lines have 3 text sizes, 2 fonts, some underline and some bold... It's seriously unreadable. Kinda like it's nearly impossible to read walls of text. It doesn't matter about the content if the format is painful.

Like I said, this wasn't a true strawman, in the sense that people have made those arguments listed, although the way it's debunked leads to a case of really bad grammar.... But it is something of a strawman in the sense that it takes away from the actual significance of the statement.

You won't accept it; but silversteins statement is one of many examples of ambiguous but seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination. Had he said "pull it", when grammatically he should have said pull "them"... It makes a seemingly deliberate statement that self-incriminates in an ambiguous way.

It actually is similar to how the mob works, by making everyone guilty of something, then everyone is protected from snitching through the shared guilt, because everyone has information over everyone else in the group.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Well thread title is: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?
And last line of the post you quoted is: Lay out your EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVES....

So it should be obvious he wants evidence of EXPLOSIVES.
Specifically EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Now this is the CT section so it is assumed you know what WTC7 is referring to. However if not I feel I can answer with no chance of contradiction from our mousy friend that he is referring to the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 911. (that's the terrorist attacks that occurred on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.)

Now I'm off to get that scotch

Yeah, there were explosives at the World Trade Center...It was in the fuel tanks of two hi-jacked airliners. One hit the north tower and the other hit the south tower. So what's the problem and what has that got to do with 'truthers'?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Did you read that document?

Of course and several times.

Some lines have 3 text sizes, 2 fonts, some underline and some bold... It's seriously unreadable. Kinda like it's nearly impossible to read walls of text. It doesn't matter about the content if the format is painful.

I didn't find it thus...funny.

Like I said, this wasn't a true strawman, in the sense that people have made those arguments listed, although the way it's debunked leads to a case of really bad grammar.... But it is something of a strawman in the sense that it takes away from the actual significance of the statement.

Oh, really? LOL You stated that it was 'effectively a strawman'. It either is, or it isn't.

You won't accept it; but silversteins statement is one of many examples of ambiguous but seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination. Had he said "pull it", when grammatically he should have said pull "them"... It makes a seemingly deliberate statement that self-incriminates in an ambiguous way.

No, I won't accept it because owing to its inherent stupidity. That response smacks of desperation more than critical thinking. What makes you so sure that Silverstein couldn't have made a simple error owing to unfamiliarity with FDNY procedural terms? I understand it's easier to jump to silly conclusions, but it is best to consider the reasonable before embarking on a journey of nonsense.

It actually is similar to how the mob works, by making everyone guilty of something, then everyone is protected from snitching through the shared guilt, because everyone has information over everyone else in the group.

I see, you haven't really given that a lot of thought have you?
 
Last edited:
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Did you read that document? Some lines have 3 text sizes, 2 fonts, some underline and some bold... It's seriously unreadable. Kinda like it's nearly impossible to read walls of text. It doesn't matter about the content if the format is painful.

Like I said, this wasn't a true strawman, in the sense that people have made those arguments listed, although the way it's debunked leads to a case of really bad grammar.... But it is something of a strawman in the sense that it takes away from the actual significance of the statement.

You won't accept it; but silversteins statement is one of many examples of ambiguous but seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination. Had he said "pull it", when grammatically he should have said pull "them"... It makes a seemingly deliberate statement that self-incriminates in an ambiguous way.

It actually is similar to how the mob works, by making everyone guilty of something, then everyone is protected from snitching through the shared guilt, because everyone has information over everyone else in the group.

Irrelevant BS in spades.

How you EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVES at WTC7 or not?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

You won't accept it; but silversteins statement is one of many examples of ambiguous but seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination. Had he said "pull it", when grammatically he should have said pull "them"... It makes a seemingly deliberate statement that self-incriminates in an ambiguous way.

WHO made the decision to "pull"?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

WHO made the decision to "pull"?

Lmao... You clearly didn't read or understand the post.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Of course and several times.



I didn't find it thus...funny.



Oh, really? LOL You stated that it was 'effectively a strawman'. It either is, or it isn't.

I suppose a red herring might be a better depiction in this case. It's a strawman relative to what I would say on the subject though


No, I won't accept it because owing to its inherent stupidity. That response smacks of desperation more than critical thinking. What makes you so sure that Silverstein couldn't have made a simple error owing to unfamiliarity with FDNY procedural terms? I understand it's easier to jump to silly conclusions, but it is best to consider the reasonable before embarking on a journey of nonsense.



I see, you haven't really given that a lot of thought have you?

It's one example of at least a dozen similar examples, including from Germany, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and, (ducks head) Israel.

It's such a common thing to use collective guilt... Look at the example of a firing squad, typically only one or two of the line have real bullets in their guns, so that while each individual is guilty you can't say which bullet actually killed the person.

Finally, that's where the word AMBIGUOUS fits in... You can equally say he was talking about firefighters and about demolishing the building simultaneously. It's ambiguous. Silverstein is not a dumb guy, he has to know that a group of firefighters is not an "it"... He could have said pull them, pull them out, or even get them out.... And each one would be less ambiguous and would have killed the discussion years ago.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.


Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.


Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

Exactly the same thing from the 911 myths page... Which, as I said, is besides the point.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Exactly the same thing from the 911 myths page... Which, as I said, is besides the point.

Intentional ignorance....

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO PULL?

CLUE: It WASN'T Silverstien.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”1

Debunking The Real 9/11 Myths: Part 9: Larry Silverstein and Barry Jennings | 911Blogger.com

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Really? SHOW ME.....

CLUE: It WASN'T Silverstien.

But Silverstein is a Joooooooooooooooo!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom