Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[TruthersLie]

2007. More importantly, it's not just that Larry was suggesting that the fire was fed by diesel, a preposterous hypothesis, but one widely perpetuated. The idea that the antenna sliced through the building is even more ridiculous. Yes, since he was the owner, and so closely consulted, he knew very well it wasn't the antenna. But like his botched PBS interview, he's merely throwing up a smokescreen, lying if you will, to distract from what really brought the bldg down.

And if you go back and look at the quote you are datamining you find something intersting.

The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept. 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and ``cut through the façade'' of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services, Silverstein said.

Silverstein isn't quoted as saying the antenna did it. The antenna part is from the authors of the article. The orignial wtc7 collapsed on sept 11 when something "cut through the facade."

The only fully quoted portion is the "cut through the facade" from Silverstein. The rest is a paraphrase for which I have questions of the accuracy... It wouldn't be the first time that a journalist has paraphrased incorrectly.

So the antenna "cut[ing] through the facade" isn't a full or direct quote. The only part that is is something "cut through the facade."

English isn't your first language is it?

 

[Toke]

What is the problem with silverstein thinking that his opinion, when talking to some commander or other, had any weight in the decision to abandon the effort in wtc7?

 

[RedIbis]

Silverstein isn't quoted as saying the antenna did it. The antenna part is from the authors of the article. The orignial wtc7 collapsed on sept 11 when something "cut through the facade."
[...]
So the antenna "cut[ing] through the facade" isn't a full or direct quote. The only part that is is something "cut through the facade."

English isn't your first language is it?

You've made quite an argument. I see that I've found myself in a difficult situation, but before I concede defeat and humiliation, let me ask you something: are you saying that Silverstein would not make such a statement?

If Silverstein did in fact make such a statement, are you admitting that he probably knows that the antenna did not slice through the facade, contributing to the collapse, but by asserting so, is in fact lying?

 

[RedIbis]

"lying if you will"

as opposed to repeating what FEMA said...

But if he is lying, then so to is your hero DRG (actually DRG is really lying) whereas silverstein is repeating what FEMA said WELL before the NIST report was issued.

accusation from ignorance duly noted.

Where does FEMA state that the N. Tower antenna sliced through the facade of WTC 7?

 

[johnny karate]

If Silverstein did in fact make such a statement, are you admitting that he probably knows that the antenna did not slice through the facade, contributing to the collapse, but by asserting so, is in fact lying?

Lovely false dichotomy. No possible way he misspoke or was just mistaken, eh?

I'll tell you what, Red. Based on your rigid standards of what determines a lie, I will gladly admit that Silverstein was lying the moment you admit you were lying when you uttered this equally demonstrable falsehood:

What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

Or this one:

But it's not a video game as Mackey and others have made it out to be.

Or this one:

I'm not sure who is favorite baseball team is either, but what's important is that his account has Bush & Co. gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks.

Or this one:

Because as Capt. Currid explains, the OEM had passed the word to the street.

Or this one:

Really? Focused on the columns and the elevator shafts by the same company that supervised the demo of the Kingdome and participated in the clean up at GZ?

I'm willing to concede both you and Silverstein are liars.

How about you?

 

[RedIbis]

Lovely false dichotomy. No possible way he misspoke or was just mistaken, eh?

I'll tell you what, Red. Based on your rigid standards of what determines a lie, I will gladly admit that Silverstein was lying the moment you admit you were lying when you uttered this equally demonstrable falsehood:


Or this one:


Or this one:


Or this one:


Or this one:



I'm willing to concede both you and Silverstein are liars.

How about you?

I don't see how any of my quotes can be construed as lying. Care to explain?

 

[tfk]

2007. More importantly, it's not just that Larry was suggesting that the fire was fed by diesel, a preposterous hypothesis, but one widely perpetuated. ...

Would you care to explain what you think is "preposterous" about LS, or anyone, SUGGESTING the IDEA that the multiple fuel tanks iside the building MIGHT have contributed to the fires?

Do you think that LS originated this idea?

Do you think that, if someone else - say, engineers at, say, FEMA, or fire fighters at, say, the FDNY - originated the idea, then it is still "preposterous" for a "business & finance guy" like LS to repeat it?


Tom

 

[Toke]

Do you think that, if someone else - say, engineers at, say, FEMA, or fire fighters at, say, the FDNY - originated the idea, then it is still "preposterous" for a "business & finance guy" like LS to repeat it?

Of course, it he say anything non-factual it is due to his malicious lying nature, not because he is simply misinformed/wrong.

 

[TruthersLie]

You've made quite an argument. I see that I've found myself in a difficult situation, but before I concede defeat and humiliation, let me ask you something: are you saying that Silverstein would not make such a statement?

If Silverstein did in fact make such a statement, are you admitting that he probably knows that the antenna did not slice through the facade, contributing to the collapse, but by asserting so, is in fact lying?

I am saying that you, like most twoofs have piss poor reading comprehension skills.

I am saying that it was a paraphrased conversation from the authors of the article in which they did not provide direct quotes to silverstein saying anything about the antenna.

In the article he stated that something "sliced through the facade."

please provide a citation which states silverstein said it was the antenna.

As for the false choice attempt... massive fail. What he said about the collapse came BEFORE the nist reports was released. He was operating on the same assumptions from the FEMA reports about the Diesel fires.

It is called reading into the quote something that isn't there. This is like your no avgas contamination in the soil in shanksville means no jet crashed there bs.

Try again.

 

[TruthersLie]

Where does FEMA state that the N. Tower antenna sliced through the facade of WTC 7?

Fema didn't say the antenna... and in the article you quote neither did Larry S.

The article authors state the antenna.

if you have a source for that claim, then feel free to present it.

And again and again, it doesn't matter because it happened BEFORE the NIST report was released. If he claimed it was the antenna, ok... It is called speach.. I know you seem to have some difficulties with it... but try to not take EVERYTHING so literally.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't see how any of my quotes can be construed as lying. Care to explain?

Love to.

Lie #1:

What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

Silverstein didn't say "we", he said "they". As established here.

Lie #2:

But it's not a video game as Mackey and others have made it out to be.

The software in question was in fact a video game. As established here and here.

Lie #3:

I'm not sure who is favorite baseball team is either, but what's important is that his account has Bush & Co. gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks.

"Bush & Co." were not "gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks", nor does the account you referred to indicate they were. As established here and here.

Lie #4:

Because as Capt. Currid explains, the OEM had passed the word to the street.

Currid never said that. As established here.

Lie #5:

Really? Focused on the columns and the elevator shafts by the same company that supervised the demo of the Kingdome and participated in the clean up at GZ?

The company in question did not supervise the demolition of the Kingdome. As established here.


So how about Red? Ready to admit you're a liar? Or are you going to keep on pretending that your rules of what determines a liar apply to everyone but you?

 

[DGM]

Of course, it he say anything non-factual it is due to his malicious lying nature, not because he is simply misinformed/wrong.

Then you got David Ray who researched and wrote a book on the lies of the 9/11 commission was only mistaken. Yep....no double standard there.

 

[RedIbis]

So how about Red? Ready to admit you're a liar? Or are you going to keep on pretending that your rules of what determines a liar apply to everyone but you?

You appear not to understand the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.

 

[Toke]

Then you got David Ray who researched and wrote a book on the lies of the 9/11 commission was only mistaken. Yep....no double standard there.

No, who would accuse a truther of double standards.

 

[johnny karate]

You appear not to understand the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.

Oh, I see. Well, in that case...

Now this is a flat out lie.

You appear not to understand the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.


So there we have it! Using the patented RedIbis Method of Disproving a Lie, I've just established that Silverstein did not in fact lie.

 

[RedIbis]

So there we have it! Using the patented RedIbis Method of Disproving a Lie, I've just established that Silverstein did not in fact lie.

But earlier you conceded that Silverstein did lie.

 

[Thunder]

You appear not to understand the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.

hows that revolution coming along?

 

[DGM]

But earlier you conceded that Silverstein did lie.

Now that's a lie on your part.

I'll tell you what, Red. Based on your rigid standards of what determines a lie, I will gladly admit that Silverstein was lying the moment you admit you were lying when you uttered this equally demonstrable falsehood:

I missed this part (Bold)

 

[johnny karate]

But earlier you conceded that Silverstein did lie.

As DGM already pointed out, this makes Lie #6.

Or maybe you'd like to claim we have a "difference of opinion" about what I actually said?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What he said about the collapse came BEFORE the nist reports was released. He was operating on the same assumptions from the FEMA reports about the Diesel fires.

As were many of us at the time. According to The RedIbis Standard of Lie Detection, I guess that makes many of us liars, too.