Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Zlaya]

9/11 was an inside job, and as soon as the people who don't believe it was an inside job get off their asses and do my work for me and give me the evidence that proves my claims, I'll shut them right up (as long as I'm out of pocket less than five dollars)!http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

Could these people possibly be any more pathetic?


"Clunkity Clunk smelly twoofer clunkity clunk."

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.


Brasil: Part of being a careful researcher regarding 9/11 involves comparing various aspects of the event to make sure they agree with and don't contradict each other. Mackey here has discussed the thesis of jet fuel being a more probable cause of any damage in the basements than non-jet-fuel explosives (I won't add to that because I haven't the expertise, and he's handling it well enough on his own). Another angle to investigate would involve the injuries the victims sustained. If you are correct, then there should be evidence of overpressure injuries. I'm still working on that, but my point is that mere assertion regarding the "likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11" is not strong argument. It is unsupported. If you could elaborate on your opinions by including more observations, reported and acknowledged facts, and present supporting evidence that can be independently researched rather than simply presenting assertions, the debate here can proceed more smoothly.

---

TAM, Gravy, and others:

On the note above (his quote I've excerpted), I've been trying to research the concept of a high explosives blast occuring under the WTCs from the point of view of injuries reported. Specifically, I've been trying to locate sources that discussed seeing any cases of tympanic (eardrum) or alveolar (lung) overpressure injuries. I've only found a few reports here and there of ear injuries - although a couple only specified one eardrum, and no accompanying respiratory distress (which doesn't rule out explosives, but does argue against it), and I'm completely striking out on lung overpressure injuries; I'm simply finding no reported cases.

But, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as the saying goes, so I'm wondering if you two (or anybody else) has any info regarding the specific issue of overpressure injuries. If, as Brasil purports, explosives were used, we should be seeing a plethora of reports of such tympanic or alveolar injuries, like we do in the reportage of the Madrid bombings (here's one example of many, from "Emergency Radiology": http://www.springerlink.com/content/k323178048673w12/fulltext.pdf), the bus bombings in Israel during the Intifada, or the Oklahoma City event. Here's my question: Do you know of any sources that deal specifically with listing the injuries treated during 9/11?

And TAM (bolding and coloring to catch your attention :D), since you're a doctor, I was hoping to get your help on this specific find: This report from "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" Titled "Rapid Assessment of Injuries Among Survivors of the Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center — New York City, September 2001" (Link: http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/mmwrvol51no1_01112002.pdf). It's a short article, unfortunately, but I was interested in eliciting comment from you on it. From what I as a layman can read from it, there's a conspicuous absence of any overpressure injuries recorded in that study, but I may have missed something due to my lack of expertise. Would you mind taking a peek at it when you have the time and seeing if you can find anything regarding that?

BTW, only the first few pages are relevant; the rest of that link includes completely off topic articles (Childrens' nutrition in Mongolia, an Arizona Salmonella outbreak, etc.) that should just be ignored.

[Pookster]

Find me the quote where I said that and I will paypal you $50. I said I used to build and test "things that go BOOM" with my 17 year old friends while in high school. No rational person would interpret that as me claiming to be an "expert." So when's your high school graduation party, anyway? You the same year as Totovader?

You did claim to know a lot about explosives. Were you just saying that for giggles?

[beachnut]

Find me the quote where I said that and I will paypal you $50. I said I used to build and test "things that go BOOM" with my 17 year old friends while in high school. No rational person would interpret that as me claiming to be an "expert." So when's your high school graduation party, anyway? You the same year as Totovader?
I wonder, you say you know a lot; but what?

… I know a lot about explosives… saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high…
You post that you know a lot, i.e. expert, and then you make a wild claim cause you are a person who knows a lot!

You said it, I call it; you owe it! Better eat lunch, you do not eat crow well.



He said he noes a lot, then makes a claim; just like an expert; the definition of expert; claim knowledge, make statement from that knowledge; Expert like! Good job, you claim it, then do not claim it; then claim you will get your buddy to save your ideas of woo.

[brasil]

9/11 was an inside job, and as soon as the people who don't believe it was an inside job get off their asses and do my work for me and give me the evidence that proves my claims, I'll shut them right up (as long as I'm out of pocket less than five dollars)!

Could these people possibly be any more pathetic?


Ok, I'll call him, or if he's cool with it, video interview him. If you or anyone else on here has his number please PM it to me, otherwise I'll start looking for it. Nice "quote mining" Gravy, btw. For the record, my reason for not wanting to call him is/was out of respect, and wanting to leave him in peace.

[Zlaya]

Or is this what you do when you're called out on such ridiculous claims- play semantics?


Woooow, wait, hold your horses, do we have a 'debunker' accusing a 'smelly tin hat wearin troofer' of playing semantics, when all the 'debunkers' do all the time is play semantics?

The double standards are getting better and better here.

[R.Mackey]

Since I have to really go to lunch now, just replying to that:

"Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel"
By PHILIP SHENON and DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
April 2, 2004
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/bushaides.html


You are getting more and more off-topic with every post, at this point. This is what we sometimes refer to around here as "The Truther Shuffle."

I'm not interested in your personal politics. I too have severe problems with the Bush Administration. However, unless you can show where the 9/11 Commission, NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, FBI, or any other investigating body actually made mistakes, then your complaints don't amount to a hill of beans. We aren't arguing the method of investigation, we're arguing its conclusion. That conclusion is, without a doubt, that 19 hijackers coordinated by al-Qaeda took over four airliners and crashed them deliberately, leading to destruction of numerous buildings and thousands of deaths. Period.

If you continue to go off-topic, I will request review from the moderators. You are, of course, welcome to concede my arguments regarding performance in the basement of WTC 1 and 2 and start a new thread, but I doubt I will participate unless you increase the quality of your arguments.

[beachnut]

"Clunkity Clunk smelly twoofer clunkity clunk."Let me fix your errors in your post. Next time do it right.

http://beachymon.com/photo/truther.jpg
9/11 was an inside job, and as soon as the people who don't believe it was an inside job get off their asses and do my work for me and give me the evidence that proves my claims, I'll shut them right up (as long as I'm out of pocket less than five dollars)!

[Gravy]

ElMondo, I haven't seen any accounts that noted the specific types of injuries you're looking for. All the basement injuries that I'm aware of are

1) Leg and back injuries to occupants of elevators that stopped suddenly
2) People being knocked down by the explosions and having things fall on them
3) Flash burns from the fireballs

Kenneth Johannemann:
I was waiting by the elevator to go to the restrooms, and then there was a big bang, and the whole building shook. The elevator door flew open, and a guy stumbled out, and he was badly burned. He was a delivery guy. The skin from his wrist was hanging down past his fingertips. http://www.abm.com/ilwwcm/resources/file/eb000c0fdc64a5c/Alliance-911.pdf (http://www.abm.com/ilwwcm/resources/file/eb000c0fdc64a5c/Alliance-911.pdf)

Kenny Johannemann was in the number one tower of the World Trade centre, waiting for the elevator in the basement.

It was shift-change time, the time of day when the building is most crowded.

"The lift door exploded open. there was a man inside half burnt. His skin was hanging off.

"I dragged him out of the lift and somebody helped me get him out for the building. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/23/1030052968600.html (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/23/1030052968600.html)

Johannemann video:
"What happened was, I was down in the basement, all of sudden we heard a loud bang. And the elevator doors blew open, some guy was burnt up, so I dragged him out, his skin was all hanging off, so I dragged him out and pulled him outta the parking lot [inaudible]" See video: http://tinyurl.com/8qay5 (http://tinyurl.com/8qay5)

Had the victim been close enough to a high explosive to be burned like that, he'd be dead and the elevator and shaft would have been blown to bits.

ALL of the burn injury descriptions are similar, and several people on higher floors describe the jet fuel dripping on them, getting in their eyes, and inhaling it as they were burned.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to fathom why the conspiracists don't believe these victims.

[T.A.M.]

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

Once again, in good old "truther" fashion, they want a guided tour of the evidence, an FBI agent to take them by the hand and show them the plane parts, to show them the bits and pieces of bone and flesh. If not, then it "doesn't cut it".

Get use to it...that is the way the REAL WORLD works.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

ElMondo, I haven't seen any accounts that noted the specific types of injuries you're looking for. All the basement injuries that I'm aware of are

1) Leg and back injuries to occupants of elevators that stopped suddenly
2) People being knocked down by the explosions and having things fall on them
3) Flash burns from the fireballs

Kenneth Johannemann:
[/url]

Had the victim been close enough to a high explosive to be burned like that, he'd be dead and the elevator and shaft would have been blown to bits.

ALL of the burn injury descriptions are similar, and several people on higher floors describe the jet fuel dripping on them, getting in their eyes, and inhaling it as they were burned.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to fathom why the conspiracists don't believe these victims.



That's still helpful. You're right, BTW: If someone was close enough to get burned, but not get (sorry for the blunt terminology; my vocabulary's escaping me today) blown to bits, then that does argue against a high explosives blast.

On the other hand, I guess the obvious response would be built on Brasil's earlier post: That jet fuel was did reach the basement and could've caused a fireball concurrent with the purported demolitions explosion. How that would not have been noticed, I don't know, but it is a counter.

I think this is simply going to be a "weight of evidence" argument again.

Anyway, thanks. If you come up with something else (yes, I'll review your already posted work :D), let me know.

[R.Mackey]

That's still helpful. You're right, BTW: If someone was close enough to get burned, but not get (sorry for the blunt terminology; my vocabulary's escaping me today) blown to bits, then that does argue against a high explosives blast.

For the record, there is one way for people to be burned, but not blasted to pieces, by a pure high explosive blast. But it hardly applies here.

If the explosive is so freaking enormous that it creates a substantial radiative hazard at great distances, it is barely possible for people to suffer flash burns but still have enough time to enter protective structures (provided they're available) before the shock front arrives. As I've mentioned before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000094#post2000094) in a different context, an example can be seen in the video and images from the Sailor Hat test (http://www.meditype-ts.com/Atlanta/ix-304.htm), where the initial fireball literally ignites exposed paint and other surfaces a second or so before the shock washes over the vessel. A shock that, incidentally, is a mere 6 PSI, although it is both sharper and faster than a deflagration and thus is not entirely comparable.

Obviously this didn't happen in the WTC Towers.

[Totovader]

Woooow, wait, hold your horses, do we have a 'debunker' accusing a 'smelly tin hat wearin troofer' of playing semantics, when all the 'debunkers' do all the time is play semantics?

The double standards are getting better and better here.

Give me a single example of a "debunker" playing semantics.

[GStan]

Find me the law that says that if you're going to make that assertion. I've already admitted quite a few times on this board that I doubt I can produce any new "evidence" in this debate, only a potentially more plausible theory.

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment? There is nothing legally set in stone preventing those recordings from being released. There are also FOIA requests, and a responsibility to the public in a supposedly free society that evidence about an event that triggered two wars should be seen by all. That trumps your weak "privacy" argument.

While the information may be in the hands of the government for the purposes of the investigation, they are the property of the airline and the government has no right to release them to anyone except back to the airline. Did you not notice how much quicker the Pentagon security video was available compared to the gas station and hotel videos? The government could release the Pentagon surveillance tape at its discretion because it is the owner. And what about those family members who heard the tapes and were not allowed to take notes, are they calling for a new investigation? Do they believe the recording is a fake or doctored? Do they suspect nefarious government complicity in 9/11? These are all questions any honest truther would pursue. But truthers will not pursue something like this any further. Their investigative philosophy is to #1) research (loose definition) something to the point where it superficially casts doubt on the prevailing explanation for the events of 9/11 and the more important one #2) STOP!!! Never research anything past the point of casting doubt, lest you find information that might logically explain away said doubt in a non-sinister manner.

[Belz...]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"

Most truthers are.

and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence.

It IS evidence, but it's only circumstantial.

all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives.

And yet NONE of the effects of such blasts are evident. Isn't that odd ?

To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG.

Evidence, please.

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy

Nice way to put it so that you'd be evil if you did believe it.

demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.

So... basically you want us to do the work for you.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story

That's not the way it works, bloke.

because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Circular reasoning.

This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence.

If that were true, wouldn't you agree that it's a little dumb accusing people of murder without evidence ?

My post about how "nice" these "terrorists" were when their meticulously planned operation began at a time of day that would maximize media coverage yet minimize casualties, is one very powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that "rabid Jihadist suicide bombers who want to kill as many Americans as possible" were not behind the attacks.

What the hell are you babbling about ?

If you're so in love with the "official story"

Why is it that every damn truther on this planet can't comprehend why someone could possibly disagree with him unless they're paid shills ?

By the way, I know a lot about explosives.

<giggle>

[Belz...]

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment?

Oh, please. This is the kind of nonsense factoid that you just claim is true and expect us not to question.

If Bush can make things legal and illegal at a whim, then why would he go through all that trouble (that is, the supposed inside job) to go to Iraq ?

[T.A.M.]

TAM, Gravy, and others:

On the note above (his quote I've excerpted), I've been trying to research the concept of a high explosives blast occuring under the WTCs from the point of view of injuries reported. Specifically, I've been trying to locate sources that discussed seeing any cases of tympanic (eardrum) or alveolar (lung) overpressure injuries. I've only found a few reports here and there of ear injuries - although a couple only specified one eardrum, and no accompanying respiratory distress (which doesn't rule out explosives, but does argue against it), and I'm completely striking out on lung overpressure injuries; I'm simply finding no reported cases.

But, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as the saying goes, so I'm wondering if you two (or anybody else) has any info regarding the specific issue of overpressure injuries. If, as Brasil purports, explosives were used, we should be seeing a plethora of reports of such tympanic or alveolar injuries, like we do in the reportage of the Madrid bombings (here's one example of many, from "Emergency Radiology": http://www.springerlink.com/content/k323178048673w12/fulltext.pdf), the bus bombings in Israel during the Intifada, or the Oklahoma City event. Here's my question: Do you know of any sources that deal specifically with listing the injuries treated during 9/11?

And TAM (bolding and coloring to catch your attention :D), since you're a doctor, I was hoping to get your help on this specific find: This report from "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" Titled "Rapid Assessment of Injuries Among Survivors of the Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center — New York City, September 2001" (Link: http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/mmwrvol51no1_01112002.pdf). It's a short article, unfortunately, but I was interested in eliciting comment from you on it. From what I as a layman can read from it, there's a conspicuous absence of any overpressure injuries recorded in that study, but I may have missed something due to my lack of expertise. Would you mind taking a peek at it when you have the time and seeing if you can find anything regarding that?

BTW, only the first few pages are relevant; the rest of that link includes completely off topic articles (Childrens' nutrition in Mongolia, an Arizona Salmonella outbreak, etc.) that should just be ignored.

Nice article;

A few things on the article, but first on your quest to find occurences of "overpressure (barotrauma) injuries.

1. While you may find some occurences, it will likely be way under reported, for these reasons
- It was rapid triage and treatment.
- The respiratory ailments, in addition to having similar presentations, regardless of dust/smoke or trauma based, would not likely have been differentiated in the statistics. They would likely all be grouped as "respiratory" disorders.

2. If a fair bit of dust was able to get into the external meatus of the patients ears, color differentiation, and possibly tympanic membrane visualization may have been impossible, especially in a rapid "triage and treat" or "scoop and run" situation. This would severely limit the diagnosis and recording of tympanic barotrauma (although a patient who is completely deaf from their injury is HIGHLY suspicious of barotrauma).

3. The presence of barotrauma findings confirms overpressure state, but their absence does not refute such a state.

4. I would guess (from my work in the ER) that if the patient could respond to your questions, and hence could hear you speak, then their ears were unlikely to be checked. If the barotrauma were sufficient to cause TM rupture bilaterally, and hence make them severely hearing impaired, it may OR may not have been documented, and an ear exam MAY have occurred.


As for the paper,

1. I see no recording of ear based illness/trauma.
2. Alveolar injury from barotrauma if diagnosed (unlikely in a rapid assessment), was likely included in the "Inhalation" section, without further distinction. In all likelihood, there was NO distinction made beyond the illness/injury being Inhalation based (ie respiratory based illness/injury).

If you have any other questions on the specifics, feel free, I will help if I can.

It would be nice to have a follow up study, to see of those patients treated and released, were any further injuries or illness seen afterward, not originally detected in the rapid treatment.


TAM:)

[Totovader]

Ad hominem / appeal to pity
I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum
Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...
Do you get a free pass on here that allows you to make "personal attacks" without your snide posts getting moved to "post purgatory" as some of mine were?
So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods.
Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.
Most of the other posts have devolved into an irrelevant pissing contest, dont you think?
So when's your high school graduation party, anyway? You the same year as Totovader?

ipse dixit fallacy:
you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC. Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.
I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.
I was one of the first people to have the balls to question the "war on terror" at Columbia University in public forums
I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know.
My accomplishments in life stand on their own, and I don't need to prove them to anyone on this forum.
If your reply is not pertinent to the testimony of those two WTC employees, or another witness in that category then refrain from hitting the post button.
My admittedly limited understanding of the physics involved still tells me[...]
Did I mention that i'm only 12 years old with an I.Q. of 170?
By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry.
By the way, I have a really great resource [about explosives] available to me who I'm going to talk to this weekend.
No rational person would interpret that as me claiming to be an "expert."

No true Scotsman fallacy:
I'm not a "truther" or a "CTer" and I've never met one of those people.

Burden of proof fallacy:
You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100.

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:
I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"

[Gravy]

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:
I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"Special pleading? Looks like ordinary whining to me. Of all the truthers who've passed through here, I'd say brasil is amongst the top five worst-informed and most-opinionated – and that's saying a lot. I'll give a few more of his posts a look, but if there's no improvement I'll be putting him on ignore.

[chillzero]

What was the name of that betting man from England? Who decided, after losing, to cancel the wager?

Malcolm Kirkman.

[DavidJames]

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,...Possibly, but most definitely a stundie.

[SDC]

Malcolm Kirkman.

Ah yes. A classic. He came across as something of a braggart (among other things), and he too offered wagers. I wonder whether there is a connection between the two tendencies; to brag, and to bet.

Don't know myself. Never saw much point in either one. But seriously, I wonder whether bragging links to betting links to conspiracist thinking, or does this stretch speculation too far?

[brasil]

It is possible that both bombs and jet fuel were in the basement. We have pretty good evidence that a fireball existed down there so the jet fuel has some corroborating evidence behind it. I don't really see any evidence of bombs but the lack of evidence does not rule out the possibility.

Let's assume there were bombs down there. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that the blast in the basement occurred soon after the plane hit. Let's assume it was a demolitions blast from explosives. Aren't truthers arguing that explosives brought down the WTC in a sort of controlled demolition? If so, why would bombs intended to take down (or pull if you'd rather) the WTC go off an hour or so before the collapse? Sorry, I don't know any demolitions that use bombs an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition.

Am I wrong on something here?

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.

[brasil]

Special pleading? Looks like ordinary whining to me. Of all the truthers who've passed through here, I'd say brasil is amongst the top five worst-informed and most-opinionated – and that's saying a lot. I'll give a few more of his posts a look, but if there's no improvement I'll be putting him on ignore.

That's what I would expect of someone with your agenda, bias, and worldview to do. You haven't bothered to actually address the points I'm making because they're too difficult to answer in your world of double-standards. I'm very informed, and remember, I was studying 9-11 seriously from the following day until about 4 years later. I did not watch "Loose Change" and suddenly have an epiphany. I had already come to similar conclusions as Loose Change on my own before the film ever existed.

All you can do is make a blanket statement of YOUR opinion that I'm "opinionated" and one of the "worst-informed." Here's an assignment for you with a little more substance than making yet another personal attack against me: find one flaw in the theory I just proposed in the post just before this one. And if you put me on "ignore" - good riddance to you. I've got your papers to read and your lemming-like cult following to talk to. In real life I assure you we wouldn't even be friends. And I wouldn't invite you to any parties.

[DGM]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.
So are you saying that the explosives in the basement actually failed. There was no real structural damage reported. Only partition walls and that sort of thing.

Do you know of any reports of structural damage?

[Garb]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.

Brasil, all of these demolitions cause the bottom to collapse first. The lower structures showed no sign of collapse until the top portions hit it, which wouldn't have made any difference anyways except for a few floors.

Unless you can prove that the explosions in the basement could have affected the collapse which started at the top, your speculation doesn't mean anything.

[brasil]

Brasil, all of these demolitions cause the bottom to collapse first. The lower structures showed no sign of collapse until the top portions hit it, which wouldn't have made any difference anyways except for a few floors.

Unless you can prove that the explosions in the basement could have affected the collapse which started at the top, your speculation doesn't mean anything.

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me? How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again. Seriously, what gives with you guys? I can't imagine making it any clearer than I did. I showed it's technically possible, I related it to what happened on 9-11, and I illustrated it with the perfect metaphor of a child's game. What part don't you understand?

[Belz...]

ipse dixit fallacy:

you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC. Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.

I hadn't caught that one. That's priceless.

[Belz...]

Possibly, but most definitely a stundie.

Already there.

[Belz...]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition.

They'd still have to make some sense.

That's what I would expect of someone with your agenda, bias, and worldview to do. You haven't bothered to actually address the points I'm making because they're too difficult to answer in your world of double-standards.

Coming from one who has such a talent for ignoring what he doesn't like, that's actually pretty ironic.

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me?

Actually, I think YOU'RE pretending to be smart just to win a point.

[Arus808]

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."[/qipte]

actually it does. if you want to say that bombs were placed in the bottom of the tower,s you'll have to give a reason why "bombs in the basement" would affect a top down collapse, which is what happened in both towers on 9112001


[quote]Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me?
Actually , you've been the one playing dumb, and its ANNOYING us.



How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again.


Which proves you dont understand controlled demolition as the video you posted allude to nothing that you claim.



Seriously, what gives with you guys?

We've been aksing for your proof, of which you haven't provided. dont blame us if we are getting a wee bit testy with your attitude and your non-performance.

All you have demonstrated is that you think that 911 is a laughing matter.

[brasil]

So are you saying that the explosives in the basement actually failed. There was no real structural damage reported. Only partition walls and that sort of thing.

Do you know of any reports of structural damage?

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp. You all seem to have made up your mind and are all in defensive mode (it's a state where you're not likely to integrate any new information), I actually have not made up my mind. Nothing anywhere has convinced me that 9-11 happened the way the 9/11 Commission and USG said it did, and nothing has convinced me with any level of certainty that it happened some other way.

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

[Garb]

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me? How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again. Seriously, what gives with you guys? I can't imagine making it any clearer than I did. I showed it's technically possible, I related it to what happened on 9-11, and I illustrated it with the perfect metaphor of a child's game. What part don't you understand?

No, what you don't understand is that there were basement explosions in those demos for a reason. You have provided no proof to back up the motive for there being explosives in the basement. If the basement explosions have nothing to do with the collapse, then why put them in there in the first place?

[Alferd_Packer]

. . .lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, . . . What part don't you understand?


Well I understand that the market square arena was nothing like the WTC towers. do you understand that?

Tell me, are you claiming that those explosives placed on the floor of the arena were analogous to the so-called explosions in the WTC basement?

What did the floor of the arena support, other than basketball players?




----to anyone else, did the market square arena have an ice rink in it as well?

[Alferd_Packer]

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

Were the walls concrete or drywall?

[T.A.M.]

I think trying to decifer the minutia of witness testimony is fruitless in this case, and in many others from that day.

It is one thing to state that because many witnesses watched flight 175 hit the tower, that it did...this is reasonable. People, hundreds, perhaps thousands, were looking up at the towers at that time.

It is another thing to pick apart, near word by word, the description of events as recanted after the fact, from a man who was likely panicked, or at the very least, confused by what was going on.

I think yes, we can take from his account that there was considerable damage done in certain areas. I also think that the press was not where he knew it to be when he arrived. I also think we can get from his story that there were burn victims near the elevator. Beyond this, I think the majority of his story has to be taken within the context of a man in the midst of chaos, with people running about, noises from all directions, smoke perhaps, crying, yelling, screaming...I mean come on.

TAM:)

[DGM]

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp. You all seem to have made up your mind and are all in defensive mode (it's a state where you're not likely to integrate any new information), I actually have not made up my mind. Nothing anywhere has convinced me that 9-11 happened the way the 9/11 Commission and USG said it did, and nothing has convinced me with any level of certainty that it happened some other way.

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?
In the basement of a steel framed skyscraper? Yes we can.

[Totovader]

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp.

Maybe "we" can't "grasp" that because it's total fluff.

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100.

So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing is anything.

Sure, whatever you say.

[brasil]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

[brasil]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

[DGM]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.
Nuisance bombs sure, but if you are talking about structural damage, no way.

[Totovader]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks

You have done nothing but harass people in this thread- including me- with your absurd boasting and insults. You blow so much hot air that I'm starting to think the energy needs to be harnessed for better use.

and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me,

Your own statements ridicule you? That's crummy.

Incidentally- I did not quote mine- all of your statements were taken in context and reproduced in sequential order. If you have a problem with your own comments, take it up with the author.

not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

Besides this being a burden of proof fallacy- on the "theoretical level" many people (myself included) have pointed out that "bombs in the basement" makes no sense whatsoever. If facts and logic do not settle your outrage, what will?

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

Ambiguous middle ground fallacy- and also a blatant lie.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN.

If we're going to play this game- it COULD HAVE BEEN:

1) Elvis.
2) Pomeroo's special reindeer with explosive antlers.
3) Aliens.
4) A fluctuation in the space-time continium because Marty went too far back in time and accidentally made out with one of the future wives of the designers.
5) Nothing- the buildings are still there.

I could go on...

The COLD HARD FACT that there is equal evidence for all these claims- including this "bombs in the basement" nonsense should tell you something about it's possibility.

I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there,

I think you just shot yourself in the foot on this one. You know there's proof, you just don't have "access" to it?

Huh?

but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Everyone has- you just keep ignoring it.

This is a common Truther regression- it goes from "I have proof" to "I have no proof, which is proof" to "there cannot be proof" to "the proof is part of the cover-up" to "there may be proof" to JAQing off.

[brasil]

Nuisance bombs sure, but if you are talking about structural damage, no way.

For a forum that asks me for "proof" every 5 minutes, we are to accept your statement because you say so? This is the best you people can do? Personally attack me and then conclude with "because I said so?"

[Garb]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Possibility does not equate to actual evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. This is like the statement "prove that God does not exist." It is a fallicious argument and it doesn't prove your position correct.

[Totovader]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:

FOGI33HsiCc

The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

[T.A.M.]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

come on brasil, you are smarter than this....you know I cannot prove there were no leprachauns in the building either...


I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

In the vast realm of possibilities, of course, but the evidence is extremely sparse, almost negligible.


I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Like I said, lots of things "could" have been used...but there is little to no evidence for them. There is a tonne of evidence pointing to the planes, the damage they caused, the damage from the subsequent fires, all leading to the collapse of the WTCs.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Just checking in to see if those corroborating witnesses have turned up yet.

...

Okay, maybe in 2008 then.

[stateofgrace]

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

I submit that little green men with lazers could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that little green men were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as brazil, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement is a realitist proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that little green men COULD NOT HAVE been there.

[brasil]

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.

[Garb]

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? That and G.F.Y.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Totovader]

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? That and G.F.Y.

I started the thread, ace.

And I'm REPLYING to your posts. If you want to claim I'm off topic in replying to your posts, then you might want to check yo' self, before you wreck to' self.

[DGM]

For a forum that asks me for "proof" every 5 minutes, we are to accept your statement because you say so? This is the best you people can do? Personally attack me and then conclude with "because I said so?"
Where did I personally attack you?

I say no way because the size of the structural members in the basement are such that Pecararo would not be there to report it. The truck bomb in '93' was huge and still didn't do the trick. It's all a matter of size. To damage a framing member that's several inches thick and extends to bedrock takes a very large explosion. This means a very large shock wave, Right?

[Pookster]

Just checking in to see if those corroborating witnesses have turned up yet.

...

Okay, maybe in 2008 then.

I've come to the conclusion that all he has to offer is that we can never be 100% sure of anything. But, I'm not 100% sure of that.

[Pookster]

I started the thread, ace.

And I'm REPLYING to your posts. If you want to claim I'm off topic in replying to your posts, then you might want to check yo' self, before you wreck to' self.

Too funny. :D

[stateofgrace]

I've come to the conclusion that all he has to offer is that we can never be 100% sure of anything. But, I'm not 100% sure of that.

Are you sure you are not 100% sure? :)

[Pookster]

Are you sure you are not 100% sure? :)

I'm 100% sure of it.

Wait ... :o

[Norseman]

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me? How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again. Seriously, what gives with you guys? I can't imagine making it any clearer than I did. I showed it's technically possible, I related it to what happened on 9-11, and I illustrated it with the perfect metaphor of a child's game. What part don't you understand?

Are you familiar with the survivors in stairwell B of WTC 1, it went down the middle of the tower all the way to the bottom on B-6. The lower part of that stairwell was not crushed by the upper part of the building. It does not exactly support your theory. Here is the story:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Here is a picture of the stairwell taken during the recovery work:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4060.jpg (647.8 KB)

And very large parts of the core remained standing for some seconds after the rest of the towers had collapsed:
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? id=922373811&size=o&context=set-72157601049055767) and as you can see on this page (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm) if you scroll down to the collapse of WTC1. (Think twice before you click on any of the pictures, because they are huge files showing film grain, without much more viewable details)

Bombs in the basement does not make any logical sense, the preparations would have increased the risk of blowing the plan tremendously.

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.

[Slayhamlet]

This kid has a serious attitude problem. Any criticism of his position somehow mysteriously warps into a "personal attack" in his mind, to which he responds with braggadocio and vile insults. The hypocrisy is astounding. All of this indicates that he's not mature enough to accept legitimate criticism.

Could I suggest that the mods moderate this thread to keep it in line? Otherwise I'll be putting this one on ignore.

[ElMondoHummus]

To analyze the possiblity of explosives, a person must also take into account the opportunities for emplacement. The "explosives used" arguments tend to fail in this regard.

Previous attempts at explaining such installations - the "power downs" that are part of the basic lore - have been inadequate in this regard. Only Dr. Greening (Apollo20) has come up any sort of unique hypothesis (sorry Max, your discussions are on incendiaries, not explosives. Have to exclude you. No offense).

So taking into account that, plus the existence of a very obvious source for what fire damage was observed (the jet fuel), plus the descriptions of the damage, plus the witness testimony, etc. all add up to a sum that points away from the use of explosives in the basement (I'll ignore the arguments about explosives higher up, since the topic is Saltalamacchia's testimony and events in the basement levels). Submitting that bombs "could have been" in the basement is advancing an argument that is contradicted more than supported by the known facts (as one example, re: Norseman's post above).

[Norseman]

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment? There is nothing legally set in stone preventing those recordings from being released. There are also FOIA requests, and a responsibility to the public in a supposedly free society that evidence about an event that triggered two wars should be seen by all. That trumps your weak "privacy" argument.

You missed your chance to hear the Flight 93 CVR recording yourself last year. It was played in a public court session with the public and press present.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.html

That should be more than good enough. It would serve no further purpose for this tape to float around on Youtube as a kind of macabre entertainment. We are talking about a recording of humans pleading for their lives while they are killed.

Here is the court order protecting the tape:
http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72176/0.pdf

[R.Mackey]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

There's no reason at this point to suspect BOMBS IN THE WTC, so this statement is totally uninteresting.


I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

You've done none of the above. Not a single thing you've presented even suggests explosives in the basement.


I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

I've already shown you how everything observed points to jet fuel.

I've also already shown you that, had explosives of any significance gone off, there should have been audio, structural, and seismic records thereof. There are none. This is as close as it gets to "proving" there were no explosives.

Anyway, I'm done here unless you have something more reasonable to bring up. I also remind you that remarks like the following:

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? That and G.F.Y.

... are in direct contravention of your Membership Agreement, and totally juvenile besides. Don't bother invoking my name again until you're ready to grow up.

[brasil]

Are you familiar with the survivors in stairwell B of WTC 1, it went down the middle of the tower all the way to the bottom on B-6. The lower part of that stairwell was not crushed by the upper part of the building. It does not exactly support your theory. Here is the story:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Here is a picture of the stairwell taken during the recovery work:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4060.jpg (647.8 KB)

And very large parts of the core remained standing for some seconds after the rest of the towers had collapsed:
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? id=922373811&size=o&context=set-72157601049055767) and as you can see on this page (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm) if you scroll down to the collapse of WTC1. (Think twice before you click on any of the pictures, because they are huge files showing film grain, without much more viewable details)

Bombs in the basement does not make any logical sense, the preparations would have increased the risk of blowing the plan tremendously.

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9732)

[Totovader]

I just spit out my drink.

brasil seriously just came back with the "cut columns" nonsense...

aw nah you diint.

This was debunked ages ago (by others long before me- of course)

vxPZr7Uep0M

[Garb]

You are aware thermite doesn't really go across like that, right?

And for analysis of that picture, just go to http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[brasil]

... are in direct contravention of your Membership Agreement, and totally juvenile besides. Don't bother invoking my name again until you're ready to grow up.

Have you even read the entire thread and seen the kind of rude and off-topic treatment i've gotten from Arus808 and Totovader? Although Totovader may have started the thread, not one of his replies to me has been on-topic, and all have either personally attacked me or been snide and condescending, offering nothing to the discussion. It's obvious that I'm the "newcomer" to the board, and all of you are in bed with each other, so it's easy to demonize me and gang up. That makes a lot of you rank hypocrites who aren't really interested in the topic at hand, just shouting down people you don't agree with. Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas. I've had enough of the bullying - it's getting old.

[stateofgrace]

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9732)

Brazil how did the thermite make these cuts? Diagonal and horizontal?

PS. Thermite is used for welding and leaves a white residue, can you show me any white residue?

[brasil]

I just spit out my drink.

brasil seriously just came back with the "cut columns" nonsense...

aw nah you diint.

This was debunked ages ago (by others long before me- of course)
vxPZr7Uep0M

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place? This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts. You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me."

Do not continue to post "G.F.Y."

[AZCat]

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas.

No.

[T.A.M.]

Steel can "crack off" as well as bend. It depends on the properties of the steel used, the temperature of the steel, the direction of the net force applied to it, and so on. It is not as simple as "steel should only bend". To me, it seems that steel cracking off, some very evenly, others not, etc...would be expected in such a large, complex occurance as the collapse of a 110 storey building.

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

.

You linked to a site that clearly said this

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9732)

White residue, sometime today maybe ?

[Totovader]

Have you even read the entire thread and seen the kind of rude and off-topic treatment i've gotten from Arus808 and Totovader? Although Totovader may have started the thread, not one of his replies to me has been on-topic, and all have either personally attacked me or been snide and condescending, offering nothing to the discussion.

I linked to several of your comments which were personal attacks. You have been quite rude- and I have only returned the favor on some occasions. Your whining will not cease me from biting back.

Again, I feel compelled to point out that my replies to you are replies. Thus, if you're claiming that "not one" of my replies has been on-topic, then you're saying that you're not on-topic.

It's obvious that I'm the "newcomer" to the board, and all of you are in bed with each other, so it's easy to demonize me and gang up.

Appeal to pity.

That makes a lot of you rank hypocrites who aren't really interested in the topic at hand, just shouting down people you don't agree with.

Ad hominem.

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas. I've had enough of the bullying - it's getting old.

I've had enough of the whining- personally. But anyone who really wants to believe your statement here should see my earlier post quoting your statements from this thread alone- which absolutely contradict your claim that you've got "genuine interest in learning". You've beaten your chest so hard that you're crying about the pain- and then you want to blame everyone else.

I'm pretty sure no one buys your sob story- especially since you're using it as a scapegoat to avoid the discussion at the same time you're trying to pretend to be all about it.

[Garb]

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place? This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts. You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me." p.s. - G.F.Y.

If you were looking at all the possibilities, you would figure out that thermite doesn't act like that, that there would be an incredible amount of residue from thermite (due to the large amount of thermite required to cut a single column), and that there has been a large amount of evidence to show that the beam was most likely cut after the collapse.

And I am curious to know what GFY means. I have one guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.

[brasil]

Brazil how did the thermite make these cuts? Diagonal and horizontal?

PS. Thermite is used for welding and leaves a white residue, can you show me any white residue?

Did I say that "thermite made these cuts?" NO. I quoted a website and linked to a picture. I was not aware until now that there was video footage of a cleanup crew guy explaining how they cut the steel at an angle like that, however, BEFORE seeing that video just now I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is. I am looking for answers. I now consider that photo 99% debunked based on the video I was linked to (the 1% doubt is that I can't be sure that column did not end up that way due to the collapse, or that it's one of the columns the cleanup guy is referring to).

It takes a real man to admit he was wrong, or even likely wrong. I will not bring up that photo again. I wonder how many people on here can be as unbiased as I am?

[Totovader]

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

It's not CRITICAL THINKING if you DON'T DO THE RESEARCH, but instead demand that everyone else do it for you. You started off your journey here being "the expert" and have quickly cowered in the corner as just an oddity. You tossed this rotten worm out in an attempt to fish for an argument, instead of presenting your case.

I find it continually astonishing that you have arrived at your conclusions before you asked for the evidence to be handed to you.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

Did you do your own research? NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place?

Perhaps you didn't read your own post?

This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts.

Oh stop your crying. If you can't handle criticism- then "don't post".

You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me." p.s. - G.F.Y.

And you must be so eager to cry and whine about being "harassed" for making stupid statements that you can't help but pull that waaaaambulance lever and try and drain some more sympathy from whoever you think is listening to you.

If you want to stop being corrected, then do some of your own research.

And- any more comments in regards to "GFY" really don't help your case- I will absolutely report them from now on.

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

People here are human, like you. As well, they are CONTINUOUSLY having to argue the same talking points over and over, and having to bang their heads off the brick wall over and over when the truthers (most of them) defy reasoning, ignore logic, ignore evidence, etc...

You are correct, it does take a bigger man to admit he was wrong. Good on you.

TAM:)

[brasil]

If you were looking at all the possibilities, you would figure out that thermite doesn't act like that, that there would be an incredible amount of residue from thermite (due to the large amount of thermite required to cut a single column), and that there has been a large amount of evidence to show that the beam was most likely cut after the collapse.

And I am curious to know what GFY means. I have one guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

[Garb]

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

Then if the residue would have been knocked off, what is currently on the cut steel? If any residue would have been knocked off, you would assume that what is seen in the picture was created AFTER the collapse.

[Totovader]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:

FOGI33HsiCc

The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

Are we to assume that you have abandoned this "bombs in the basement" nonsense- and instead are trying to work your way around to another angle?

Unless you have a rebuttal to the video provided here- your argument is dead.

[AZCat]

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

Hmmmm.

You saw a video that purportedly shows shaped charges (not thermite) cutting steel at an angle but you can't provide the video.

You aren't suggesting that thermite (not shaped charges) was used, but if it did then all traces of it (according to you) would not be found.


I find your argument unacceptable. Your points are unsupported and unconnected with your conclusion. Please revise and resubmit.

[DavidJames]

I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. Actually sparky, intelligence would have been to do research on places besides CT sites. You do show a clear bias towards the CT theories, you only pretend you don't.

I challenge you to spend some time doing research on sites debunking the CT theories. Take a CT claim, read the rebuttals and come here and present your thoughts for discussion. That would be intelligent. If you do that, you won't need to tell everyone how intelligent you are, it will be readily apparent.

That's assuming of course that your childish tantrums don't get you banned first.

[Norseman]

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9732)

Did you notice the part where I said cutting in my post:

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.
You just posted a picture showing at least one column cut by recovery workers, and the other columns have been broken in their welding joints during the collapse. The columns in the towers were welded or bolted together or both from pre made short sections.

In addition to the information presented by others regarding this I recommend this:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html

So I was talking about something different from what you posted above.

[brasil]

brasil:

People here are human, like you. As well, they are CONTINUOUSLY having to argue the same talking points over and over, and having to bang their heads off the brick wall over and over when the truthers (most of them) defy reasoning, ignore logic, ignore evidence, etc...

You are correct, it does take a bigger man to admit he was wrong. Good on you.

TAM:)

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

You are also posting personal attacks and if you do not stop you will face further sanctions.

[stateofgrace]

Did I say that "thermite made these cuts?" NO. I quoted a website and linked to a picture. I was not aware until now that there was video footage of a cleanup crew guy explaining how they cut the steel at an angle like that, however, BEFORE seeing that video just now I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is. I am looking for answers. I now consider that photo 99% debunked based on the video I was linked to (the 1% doubt is that I can't be sure that column did not end up that way due to the collapse, or that it's one of the columns the cleanup guy is referring to).

It takes a real man to admit he was wrong, or even likely wrong. I will not bring up that photo again. I wonder how many people on here can be as unbiased as I am?

You linked and quoted this website

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9732)

You said the distinction was critical

Do not take it upon yourself to lecture me again please. I asked you a civil question based on your posts. You have now accepted you were wrong, so in future save your self righteous out rage.

[Totovader]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

*Reported

[Garb]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

Are you trying to corral pity in your favor here? You've been very disrespectful to most everyone on this forum, including myself.

And just because he labels your posts as fallacies does not make them any less true.

Are you aware of what a logical fallacy is?

[T.A.M.]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

1. Honestly, he seems hostile toward you, though I have seen much worse (not necessarily by him) here. It is likely the result of (A) his fatigue at the moment in dealing with the issues, and (B) the fact that he has been debating with you on this thread for 9 pages now. In general toto is very civil, articulate, and patient.

2. It is unlikely the way he talks in real life, but this forum is a skeptics forum, and debating, along with its terminology is used quite frequently. He is also making, at times, valid points about your argumentation, in terms of content and style.

3. You have to have a thick skin to come here and take the opposing view to the majority. Similarly, if toto, I, or another debunker joined up and posted over at the Loose Change Forum, we would have to have such a robust outer layer.

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

[Totovader]

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

Coincidentally, I do asterisks myself frequently, I don't need brasils permission... I do need to let some of my professor friends know, however, that knowing logic and the fallacies makes them psycho. They may not be happy to hear that.

[brasil]

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate. Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's? I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments? It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic. I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

[Garb]

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate. Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's? I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments? It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic. I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

Just because it isn't a formal debate doesn't mean you can defy logic. If you are illogical you are going to be called on it. Plain and simple.

[Totovader]

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate.

That's non-sequitur.

Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's?

Ad hominem.

I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments?

The only thing everyone has done is address your arguments. I just reposted a rebuttal to one of your ridiculous claims that you have ignored for 2 pages.

It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic. I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

Your belief would be wrong.

If you do not wish to have your fallacies addressed, then do not make them. It's pretty simple. If you can't make an argument without it being chock-full of fallacious arguments, then it's time to sit down and think about your position.

[Totovader]

I believe that brasil is using the classic appeal to pity argument in order to avoid the debate itself- all the while pretending to be fighting for it.

I highly suggest that brasil cease these appeals and instead address the rebuttals that are waiting for him if he really wishes to maintain the appearance of being interested in the issues.

[thewholesoul]

It is not circular reasoning because it is not circular reasoning!! I did not say the sequence of events is relevant because it is relevant, i said the sequence of events is relevant becauase it is needed in order to establish whether or not the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling, things that actually happened, are compatible with what actually happened to morellini. Please if you are going to use philophical arguments make sure they are applicable before applying them.
What you exhibit is called inconsistent reasoning. First you argued that the first event morellini experienced was the plane hitting the building, then you argued that it was the elevator falling, and now your latest side-show is that the sequence of events is irrelevant in order to establish what actually happened.
Yes the plane hitting and elevator falling actually happened but the events morellini described also happened. The problem is that the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling DO NOT EXPLAIN what morellini experienced that morning in the world trade centre building. And if you think it does then explain what happened to morellini and PRESENT your explanation – something YOU continually avoid doing.
Now one issue you claim i am avoiding is that in either sequence there is no bomb. In other words neither of the events experienced by morellini could have been a bomb. But once we eliminate explosives as a “possibility” then what remains?
Before i eliminate the imapct of a plane and the falling elevator as possible explanations to morellini’s experience i will present my interpretation of morellini’s account.
1: he experienced two distinct events
2: the first event occured when he was walking by main freight car
3: the first event caused him to fall to ground
4: he described the first event as “impact of the explosion” and “whatever it was”
4: out of uncertainity he assumed that whatever it was was something very heavy and big that fell over in the loading dock
5: the first event caused the floor to move
6: when he gets back up off the floor (duration of time unknown) he then hears what he assumes to be the freight car falling
7: when he was running towards the bathrooms he heard the second event
8: he describes the second event as a “big impact”
9: the second event caused the ceiling tiles and light fixtures to fall
So we know that the plane impact and the falling elevator actually happened but the question is do these events explain what actually happened to morellini assuming of course his tesimony is true? Now if anyone has a problem with 1-9 please provide reasons why you feel it is inaccurate within the context the testimony of morellini.
Now the first event experienced by morellini could not have been the freight elevator in my opinion because morellini was walking beside it, because he thought the first impact was in the loading dock and not the elevator shaft, because he thought the second big impact was the freight elevator. So if it wasnt the freight elevator what caused morellini’s first event....
{The first event experienced by Morellini was the plane impact}
The reasons why i find this explanation impossible are as follows
(a) he could not have heard the plane from b4.
If people a lot closer to the impact did not hear the plane then obviously morellini did not hear the impact. This line of argumnet is backed up by gravy #144 and there is a chapter in his paper about covering this issue. So if you wish to object to this argumnet take it up with gravy.
(b) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause him to fall over
it seems rather difficult to beleive that a plane impacting 90+ floors above would cause him to fall over especially when people nearer to the impact did not fall from the impact.
(c) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause the floor to move in b4
again if the floor in b4 moved one would expect some of the floors closer to the impact moving to the same if not greater extent. This is an empirical issue that could be resolved through the testimony of people closer to the impact
(d) a plane impact could not have caused something to move in the loading dock
morellini specifically mentions “impact” something falling over in the loading dock. I find it hard to beleive that the impact of the plane would sound like something falling over in the loading dock
(e) felipe david testimony supports the claim that something happened in in the floors above morelli.
Felipe david was standing infront of the freight elevator. Before the freight elevator fell he claims “The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot...” see william rodriguez: escape artist – eye witness accounts from inside the towers. So David’s testimony combined with morellini’s suggests that something happened in the basement before the freight elevator fell. What was that something if it was not the result of a plane impact and the freight elevator falling?
If anyone has a problem with (a) – (e) please provide your reasons.
Any other explanation for the first event experienced by morellini would be appreciated. And i am still awaiting a response in relation to felipe David’s testimony. The question: how could David have heard an explosion below him before he got burned?

[AZCat]

It is not circular reasoning because it is not circular reasoning!!

I sit slackjawed, in awe.

[beachnut]

this is the last time i will respond to you my friend.

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.
- The NIST made a conscience decision not to test for explosive residue at the WTC complex. This would have proven one way or another whether an explosive device was used in the sub levels of the North Tower, however, no test by any Federal Agency was conducted
- The historical record of terrorism against America is another valid reason to explore the ED hypothesis. I'm sure you are all aware of the 1993 WTC attack using a truck bomb in the subbasement at the WTC. If terrorists could use this tactic of placing an explosive device in their target once, isn’t it reasonable to suggest they might try that tactic again, especially when combined with the use of planes? The reasonable person would think so .
- The FBI's original working hypothesis was a car or trucked packed full of explosives and detonated under the towers at the same time as the impact. I find that yet another reason to test for explosive residues, especially in the basement. You can view the USA Today news report about the FBI's theory: google "do the orders still stand: the case for explosives at the world trade centre"
- testimony is a form of evidence and many people reported hearing explosions. if you agree that testimony is a form of evidence - circumstantial evidence - then your assertion that i have zero facts or evidence supporting the case for explosives in the basement makes no sense what so ever. let me repeat that - it you agree that testimony is a form of evidence your assertion that there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that explosives were used makes no sense what so ever BECAUSE many people that were in the building claim to have heard explosives.

have a nive day beachnut.
You have no sources and have said little to support the conclusions of 9/11 truth. Why are you so fact less? You have not evidence of explosives because they were not used on 9/11.

Your FBI stuff, was a lie from a bad journalist. Sorry, you have no facts.

[thewholesoul]

You're willing to assert that Gravy or LashL (who would be a woman of her word, I guess) would be telling the truth- but you're implying that Morelli may not be telling the truth, even though his account is published?

That doesn't really make any sense- and it sort of violates the first rule of being a conspiracist. We're shills, remember?

what are talking about i never implied that morellini's not telling the truth.

[thewholesoul]

Since you appear to have abandoned this "event in the loading dock" claim- are we to assume you no longer believe that it is true?

If you admit that Morelli was not describing an event in the loading dock- how does that impact your claim?

stawman: i never abandoned "the event in the loading dock", nice shadow boxing however

[Totovader]

It is not circular reasoning because it is not circular reasoning!! I did not say the sequence of events is relevant because it is relevant, i said the sequence of events is relevant becauase it is needed in order to establish whether or not the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling, things that actually happened, are compatible with what actually happened to morellini.

No, it is not. We do not need Morelli's testimony to draw such a conclusion.

Please if you are going to use philophical arguments make sure they are applicable before applying them.

I'm not sure what you think a "philophical" argument is- but that made no sense at all.

What you exhibit is called inconsistent reasoning. First you argued that the first event morellini experienced was the plane hitting the building, then you argued that it was the elevator falling, and now your latest side-show is that the sequence of events is irrelevant in order to establish what actually happened.

And what you're doing is called dodging the point. I have been trying to get you to explain why you think the sequence of events is relevant to the claim that bombs were in the basement. You have not been able to do this.

Yes the plane hitting and elevator falling actually happened but the events morellini described also happened.

Let's be clear, here: just because Morelli described them does not mean they actually happened. I'm not saying they didn't- it's just that you're trying to claim they are in contradiction without admitting that Morelli could be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

The problem is that the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling DO NOT EXPLAIN what morellini experienced that morning in the world trade centre building. And if you think it does then explain what happened to morellini and PRESENT your explanation – something YOU continually avoid doing.

I am not avoiding it in the least- I am just not going to allow you to inject a red herring without first answering my question. To the point- however- I've already answered the question and provided an explanation. You seem to have ignored it.

Now one issue you claim i am avoiding is that in either sequence there is no bomb. In other words neither of the events experienced by morellini could have been a bomb. But once we eliminate explosives as a “possibility” then what remains?

Well... there were these planes...

Before i eliminate the imapct of a plane and the falling elevator as possible explanations to morellini’s experience i will present my interpretation of morellini’s account.
1: he experienced two distinct events
2: the first event occured when he was walking by main freight car
3: the first event caused him to fall to ground
4: he described the first event as “impact of the explosion” and “whatever it was”

No, he said or whatever it was- indicating that he was in a position where he could not have known at the time that it was a plane or the result of the plane making impact and causing some kind of secondary effect (um, like an elevator crashing down).

4: out of uncertainity he assumed that whatever it was was something very heavy and big that fell over in the loading dock

It's very important that you remember what you have admitted here in your 4 clone.

5: the first event caused the floor to move
6: when he gets back up off the floor (duration of time unknown) he then hears what he assumes to be the freight car falling
7: when he was running towards the bathrooms he heard the second event
8: he describes the second event as a “big impact”
9: the second event caused the ceiling tiles and light fixtures to fall

You're wrong, here- the 2nd event and the elevators falling are one in the same.

So we know that the plane impact and the falling elevator actually happened but the question is do these events explain what actually happened to morellini assuming of course his tesimony is true? Now if anyone has a problem with 1-9 please provide reasons why you feel it is inaccurate within the context the testimony of morellini.

You're asking whether what Morelli is explaining is what Morelli is explaining?

Now the first event experienced by morellini could not have been the freight elevator in my opinion because morellini was walking beside it, because he thought the first impact was in the loading dock and not the elevator shaft, because he thought the second big impact was the freight elevator. So if it wasnt the freight elevator what caused morellini’s first event....
{The first event experienced by Morellini was the plane impact}
The reasons why i find this explanation impossible are as follows
(a) he could not have heard the plane from b4.

Strawman- he's not describing just hearing a plane impact, he's describing feeling it.

If people a lot closer to the impact did not hear the plane then obviously morellini did not hear the impact. This line of argumnet is backed up by gravy #144 and there is a chapter in his paper about covering this issue. So if you wish to object to this argumnet take it up with gravy.

I wish to object to your interpretation of it. Being able to "hear" (or rather, feel) the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in.

(b) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause him to fall over
it seems rather difficult to beleive that a plane impacting 90+ floors above would cause him to fall over especially when people nearer to the impact did not fall from the impact.

Argument from personal incredulity. Who do you think was "nearer" to the impact that did not fall over that should have fallen over?

(c) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause the floor to move in b4
again if the floor in b4 moved one would expect some of the floors closer to the impact moving to the same if not greater extent. This is an empirical issue that could be resolved through the testimony of people closer to the impact

Same fallacy as the "hearing" argument. The effects of the impact are not necessarily because of what level you're on- but how the building is reacting to the impact. I cannot give you specifics, because it's not my field- but I do not find your objection to carry any weight.

(d) a plane impact could not have caused something to move in the loading dock
morellini specifically mentions “impact” something falling over in the loading dock. I find it hard to beleive that the impact of the plane would sound like something falling over in the loading dock

See, now you're changing the story. Morelli did not describe an event in the loading dock- you admitted this in your 4 clone.

(e) felipe david testimony supports the claim that something happened in in the floors above morelli.

Something did- a plane hit the building.

Felipe david was standing infront of the freight elevator. Before the freight elevator fell he claims “The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot...” see william rodriguez: escape artist – eye witness accounts from inside the towers. So David’s testimony combined with morellini’s suggests that something happened in the basement before the freight elevator fell. What was that something if it was not the result of a plane impact and the freight elevator falling?

As I've already explained to you- the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would feel like it's something below. However, David and Morelli both do not believe this was explosives.

If anyone has a problem with (a) – (e) please provide your reasons.
Any other explanation for the first event experienced by morellini would be appreciated. And i am still awaiting a response in relation to felipe David’s testimony. The question: how could David have heard an explosion below him before he got burned?

I already explained this to you.

[Totovader]

stawman: i never abandoned "the event in the loading dock", nice shadow boxing however

Well then- your error. Could you actually address the rebuttal instead of just ignoring it, then?

[Totovader]

what are talking about i never implied that morellini's not telling the truth.

In regards to the phone call- yes you did.

It helps if you pay attention to what I'm quoting when I respond to you.

[Slayhamlet]

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate.

Logical fallacies don't only apply to formal debates.

Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's?

No. Again, have you read the membership agreement? There is a difference between the way Totovader has responded to you and the way you have responded to him and others. He has consistently attacked your arguments only, even if he has done so in a brusque manner.

I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments?

Pointing out logical fallacies in your arguments is addressing your arguments. If you think the logical fallacies don't apply to certain of your arguments, explain why they don't.

It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic.

Why does it matter what your first three paragraphs were if he was only pointing out an appeal to pity in the last sentence?

I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

Tell me, what else could you possibly have meant when you typed "G. F. Y.", then? By invoking the fallacy of accident I assume you are implying that that is not what you meant by typing those three letters. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

[Slayhamlet]

I sit slackjawed, in awe.

Looks like a Stundie to me.

[AZCat]

Looks like a Stundie to me.

Done. :D

[achtung circus]

*(The word "residents" chosen carefully, since someone thought it was "bright" to accuse me of ignoring all of the foreigners who died in the attacks. If you're working in this country, you're a "resident" or you're illegal.)

Wrong. My Canadian brother was in the WTC the week prior. He is neither a resident nor was he there illegally. People from other places have been known to visit NYC. It's called being a consultant.

[thewholesoul]

hey gravy,

i was expecting a response by now, however let me reiterate

Presumably Felipe David was burnt from the descending fireball but what puzzles me is how he heard the explosion below BEFORE he got burnt? For this reason his description of explosions in the basement levels are entirely in-consistent with the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shaft. Because if indeed the explosion was caused by the jet fuel then he would have been burned before he heard the explosion since he was standing right beside the elevator.

so any chance of an explantion from somebody as to what cause the explosion that he heard below him?

[Totovader]

hey gravy,

i was expecting a response by now, however let me reiterate

Presumably Felipe David was burnt from the descending fireball but what puzzles me is how he heard the explosion below BEFORE he got burnt? For this reason his description of explosions in the basement levels are entirely in-consistent with the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shaft. Because if indeed the explosion was caused by the jet fuel then he would have been burned before he heard the explosion since he was standing right beside the elevator.

so any chance of an explantion from somebody as to what cause the explosion that he heard below him?

That depends- are you going to continue to ignore the explanation I've given?

[achtung circus]

Sure, 3 flights per day. But how many can you coordinate such that five are leaving at the same approximate time? If they were not coordinated, the chances of the later ones accomplishing their mission would be expected to drop dramatically.

If I were planning the operation I would also consider passenger loads. With a limited number of hijackers, crowd control has to be an issue, witness Flt 93, and the fewer potential disruptors for my comrades to have to control, the better.

Just a thought.

[Slayhamlet]

Wrong. My Canadian brother was in the WTC the week prior. He is neither a resident nor was he there illegally. People from other places have been known to visit NYC. It's called being a consultant.

Wow. I missed that spectacularly ignorant statement. What do you think visas are for, brasil?

[thewholesoul]

I don't know if I'll ever be able to fathom why the conspiracists don't believe these victims.

no i do believe them i alsp believe felipe david when he said that he heard an explosion before he got burned. whats your stand on his testimony amigo?

by the way this is just a comment. in your paper there appears to be no testimony from people who were on the b3 floor wjen "things started happening". i just found this curious.

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else I've seen besides truthers. Fuel poured down the shafts. It could have ignited and deflagrated at any point: as clearly it did at various levels. If David is describing the same explosion as Rodriguez is, then it likely was below him. And remember, the 50 elevator came to a halt below the B1 level.

Is this clear?

[Gravy]

by the way this is just a comment. in your paper there appears to be no testimony from people who were on the b3 floor wjen "things started happening". i just found this curious.I'll be glad to add whatever you find.

[thewholesoul]

I sit slackjawed, in awe.

it was a joke amigo you can push your jaw back up now...:)

[AZCat]

it was a joke amigo you can push your jaw back up now...:)

Sorry, it gets a little difficult to tell the difference around here.

If only you were posting when the great Malcom Kirkman was still with us - the man would post stuff like that in great masses. He is a legend. I think he managed to be wrong about every thing he said (quite literally).

[T.A.M.]

Sorry, it gets a little difficult to tell the difference around here.

If only you were posting when the great Malcom Kirkman was still with us - the man would post stuff like that in great masses. He is a legend. I think he managed to be wrong about every thing he said (quite literally).

Yes apparently, if what I hear is true, be spends his time spamming CS blog and giving away Loose Change and other 9/11 truth CDs at various public locales...

TAM:)

[AZCat]

Yes apparently, if what I hear is true, be spends his time spamming CS blog and giving away Loose Change and other 9/11 truth CDs at various public locales...

TAM:)

Fortunately there is a vast expanse of water between us and the mighty Kirkman. If confronted on the street by him with CT spam I don't know if I could handle it. I might just have to go truther on y'all. :)

[Mobyseven]

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment?

Seems like someone needs to attend a few first year law lectures...

[GStan]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

What good does it do to weaken the lower part to remove the resistance from the bottom of the building for a collapse that began 90 floors above? If the structure must be weakened to remove the resistance to collapse, what removed the resistance (please don't say more explosives) for the other 90 floors of collapse in between? By your words above you almost seem to be implying that without the explosives, the lower floors (10 floors? I can't imagine any number defined as the 'lower floors' will add any sense to this scenario) would arrest the momentum of the 100 story collapse and under the rubble pile we'd find the intact 10 story frame of the trade tower. You attend Columbia. You can't seriously be making this argument are you? You seem more intelligent than this. Please take this post to a couple professors in the engineering department on Monday. I'm not engineering-literate enough to explain it, but I can certainly see why its incorrect. I know there are some structural experts in here that could. I'm surprised they did not jump on this. Perhaps it was just too obviously easy for them to bother.
If so, thanks for leaving an easy one for the new guy.

[thewholesoul]

And what you're doing is called dodging the point. I have been trying to get you to explain why you think the sequence of events is relevant to the claim that bombs were in the basement. You have not been able to do this.

i guess the confusion is due to what "objective" we are linking the relevance of the sequence of events. you are basing the relevance of the sequence in relation to the claim of bombs in the basement. i am basing its relevance in relation to revealing the inconsistency between the official explanation and what morelini actually experienced. i hope that answers your question.

Let's be clear, here: just because Morelli described them does not mean they actually happened. I'm not saying they didn't- it's just that you're trying to claim they are in contradiction without admitting that Morelli could be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

let us be clear?? Just because he said they actually happened does not mean they actually happened but i am not saying they didn’t happen? So what are you saying? Did they or did they not happen? Lets just assume they did for “arguments sake”.

They are in contradiction to what? To your "causal explanation" behind the events he experienced. Yes i argue that they are in contradiction to your explanation. yes Morelli could be wrong about his assumptions concerning the causes behind event one and two i accept that but experience is not a question of right or wrong its a question of whether it happened or not. Your confusing the issue.


Well... there were these planes...

well...no, there was only one plane 90+ floors above that hit the north tower


No, he said or whatever it was- indicating that he was in a position where he could not have known at the time that it was a plane or the result of the plane making impact and causing some kind of secondary effect (um, like an elevator crashing down).

I concede it was “or” and not “and” – congratulations.

I acknowledge further down that he was uncertain about the causes of the events he was percieving. Besides wouldnt “whatever” indicate this?

Which is it then the plane impact or the elevator crashing down? Or are you now claiming both?


You're wrong, here- the 2nd event and the elevators falling are one in the same.

I was limiting the two events to the two “impacts” he describes but if you wish i have no problem describing the falling elevator as the second event and (presumably) its impact as the third event. In any case, The first event and its causes is key to my argument.

You're asking whether what Morelli is explaining is what Morelli is explaining?

no i am asking if what morellini experienced is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind what he experienced.

Strawman- he's not describing just hearing a plane impact, he's describing feeling it.

i think i recognised that and divided his experience into sound, feelings, and what he thought at the time.

So you believe he did “hear” on b4 the plane impact on the 90 floor?

62nd floor Daniel T. Duffy: "I heard no sound - no crash, no explosion"

now maybe the sound traveled down the elevator shaft but would that sound like an "impact" from the "explosion" like something heavy "falling over" in the "loading dock" that blew him to the floor? i doubt it would sound that STRONG. moreover the sound morellini heard was not coming from the elevator - his testimony suggests to me that he perceived the sound as coming from the loading dock.

I wish to object to your interpretation of it. Being able to "hear" (or rather, feel) the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in.

Your reductionist interpretation is not valid because moreillin both heard and felt something happening and your explanation must remain in the context of what he experienced not what you would want him to have experienced.

the "structure and section” argumnet does not seem plausible to me in this case. Kindly tell me what structure he was near that greatly enhanced his hearing ability and susceptability to "feel"·the sound of the plane impacting 90+ floors above. i do accept that people in different areas of the building heard and felt different things but if i could provide another example of someone else in the building situated beside the same structure, with greater proximity to the plane impact yet did not hear or feel the plane impact would you concede on this issue?


Argument from personal incredulity. Who do you think was "nearer" to the impact that did not fall over that should have fallen over?

hmmmm that would be everybody that was “nearer” to the impact. should they have fallen over? well given that morellini did i would expect at least one or two.

Do you have any examples or studies that would support your assertion that people closer to impacts are more likley to remain standing. My argument from personal incredulity has more c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y when you ADD my argumnets and not take them on separately and unsucessfully...i might add.

Same fallacy as the "hearing" argument. The effects of the impact are not necessarily because of what level you're on- but how the building is reacting to the impact. I cannot give you specifics, because it's not my field- but I do not find your objection to carry any weight.

What fallacy of the “hearing argumnet” i never claimed morellini “just” heared something you invented this in your mind. I guess that’s what you call the falacy of calling fallacy!! i bet you havent heard of that one before?

Without giving any specifics why should i believe your objection carries any weight? some people on higher floors felt nothing. The floor was not moving. They heard no explosion above or below them yet someone at b4 felt the floor moving and thought that the impact of the perceived explosion in the loading dock caused him to fall.

At 8:46, when the first plane struck the north tower between the 94th and 99th floors, few on the 88th or 89th floor realized what had happened, but the building swayed so far that they knew something serious had taken place.

78th floor
Schofield: My father had no idea what had happened. He and his co-workers were not terribly alarmed before I called. They knew something had happened, for they felt the building shake a bit

if you are not willing to concede that it is impossible that a plane imapcting the 93rd floor would cause a person in the b4 level to fall to be thrown to teh ground would at least concede that it is EXTREMELY improbable?

See, now you're changing the story. Morelli did not describe an event in the loading dock- you admitted this in your 4 clone.

When something falls over that is generally called an event i.e. something happening. In no.4 he assumes an event took place in the loading dock and described it as something falling over, something heavy and big. I fail to see the part where he did not describe an event. Perhaps you can quote the part from his testimony which does not describe an event in the loading dock. Even if the event was in his mind he is still describing an event. Besides what sort of argumnet is this against the claim that the imapct of a plane 90+ floors above could not cause something to fall in the loading dock. Even the perception of something falling over in the loading dock?

Something did- a plane hit the building.

If your going to argue that the plane hitting the building caused the first event that morellini experienced your going to have to back it up with something more substantial than it just did.

If your actually saying that a plane impacting 90+ floors above caused him to be thrown to ground, the ground to move, the percived “sound” of an explosion, the impression that something very heavy and big fell over in the floor(s) above him, while some people on the 78th floor much closer to the plane's impact did not hear or feel or experience ANY of the same phenomena morellini realised that morning--- then i guess we have different standards of justified true belief.

As I've already explained to you- the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would feel like it's something below. However, David and Morelli both do not believe this was explosives.

vibrating floor argumnet. Because david did not specifically state that the floor was moving or vibrating i think you are taking liberties in interpretation. He could just as well have meant that below the floor he was standing on is where he heard the explosion.

Morellini did not say either that floors were vibrating, he said "moving". Vibrating would correspond to what you wish to propose that somehow shock waves from the impact caused seemingly random areas of floors in the building to vibrate; moving rather seems to be a stronger word like when people describe earth quakes or the like.

"David and morelli do not believe this was explosives" you will need to source that claim amigo.

in any case even if they dont my objective here is not to prove that explosives caused morellini’s first event – my objective is to demonstrate that the offical theory is impossible and unable to “explain” what actually happened that morning. Once we remove the impossible whatever is left however improbable must be the truth. I am sure you are all familiar with that quote.


I already explained this to you.[/QUOTE]

you did and you failed miserably :)

[thewholesoul]

my comment was not intended as an objection to your paper, your paper happens to eb well written and sourced. the only testimony of the b3 level is not from any person who was on that floor?

the only testimony we have is from Giambanco’s "I could see through the cracks we were between B-2 and B-3...I remember seeing through the slot of the elevator and seeing other people running and screaming". but even this testimony does not clarify which floor he witnessed the people.

is there anyone out there with more info on b3?i will research myself (if going to youtube and google counts as research) but would appreciate if anyone else had a bit of info - maybe the testimony of b3 - if it exists could support the testimony of rodriguez? or not:shocked:

[uk_dave]

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

There is a huge difference between the construction of a loadbearing wall and a partition wall.

And given that the towers were steel framed structures with steel members carrying loads down to the foundations, it's likely that there were no loadbearing walls at all, though there may well be seperating (fire and sound) walls.

But, you do touch on one interesting point.
I would direct your attention upward, towards the impact zone of the tower.....but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we? ...and when the structure is damaged, we can't exactly rule out damage to the non-loadbearing fireprotection can we?

[T.A.M.]

As I have said before. You cannot base what happened in a complex, horrific event like 9/11, from the testimony of one, or even two witnesses. What you have to do is take all of the testimony, find the commonality in them, and this you focus on. The minutia of any one given testimony, considering the circumstances (panicked, chaos, screaming, smoke, fire) is an exercise in goose chasing.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

thewholesoul - There's a quote function, you really need to become familiar with it. I am getting tired of dissecting your posts because you're copying and pasting replies, instead of properly parsing them out.

[Totovader]

i guess the confusion is due to what "objective" we are linking the relevance of the sequence of events. you are basing the relevance of the sequence in relation to the claim of bombs in the basement. i am basing its relevance in relation to revealing the inconsistency between the official explanation and what morelini actually experienced. i hope that answers your question.

No, it does not- for 2 reasons:

1) Whether Morelli is wrong or not does not seem to matter to you- that's an issue.
2) The sequence of events does not change the essence of the differences between the two "theories". That point you continue to dodge. Now you're not supporting "bombs in the basement" or the Rodriguez claims, but instead just trying to "find inconsistencies in the official story". And you're doing this by examining one witness. That is fundamentally flawed.

let us be clear?? Just because he said they actually happened does not mean they actually happened but i am not saying they didn’t happen? So what are you saying? Did they or did they not happen? Lets just assume they did for “arguments sake”.

Then why are you trying to use his testimony to claim there are inconsistencies in the "official story"?

They are in contradiction to what? To your "causal explanation" behind the events he experienced. Yes i argue that they are in contradiction to your explanation. yes Morelli could be wrong about his assumptions concerning the causes behind event one and two i accept that but experience is not a question of right or wrong its a question of whether it happened or not. Your confusing the issue.

You're contradicting yourself again- you understand that Morelli could be wrong, but then turn around and claim experience a question of whether it happened or not...

Well... there were these planes...

well...no, there was only one plane 90+ floors above that hit the north tower

No... yes there was? If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.

I acknowledge further down that he was uncertain about the causes of the events he was percieving. Besides wouldnt “whatever” indicate this?

That question makes no sense.

Which is it then the plane impact or the elevator crashing down? Or are you now claiming both?

I'm saying it does not matter- but I see no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events.

You have not explained why the sequence of events would be supportive of a "bombs in the basement" theory. If you're admitting that- and instead now claiming that you're looking for "inconsistencies in the official story", then you're wasting everyones time.

I was limiting the two events to the two “impacts” he describes but if you wish i have no problem describing the falling elevator as the second event and (presumably) its impact as the third event. In any case, The first event and its causes is key to my argument.

Once you figure out what your argument is...

no i am asking if what morellini experienced is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind what he experienced.

I don't know who Morellini is- but Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.

i think i recognised that and divided his experience into sound, feelings, and what he thought at the time.

I think you didn't- which is why I pointed it out.

62nd floor Daniel T. Duffy: "I heard no sound - no crash, no explosion"

There's your "inconsistency" with the official story right there. Duffy said nothing happened... iNSiDe jOB!!11eleventyone!!

now maybe the sound traveled down the elevator shaft but would that sound like an "impact" from the "explosion" like something heavy "falling over" in the "loading dock" that blew him to the floor? i doubt it would sound that STRONG.

So here again, we have an argument from personal incredulity.

For the last time, Morelli did not describe it sounding like "something heavy falling over" he described that as the most plausible explanation to him at the time. You continue to misquote him throughout this entire thread- and it's starting to get very obvious that you're not interested in correcting yourself.

moreover the sound morellini heard was not coming from the elevator - his testimony suggests to me that he perceived the sound as coming from the loading dock.

I've already corrected you on this a dozen times. Morelli is not describing an event in the loading dock. He is providing the most plausible explanation to the event according to him based on the limited information he had at the time.

This is the LAST TIME I will make this correction for you:

Phillip Morelli: As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean, the impact of the explosion, of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor, and that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened, and all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving, and you get up, and the walls – and then, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, you know the elevators, fell down, so I was right near the main freight car, so I assume what that was. [Describing the same event] Then, you know, you heard that coming towards you, I was racing, I was going towards the bathrooms, you know, all of a sudden, and a big impact happened again, and all the ceiling tiles were falling down, the light fixtures falling, swinging out of the ceiling.

Your reductionist interpretation is not valid because moreillin both heard and felt something happening and your explanation must remain in the context of what he experienced not what you would want him to have experienced.

This is not an adequate rebuttal to my point. First of all, "reductionist" makes no sense- I was not reducing anything. I was pointing out that your method of excluding witnesses is flawed. Second, you firmly believe that the consequences of the events cannot be felt or heard on anyone below any floor where a floor above them could not hear or feel the event. This is fundamentally flawed, as I have already explained.

the "structure and section” argumnet does not seem plausible to me in this case.

And that's supposed to matter to me? Whether you accept facts or not is none of my concern.

Kindly tell me what structure he was near that greatly enhanced his hearing ability and susceptability to "feel"·the sound of the plane impacting 90+ floors above.

Any part of the structure- the basement, remember, is where the support structure connects with the ground... But there was also that elevator shaft...

i do accept that people in different areas of the building heard and felt different things but if i could provide another example of someone else in the building situated beside the same structure, with greater proximity to the plane impact yet did not hear or feel the plane impact would you concede on this issue?

... but you already accept it...

Assuming that all human perceptions are on the same level (we all see at the same level, hear at the same level, and feel at the same level), and there is no difference in the reverberations within the structure itself on ANY level, then your pathetic effort to find "flaws" in the "official story" would be a worthy endeavor.

Since we not only have differences in the structure, but differences in the levels in which humans can perceive their environment, we also have differences in the way humans can recall that perception. Just because Duffy on the 62nd floor doesn't recall an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.

hmmmm that would be everybody that was “nearer” to the impact. should they have fallen over? well given that morellini did i would expect at least one or two.

Good luck in your search. Supporting your argument from personal incredulity with just more of the same is not sufficient.

My argument from personal incredulity has more c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y when you ADD my argumnets and not take them on separately and unsucessfully...i might add.

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said.

What fallacy of the “hearing argumnet” i never claimed morellini “just” heared something you invented this in your mind. I guess that’s what you call the falacy of calling fallacy!! i bet you havent heard of that one before?

Your "hearing argument" is claiming that since others above Morelli recall not hearing the impact, Morelli necessarily could not have heard the impact.

Without giving any specifics why should i believe your objection carries any weight? some people on higher floors felt nothing. The floor was not moving.

I could say the same to you- without you giving me any specifics, why should I continue to waste my time watching you dodge my questions and ignore my points? I would think that my argument is pretty simple- pointing out that your claim relies heavily on fallacious assertions should be enough to cause you to question it and make efforts to be more consistent. Apparently, it's not.

They heard no explosion above or below them yet someone at b4 felt the floor moving and thought that the impact of the perceived explosion in the loading dock caused him to fall.

You have yet again, misquoted Morelli. See above.

At 8:46, when the first plane struck the north tower between the 94th and 99th floors, few on the 88th or 89th floor realized what had happened, but the building swayed so far that they knew something serious had taken place.

I bolded the relevant part of your quote, here. Not everyone in the same place, experienced or recalled the event equally. That shoots down your entire "hearing" argument.

78th floor
Schofield: My father had no idea what had happened. He and his co-workers were not terribly alarmed before I called. They knew something had happened, for they felt the building shake a bit

if you are not willing to concede that it is impossible that a plane imapcting the 93rd floor would cause a person in the b4 level to fall to be thrown to teh ground would at least concede that it is EXTREMELY improbable?

Not at all. You have provided no explanation, no evidence, no sound argument as to why it's impossible or improbable. Your entire claim rests on the idea that the structure is affected equally, that humans all perceive at the same level, and then all are able to recall perfectly. This is patently absurd.

When something falls over that is generally called an event i.e. something happening. In no.4 he assumes an event took place in the loading dock and described it as something falling over, something heavy and big. I fail to see the part where he did not describe an event.

If you assume something happened, you are making an assumption, not describing an event. Morelli did not describe an event in the loading dock, he described what he assumed at the time happened. You admitted this in your 4 clone of the previous post, but contradicted it later on in your own post.

If you refuse to understand this very fundamental detail- then it's obvious you're not interested in the facts regarding your argument. You directly contradicted yourself, here- and you wave it off as if you were not.

Perhaps you can quote the part from his testimony which does not describe an event in the loading dock. Even if the event was in his mind he is still describing an event.

I have already corrected this for you quite a few times. See above.

And no- if he's describing an assumption, he's not describing an event.

Besides what sort of argumnet is this against the claim that the imapct of a plane 90+ floors above could not cause something to fall in the loading dock. Even the perception of something falling over in the loading dock?

First- that's a strawman. I never said it could not have caused something to fall. Second- it's an argument based on the facts... those are the best kinds of arguments.

If your going to argue that the plane hitting the building caused the first event that morellini experienced your going to have to back it up with something more substantial than it just did.

Um, no I don't.

If your actually saying that a plane impacting 90+ floors above caused him to be thrown to ground, the ground to move, the percived “sound” of an explosion, the impression that something very heavy and big fell over in the floor(s) above him, while some people on the 78th floor much closer to the plane's impact did not hear or feel or experience ANY of the same phenomena morellini realised that morning--- then i guess we have different standards of justified true belief.

And the burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

vibrating floor argumnet. Because david did not specifically state that the floor was moving or vibrating i think you are taking liberties in interpretation. He could just as well have meant that below the floor he was standing on is where he heard the explosion.

That rebuttal makes no sense at all. "I think you are taking liberties" is entirely inadequate.

Morellini did not say either that floors were vibrating, he said "moving". Vibrating would correspond to what you wish to propose that somehow shock waves from the impact caused seemingly random areas of floors in the building to vibrate; moving rather seems to be a stronger word like when people describe earth quakes or the like.

Semantics- irrelevant to the argument.

"David and morelli do not believe this was explosives" you will need to source that claim amigo.

No, I do not. It's your argument that their testimony supports bombs in the basement. Since they never claim this- it would be up to you to find where they do and support your argument. Yet again, a burden of proof fallacy.

in any case even if they dont my objective here is not to prove that explosives caused morellini’s first event – my objective is to demonstrate that the offical theory is impossible and unable to “explain” what actually happened that morning. Once we remove the impossible whatever is left however improbable must be the truth. I am sure you are all familiar with that quote.

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.

Without knowing it (because he didn't possess a brain) Holmes was describing conspiracism to the letter. Instead of utilizing scientific methods- conspiracists like yourself play mind games. By rejecting the evidence and instead looking for minute and insignificant "inconsistencies" (which are nothing more than ignorant or misinformed assertions) conspiracists believe that they can "eliminate" the most likely scenarios and ignore all the evidence. This results in a conclusion- for them- that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, a mountain of evidence contradicting it, and is self-defeating- but in the conspiracists mind is "however improbable, must be the truth".

It's not science- it's faith.

[Calcas]

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.

Without knowing it (because he didn't possess a brain) Holmes was describing conspiracism to the letter. Instead of utilizing scientific methods- conspiracists like yourself play mind games. By rejecting the evidence and instead looking for minute and insignificant "inconsistencies" (which are nothing more than ignorant or misinformed assertions) conspiracists believe that they can "eliminate" the most likely scenarios and ignore all the evidence. This results in a conclusion- for them- that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, a mountain of evidence contradicting it, and is self-defeating- but in the conspiracists mind is "however improbable, must be the truth".

It's not science- it's faith.

Nominated.

BTW, hell of a job in the thread Toto. You have more patience than I...

[thewholesoul]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

[chillzero]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

You must have missed my earlier post for you.

thewholesoul:
Quote function - down there on the bottom right of each post.

Here's some helpful info:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2701915 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2701915)

[Alferd_Packer]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

The best way to do that is to use the quote function and then copy and paste the quote into a text editing program. Use the square brackets to suround the words "quote" and "/quote"
just like it shows you.

[Alferd_Packer]

Brasil, are you the "Angry Young Man" from the O&A video?

Just curious.

Back to the subject of free Willy and the basement explosives.

If there were explosives in the basement, what do YOU think they would have sounded like?

Do YOU think that there would have been sharp, very loud, cracks when the charges went off, or do you think that they would have sounded like a rumble of heavy furniture being dargged across the floor above you?

What do YOU think?

[ElMondoHummus]

Nice article;

A few things on the article, but first on your quest to find occurences of "overpressure (barotrauma) injuries.

1. While you may find some occurences, it will likely be way under reported, for these reasons
- It was rapid triage and treatment.
- The respiratory ailments, in addition to having similar presentations, regardless of dust/smoke or trauma based, would not likely have been differentiated in the statistics. They would likely all be grouped as "respiratory" disorders.

2. If a fair bit of dust was able to get into the external meatus of the patients ears, color differentiation, and possibly tympanic membrane visualization may have been impossible, especially in a rapid "triage and treat" or "scoop and run" situation. This would severely limit the diagnosis and recording of tympanic barotrauma (although a patient who is completely deaf from their injury is HIGHLY suspicious of barotrauma).

3. The presence of barotrauma findings confirms overpressure state, but their absence does not refute such a state.

4. I would guess (from my work in the ER) that if the patient could respond to your questions, and hence could hear you speak, then their ears were unlikely to be checked. If the barotrauma were sufficient to cause TM rupture bilaterally, and hence make them severely hearing impaired, it may OR may not have been documented, and an ear exam MAY have occurred.


As for the paper,

1. I see no recording of ear based illness/trauma.
2. Alveolar injury from barotrauma if diagnosed (unlikely in a rapid assessment), was likely included in the "Inhalation" section, without further distinction. In all likelihood, there was NO distinction made beyond the illness/injury being Inhalation based (ie respiratory based illness/injury).

If you have any other questions on the specifics, feel free, I will help if I can.

It would be nice to have a follow up study, to see of those patients treated and released, were any further injuries or illness seen afterward, not originally detected in the rapid treatment.


TAM:)


Hmmm... very good points. I didn't consider those. And you're absolutely right about the emergency nature of the treatment dispensed; that's an important thing to keep in mind when studying what records exist regarding the treatment of victims at that time.

Anyway, I admit I was assuming there'd be a record somewhere that definitively centralized a complete list of the injuries treated. I quickly realized that was not the case; further research shows how ad-hoc everything was. I found (sorry! I closed the window and lost the link already) a different report on the cases treated by various emergency departments (broken limbs, concussions, etc.; as you predicted, there was only a single category referring to "respiratory" issues). I was somewhat dumbfounded that the methodology was mostly after-the-fact interviews. As best as I could tell, they did not refer to emergency departments' records to build the list of injuries; rather, they simply used such records to build lists of people they could contact.

I think we overestimate the recording capacity of the health care system, and organizations in general. The researchers saw the need to interview the victims directly to determine what injuries resulted. They gave no explanation why, but it was obvious that direct victim interview was their choice; I think it's due to the factors you listed above.

Anyway, I'm with you: I'd like to see a followup to that study, myself. Further medical care might have uncovered the sort of information I was looking for.

But, moving away from medical journals, I was also hoping to find reports of barotrauma in the mainstream news as well. I'm able to find mentions - mentions only, I'm afraid, no numbers or details - of extreme barotrauma associated with the victims of other bombings: The various Israeli bus bombings (that's where I discovered the term "White Butterfly", in a mainstream news report), the Madrid bombings, the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City event... but no references to September 11th victims having suffered this. I figured there'd be some, even if from some survivors caught in the buildings during the collapse; it's reasonable to presume the pneumatic effect of the building collapsing would result in barotrauma injuries as well, but if it did, it seems to be lost in the description of the other injuries.

Blech... this is a real load of work. I don't think I'm going to go much further with it. But, thanks for the comment; if nothing else, I learned something new from all this.

[Gravy]

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes...It's also complete nonsense. With everything humans study, once we remove the impossible what remains is a range of possibilities that varies from small to enormous.

Excellent post, Toto.

[Zlaya]

Seems like someone needs to attend a few first year law lectures...

Sounds like someone is not aware of what happened legally in the last 6 years.

How long were you away from the planet earth?

[A W Smith]

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

So government conspiracicts knew Linda Gronlund (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html)had a safe? and convinced her to make a call to her sister and reveal the combination?


Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.
Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, 'I don't know if I'm ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I'm really going to miss you.' And she said goodbye."

[thewholesoul]

“If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

“Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a) morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact. Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound travels? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.
(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?
(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it? (4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.
(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor. I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would. A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.
Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed. (2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground. (3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??
Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.
I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

if mackey or gravy object to the explanations i claimed they presented thye shoudl let me know.

[thewholesoul]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however - :)

[T.A.M.]

Hmmm... very good points. I didn't consider those. And you're absolutely right about the emergency nature of the treatment dispensed; that's an important thing to keep in mind when studying what records exist regarding the treatment of victims at that time.

Anyway, I admit I was assuming there'd be a record somewhere that definitively centralized a complete list of the injuries treated. I quickly realized that was not the case; further research shows how ad-hoc everything was. I found (sorry! I closed the window and lost the link already) a different report on the cases treated by various emergency departments (broken limbs, concussions, etc.; as you predicted, there was only a single category referring to "respiratory" issues). I was somewhat dumbfounded that the methodology was mostly after-the-fact interviews. As best as I could tell, they did not refer to emergency departments' records to build the list of injuries; rather, they simply used such records to build lists of people they could contact.

I think we overestimate the recording capacity of the health care system, and organizations in general. The researchers saw the need to interview the victims directly to determine what injuries resulted. They gave no explanation why, but it was obvious that direct victim interview was their choice; I think it's due to the factors you listed above.

Anyway, I'm with you: I'd like to see a followup to that study, myself. Further medical care might have uncovered the sort of information I was looking for.

But, moving away from medical journals, I was also hoping to find reports of barotrauma in the mainstream news as well. I'm able to find mentions - mentions only, I'm afraid, no numbers or details - of extreme barotrauma associated with the victims of other bombings: The various Israeli bus bombings (that's where I discovered the term "White Butterfly", in a mainstream news report), the Madrid bombings, the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City event... but no references to September 11th victims having suffered this. I figured there'd be some, even if from some survivors caught in the buildings during the collapse; it's reasonable to presume the pneumatic effect of the building collapsing would result in barotrauma injuries as well, but if it did, it seems to be lost in the description of the other injuries.

Blech... this is a real load of work. I don't think I'm going to go much further with it. But, thanks for the comment; if nothing else, I learned something new from all this.

You are welcome...

1. If the USA is anything like Canada, then you will quickly realize that most visits to the ER are injury specific, and unless severe trauma is suspected or indicated, you are treated for "what you came in for" and then d/c'ed home.

2. As far as barotrauma goes, yes I would say that if explosives were used, and anyone was near them, then some, SOME should have suffered barotrauma, particularly Tympanic. The pressure wave that occured when each building collapsed might have caused some barotrauma, no doubt, but appart from the 19 survivors, who else would be alive to check or complain about it?

Good luck with the research if you continue.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however - :)

you have a private message with instructions and an example

[thewholesoul]

Back to the subject of free Willy and the basement explosives.

If there were explosives in the basement, what do YOU think they would have sounded like?

Do YOU think that there would have been sharp, very loud, cracks when the charges went off, or do you think that they would have sounded like a rumble of heavy furniture being dargged across the floor above you?

What do YOU think?[/QUOTE]


hey alfred,

first the sound of the explosive, if there were any, would depend on what type of explosive was used and to say what type of explosive was used would be speculation because i simply dont know.

second the sound of the explosives would depend from where one is situated so it may sound like moving heavy furniture for rodriguez in b1 or it may sound like something heavy falling over for morilli. other like felipe david simply say "explosion" without going into specifics.

i suppose the simplest answer is that explosives would sound like an explosion. however many things can sound like an explosion. so if i may turn the question back to you amigo. what do you think the sound of a fireball would make? would it sound like a heavy rumble of moving furniture?

[beachnut]

hey alfred,

first the sound of the explosive, if there were any, would depend on what type of explosive was used and to say what type of explosive was used would be speculation because i simply dont know.

second the sound of the explosives would depend from where one is situated so it may sound like moving heavy furniture for rodriguez in b1 or it may sound like something heavy falling over for morilli. other like felipe david simply say "explosion" without going into specifics.

i suppose the simplest answer is that explosives would sound like an explosion. however many things can sound like an explosion. so if i may turn the question back to you amigo. what do you think the sound of a fireball would make? would it sound like a heavy rumble of moving furniture?
Are you going to write a book or something? You still have no idea how to do the quote thing.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas.


I don't see it. Numerous attempts to inflate the importance of your "backyard knowledge", appeals to pity... You seem to be far more interested in arguing that your "ideas" are correct, rather than actually trying to learn anything.

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, please attend to your atrocious spelling and grammar. For instance, you've spelled "Morelli" three different ways.

And please separate your ideas into paragraphs, to make your posts more legible. Long, single-paragraph rants are a hallmark of nuttery.

[OldTigerCub]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however - :)

thewholesoul,
I believe Chillzero pointed this out, but there is a "Help" link in the title bar that has lots of tutorials dealing with post formatting and other helpful hints. You can also use the "preview" button next to the "submit reply" button that will help you clean up errors in formatting, quoting, posting links and pictures...etc. It will take a little study and practice, but proper formatting makes posts here much easier for others to respond to.

[Totovader]

“If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

“Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a) morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact. Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound travels? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.
(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?
(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it? (4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.
(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor. I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would. A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.
Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed. (2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground. (3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??
Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.
I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

if mackey or gravy object to the explanations i claimed they presented thye shoudl let me know.

If you can't take the time and care to separate this out, properly quote it, and actually nurture your argument into something beyond incoherent babbling... I'm not going to take the time to respond.

[brasil]

I had a moment of insight and figured out what you guys are good at and how that should be reflected in what I write here (and by "you guys" I mean the "regulars" on this board): you are good at debunking. I'll bet you guys could debunk the blue out of the sky. Ever try debunking an engine, because I certainly haven't. Everyone has to be good at something, I suppose. With that crystal clear revelation firmly in mind, I understood the proper relationship I can have with this thread: You are all amazingly good at debunking, and i am amazingly good at asking questions. Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions. So from now on, I ask, and You debunk. Even if I find I don't agree with your debunkinations, I can take those debunkination techniques and share them with the strategists at the less organized, yet much more fun "Loose Change." By the way, big props to Totovader for being as annoyingly good at debunkination as I am at asking questions.

Thus, I no longer have an opinion, just questions.

And I don't actually have any questions right at this specific moment either. Strangely enough, I don't think about 9/11 every waking moment. It's my understanding the Republicans are drafting a bill to make that illegal, but I doubt it will pass.

[thewholesoul]

glad you enjoyed gravy:)

[thewholesoul]

hey totovader.

so if i space it out and paragraph it etc, which i had done on word documnet but when i copy and pasted it onto this forum it just came out like you know what, you will respond?but i do apologise. however it is still legible.

[A W Smith]

hey totovader.

so if i space it out and paragraph it etc, which i had done on word documnet but when i copy and pasted it onto this forum it just came out like you know what, you will respond?but i do apologise. however it is still legible.
So I gues you do not know how to retrieve private messages from here either?

[thewholesoul]

i totally agree tiger, and thanks for help much appreciated.

[thewholesoul]

private posts, i am afraid not amigo, i am just one of those guys that can barely manage his hotmail. it was a struggle setting up youtube

[A W Smith]

private posts, i am afraid not amigo, i am just one of those guys that can barely manage his hotmail. it was a struggle setting up youtube
I understand... priorities.

Scroll all the way up to the top of this page you are reading. See that text thats flashing that says "private messages (http://forums.randi.org/private.php)"??? its a hyperlink. Click on it

[AZCat]

<snip>and i am amazingly good at asking questions.

No, you're not.

So from now on, I ask, and You debunk.

You fail to understand. After reading your posts over the last couple of days, I fear that you never will. Please find someone in life who can sit you down and explain these things to you, because posts on an internet forum just don't seem to be getting through to you.

[Coffee]

I had a moment of insight and figured out what you guys are good at and how that should be reflected in what I write here (and by "you guys" I mean the "regulars" on this board): you are good at debunking. I'll bet you guys could debunk the blue out of the sky. Ever try debunking an engine, because I certainly haven't. Everyone has to be good at something, I suppose. With that crystal clear revelation firmly in mind, I understood the proper relationship I can have with this thread: You are all amazingly good at debunking, and i am amazingly good at asking questions. Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions. So from now on, I ask, and You debunk. Even if I find I don't agree with your debunkinations, I can take those debunkination techniques and share them with the strategists at the less organized, yet much more fun "Loose Change." By the way, big props to Totovader for being as annoyingly good at debunkination as I am at asking questions.

Thus, I no longer have an opinion, just questions.

And I don't actually have any questions right at this specific moment either. Strangely enough, I don't think about 9/11 every waking moment. It's my understanding the Republicans are drafting a bill to make that illegal, but I doubt it will pass.

You were transparent from the beginning. Your JAQ bull was obvious. You have no credibility. Your arguments are crap. You may think your use of italics is clever but it's not. It's an old device used by many who where much better at it than you. You fail at 9/11 facts. Go have fun at "Loose Change". You belong there.

[stateofgrace]

I had a moment of insight and figured out what you guys are good at and how that should be reflected in what I write here (and by "you guys" I mean the "regulars" on this board): you are good at debunking. I'll bet you guys could debunk the blue out of the sky. Ever try debunking an engine, because I certainly haven't. Everyone has to be good at something, I suppose. With that crystal clear revelation firmly in mind, I understood the proper relationship I can have with this thread: You are all amazingly good at debunking, and i am amazingly good at asking questions. Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions. So from now on, I ask, and You debunk. Even if I find I don't agree with your debunkinations, I can take those debunkination techniques and share them with the strategists at the less organized, yet much more fun "Loose Change." By the way, big props to Totovader for being as annoyingly good at debunkination as I am at asking questions.

Thus, I no longer have an opinion, just questions.



Can anybody translate this into understandable English?

Just asking a question.

[AZCat]

Can anybody translate this into understandable English?

Just asking a question. (bolding mine)


Aaaaaaahhhh!

[thewholesoul]

hey thxs a million smith

[A W Smith]

hey thxs a million smith

I have no doubt that theres a million smiths in my metropolitan area

[LashL]

I no longer have an opinion, just questions.


Is there an appropriate smiley (or YouTube video) for the Eureka moment when a JAQer admits that he's just JAQing off?

[Totovader]

brasil - If you "just have questions", then I suggest that you visit the links provided in the sticky section of this forum. You will garner a lot more respect by doing your own research, instead of pretending that "asking questions" is a skill which demands respect, and then claiming that JAQing off is the same as critical thinking.

[Totovader]

hey totovader.

so if i space it out and paragraph it etc, which i had done on word documnet but when i copy and pasted it onto this forum it just came out like you know what, you will respond?but i do apologise. however it is still legible.

It's not legible- it's a pain in the rear to read. I'm not going to keep fixing your posts for you in reply.

Several people have already explained the quote function to you- you need to at least get that down before you post again.

[DavidJames]

Can anybody translate this into understandable English?

Just asking a question.Brasil figured out people here are smarter, have more education and more experience then him in every subject in which he thought he was knowledgable. So rather then continue to look foolish he decided to adopt the same technique as most other CTists who frequent these forums, name JAQs.

I figured he'd commit suicide by mod first, but live and learn.

[TjW]

I had a moment of insight and figured out what you guys are good at and how that should be reflected in what I write here (and by "you guys" I mean the "regulars" on this board): you are good at debunking. I'll bet you guys could debunk the blue out of the sky. Ever try debunking an engine, because I certainly haven't. Everyone has to be good at something, I suppose. With that crystal clear revelation firmly in mind, I understood the proper relationship I can have with this thread: You are all amazingly good at debunking, and i am amazingly good at asking questions. Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions. So from now on, I ask, and You debunk. Even if I find I don't agree with your debunkinations, I can take those debunkination techniques and share them with the strategists at the less organized, yet much more fun "Loose Change." By the way, big props to Totovader for being as annoyingly good at debunkination as I am at asking questions.

Thus, I no longer have an opinion, just questions.

And I don't actually have any questions right at this specific moment either. Strangely enough, I don't think about 9/11 every waking moment. It's my understanding the Republicans are drafting a bill to make that illegal, but I doubt it will pass.

What you're amazingly bad at is listening to answers.

[thewholesoul]

AZ CAT, A W Smith, old tiger club, beachnut

just a quick question. i am curious to know what is your causal explanation behind morilli's first event i.e. "the impact of the explosion" which threw him to the ground?

do you agree with totvader.

thxs

[thewholesoul]

It's not legible- it's a pain in the rear to read. I'm not going to keep fixing your posts for you in reply.

Several people have already explained the quote function to you- you need to at least get that down before you post again.

point taken amigo.

you see i got the hang of this part its spliting the quotes is the problem but a z smith helped me out with that so i should be ok in the future.

what would you say if i broke it into three posts and then sent it again?

[thewholesoul]

I have no doubt that theres a million smiths in my metropolitan area

well i was in such a good mood i just want to thank them all:)

[Totovader]

point taken amigo.

you see i got the hang of this part its spliting the quotes is the problem but a z smith helped me out with that so i should be ok in the future.

what would you say if i broke it into three posts and then sent it again?

Have a ball.

[thewholesoul]

Nominated.

BTW, hell of a job in the thread Toto. You have more patience than I...

hey calcas, i was meaning to ask you if you agreed with totovaders causal explanation in relation to morilli's testimony in which he describes hearing the impact of an explosion which threw him to the floor?

do you agree that this event was the result of the plane impacting the north tower?

or do you have a different explanation behind the event?

[thewholesoul]

Have a ball.

so thats a yes then? i will assume it is.

[Totovader]

hey calcas, i was meaning to ask you if you agreed with totovaders causal explanation in relation to morilli's testimony in which he describes hearing the impact of an explosion which threw him to the floor?

do you agree that this event was the result of the plane impacting the north tower?

or do you have a different explanation behind the event?

You're inventing strawmans, again- thewholsoul.

Please quote where I said that Morelli's was knocked to the ground by hearing an explosion.

This is why it's so important for you to stop ignoring the question I had in regards to the sequence of events. You try so hard to pick apart different aspects that you lose focus of what your task is really supposed to be. Instead of making your case, you're scrambling to find plot holes and inconsistencies- scrambling so hard that you slip up and invent your own.

[thewholesoul]

:It's also complete nonsense. With everything humans study, once we remove the impossible what remains is a range of possibilities that varies from small to enormous.

Excellent post, Toto.

hey gravy, i am curious as to whether you agree with totvaders causal explanation behind morilli's experience i.e. that he was thrown to the ground by the impact of a plane above?

i was under the impression you had a different explanation. was i wrong? or am i to assume that you share the same causal explanation as totvader?

take it easy:)

[thewholesoul]

You're inventing strawmans, again- thewholsoul.

Please quote where I said that Morelli's was knocked to the ground by hearing an explosion.

This is why it's so important for you to stop ignoring the question I had in regards to the sequence of events. You try so hard to pick apart different aspects that you lose focus of what your task is really supposed to be. Instead of making your case, you're scrambling to find plot holes and inconsistencies- scrambling so hard that you slip up and invent your own.

ok but you would accept that he was thrown to the ground resulting from the impact of the plane - i mean that is your position right?

[Totovader]

thewholesoul- What is the purpose of you harassing everyone to side with me?

Your curiosity has absolutely no bearing on this discussion- especially in regards to you making your case.

[Totovader]

ok but you would accept that he was thrown to the ground resulting from the impact of the plane - i mean that is your position right?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself on this matter. I've already answered this at least 3 times.

[thewholesoul]

hey all, i broke up that rant earlier into paragraphs and shorter versions

totovader says “If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

totovader says “Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

[Totovader]

*smacks forehead*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

THE QUOTE FEATURE- thewholesoul- WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO LEARN THE QUOTE FEATURE?

[Totovader]

It's not legible- it's a pain in the rear to read. I'm not going to keep fixing your posts for you in reply.

Several people have already explained the quote function to you- you need to at least get that down before you post again.

zing!

[thewholesoul]

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a)morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact.

Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound behaves? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.

(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?

(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it?

(4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.

[thewholesoul]

(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor.

I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would.

A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.

Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed.

(2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground.

(3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??

[thewholesoul]

Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.

I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul- What is the purpose of you harassing everyone to side with me?

Your curiosity has absolutely no bearing on this discussion- especially in regards to you making your case.

hey totovader, i was under the impression that this was a forum so i thought it a good idea where people stand on the issue. i am trying to conduct a line of inquiry into the most plausible explanation behind individual testimony.

i asked some others their opinion becasue there seems to be something other than a concensus regarding the cuasal explanation behind morilli being thrown to the ground.

so by gathering other positions i am trying to expland the debate and get it focued. if we are to find the most plausible explanation we are going to need to know how many explanations are out there to begin with.

wouldnt you agree

[thewholesoul]

*smacks forehead*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

THE QUOTE FEATURE- thewholesoul- WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO LEARN THE QUOTE FEATURE?

i know people say that to me a lot, i admit i'm not the brightest but i can hold my own in an argumnet.

[Totovader]

hey all, i broke up that rant earlier into paragraphs and shorter versions

You did not- however- do what was asked of you.

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

I fail to see how your criticism holds any weight.

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable.

Perhaps you could explain what that inconsistency is- and why it's relevant.

Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also.

You have pointed out no such thing- you just made the claim and then assumed that was adequate. Clearly, it is not.

Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time.

There's a point somewhere in here, I'm sure...

And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Then you are wasting my time. You have no evidence to support your assertions, and indeed appear to have dropped them instead JAQing off.

And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

That's dodging the issue. Different explanations do not mean inconsistency with the general conclusions. They do- however- mean that your original claim (which- again, you seem to have abandoned) is not supported.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.

Like hell I am. One tactic you seem to be in love with are these absurd strawman arguments.

Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored.

You mean the distinction which I specifically replied to- pointing out that it was meaningless and inconsistent?

When I point out that your claim is inconsistent- does that mean I "seem to have ignored" it, in your eyes?

That's not very honest of you.

Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen.

Um, "our" job, nothing. If you believe it's evidence of something, it's your job to prove it occurred, and then explain what could and could not have caused it- ruling out any other plausible scenarios.

You haven't even begun to do this.

This is not an insignificant line of inquiry.

It's a self-defeating line of inquiry. Your argument goes like this:

1) There were bombs in the basement.
2) There is no evidence for this, however, there are "inconsistencies" between a single eyewitness account and the "official story".
3) The inconsistencies are not specific, and cannot easily be named.
4) However, using the method of a fictional character, we can eliminate the widely accepted scientific version of the events by ignoring the evidence and going with whatever is left over- regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

If you think Morelli's testimony proves your case- then you need to explain why. Finding inconsistencies in an eyewitness account is a dazzling exercise in futility. Even if you were to find "inconsistencies"- it would not prove a thing.

Find inconsistencies in the evidence- and then you have my attention, and the attention of everyone else on this forum.

If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link.

I'm not sure how you can expect me to do this since it has not been demonstrated by your efforts at all.

I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours??

Again, you're taking my comments out of context. Whether Morelli remembers things wrong, or whether the timing in his memory is off, or whether he's recalling the events perfectly does not matter in the context of the events. Finding multiple different "versions" of the same conclusion- is not fruitful- it's reductio ad absurdum- the "inconsistencies" you think you're finding are not the least bit relevant or damaging to the conclusion.

If I clean the floor and then say "this floor is clean", but then you turn around and call me a liar because you've just run microscopic tests and found trace amounts of bacteria- you're ignoring the fundamental case: the floor, which once was dirty, is now clean.

I'm not sure if you're ever going to be able to understand this- because you've ignored it for several pages now. Finding inconsistencies in witness testimony is no great accomplishment.

More importantly is science backing up there version of events?

Is that a rhetorical question- or is this some kind of hint that you're actually going to produce something worth reading?

We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

Who's this "we" Kemosabe? YOU. YOU need to present your case and stop wasting my time. That SCIENCE thing you were talking about sounds interesting... where are you on that?

[Totovader]

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

This is why you need to take the time to understand the quote feature.

It's impossible to understand what you're responding to- and it's obvious that you're changing the context of my rebuttals.

Your outright refusal to understand how quoting works now appears to be deliberate.

(a)morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact.

Your assumption needs to be backed up by evidence.

Using your logic I showed that individuals on the 62nd floor heard and felt nothing- therefore there was no impact.

Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over.

There's nothing to respond to, here.

Your entire argument is fallacious- argument from personal incredulity.

Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound behaves?

This has already been explained to you.

It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

That's not what personal incredulity is.

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.

I have absolutely no idea what you're rebutting, here.

(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?

No. You have attempted to misquote Morelli on several occasions. If you're going to reverse your position- you need to be distinct.

(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it?

Here again you try and change what Morelli said. I'm not going to explain this to you again.

(4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues.

Please quote what the crap you're talking about.

(5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.

Strawman.

[Totovader]

Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.

I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

I predict you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

[Totovader]

hey totovader, i was under the impression that this was a forum so i thought it a good idea where people stand on the issue. i am trying to conduct a line of inquiry into the most plausible explanation behind individual testimony.

i asked some others their opinion becasue there seems to be something other than a concensus regarding the cuasal explanation behind morilli being thrown to the ground.

so by gathering other positions i am trying to expland the debate and get it focued. if we are to find the most plausible explanation we are going to need to know how many explanations are out there to begin with.

wouldnt you agree

No, you're trying to find the smallest scrap of dirt and then claim it's an "inconsistency".

You have been unable to explain why the differences would affect the overall argument.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. Similar to your Sherlock Holmes argument- you think that finding the smallest inconsistency (which is really just ignorance) means that the case goes out the window and that you can fill the void with your own version.

This needs to be fundamentally understood by you: this tactic is specifically employed to avoid the evidence and circumvent the scientific method. If you don't believe me- then watch what happens when you try and make the same case using evidence. Instead of starting in the middle and branching out from what you consider is an "inconsistency"- let's watch what happens when you start out with an observation, work your way into a theory, test the theory, and then draw a conclusion.

It'll be fun.

[thewholesoul]

I predict you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

i enjoyed reading your rebuttal game warden. i see you got promoted as a result of responding to me - congratulations. i feel i should take credit for something?:)

different causal explanations as to why morilli was thrown to the ground are inconsistent with one another because they cannot all be true - surely you know that?

anyways i hope to have a very short post tommorrow - it may even contain science!!

all the best

[Totovader]

i enjoyed reading your rebuttal game warden. i see you got promoted as a result of responding to me - congratulations. i feel i should take credit for something?:)

Has nothing to do with you. Sorry.

different causal explanations as to why morilli was thrown to the ground are inconsistent with one another because they cannot all be true - surely you know that?

They are not technically inconsistent with one another just because all of them could not have happened. All of them happening together would be inconsistent. However, in order for this line of nonsense to even be worthy of my time, you will have to show why all of these explanations damage the widely accepted scientific version of the events- or more specifically- why this supports your bomb in the basement claim.

anyways i hope to have a very short post tommorrow - it may even contain science!!

If it doesn't, I probably won't bother responding.

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, after I told you that you had spelled "Morelli" three different ways, you just spelled it three different ways again. And now you're claiming unfamiliarity with the "return" key.

You lack intelligence, respect for victims, and respect for learning.

If you must troll, can't you choose another subject? One that doesn't affect real people in the real world every day?

Welcome to ignore.

[thewholesoul]

No, you're trying to find the smallest scrap of dirt and then claim it's an "inconsistency".

You have been unable to explain why the differences would affect the overall argument.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. Similar to your Sherlock Holmes argument- you think that finding the smallest inconsistency (which is really just ignorance) means that the case goes out the window and that you can fill the void with your own version.

This needs to be fundamentally understood by you: this tactic is specifically employed to avoid the evidence and circumvent the scientific method. If you don't believe me- then watch what happens when you try and make the same case using evidence. Instead of starting in the middle and branching out from what you consider is an "inconsistency"- let's watch what happens when you start out with an observation, work your way into a theory, test the theory, and then draw a conclusion.

It'll be fun.

hey prediction is part of the scientific method and you didnt bother to answer my question on predictions. anyways that doesnt bother me

question what if could demonstrate through logic that the testimony of explosions could not be possibly explained by reference to fireballs, elevators or planes hitting? its a hypothetical question, but if i was able to eliminate the other explanations - through logic - then logic demands we look for a new explanation right?

[Totovader]

hey prediction is part of the scientific method and you didnt bother to answer my question on predictions. anyways that doesnt bother me

question what if could demonstrate through logic that the testimony of explosions could not be possibly explained by reference to fireballs, elevators or planes hitting? its a hypothetical question, but if i was able to eliminate the other explanations - through logic - then logic demands we look for a new explanation right?

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You are awarded no points.

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul, after I told you that you had spelled "Morelli" three different ways, you just spelled it three different ways again. And now you're claiming unfamiliarity with the "return" key.

You lack intelligence, respect for victims, and respect for learning.

If you must troll, can't you choose another subject? One that doesn't affect real people in the real world every day?

Welcome to ignore.

hey gravy thanks for your insightful objections to my post. you seem a little strict on the spell check. how spelling the name wrong of a person who is not a victim is equated to disrespecting the victims of 911 is baffling.

in any case i was invited to this forum, and i will remain pleasant at all times because i am a pleasant person. :)

you do know that if you give someone a present and they refuse to accept that the present, the present belongs to you? well the same applies to insults

[Totovader]

hey gravy thanks for your insightful objections to my post. you seem a little strict on the spell check. how spelling the name wrong of a person who is not a victim is equated to disrespecting the victims of 911 is baffling.

This would be one sign of disrespect.

Just because Morelli did not die on September 11th does not mean he's not a victim,Edited for civility

Furthermore, you could try and show a little respect. It should take very little effort on your part to spell his name correctly.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .and i am amazingly good at asking questions.


That depends on how you wish to define "good at asking questions". Little kids are good at asking questions. That's not exactly a level of skill I would brag about, basil.

Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions.


Again, so are children. Also, I'm pretty sure most people have described you as annoying, yes; not for your "skill" at asking questions, but for you total pigheadedness in the face of answers.

[thewholesoul]

Has nothing to do with you. Sorry.



They are not technically inconsistent with one another just because all of them could not have happened. All of them happening together would be inconsistent. However, in order for this line of nonsense to even be worthy of my time, you will have to show why all of these explanations damage the widely accepted scientific version of the events- or more specifically- why this supports your bomb in the basement claim.



If it doesn't, I probably won't bother responding.

no you will respond i guarantee it, you will try to respond but you will be unable to refute my argument. let me tell you a little secret amigo. truth cannot be debunked.:)

[Arus808]

wholesole, sorry but your acting is the worst ive seen on this forum. stop playing dumb.I know that you know how to use this forum; after 40 posts, even a newb to a forum software would get the basics down

as for your argument, you've yet to present one. You are taking one person's statement, and one who doesn't believe that he heard any bombs go off, and doesn't believe that there were bombs in the buliding, and trying to use his statements as if it will argue down the hundreds of other witnesses testimony

You ignored Totovader's answer several times, and aren't even respectful enough to spell a victim's name correctly

I suggest that you take the next 24 hours before you even attempt a reply.


I wont suggest that you learn the forum software, as I already know that you are just playing ignorant. Your silliness is not tolerated, and is insulting to the users of this forum


since you refuse to listen to the replies you've gotten, then its obvious from your presence, that you are simply trolling.

What is it with you truther? Do you honestly think this is a game? Do you honestly think that those who were there that day, LIKE when you take their quotes out of context and make them sound like they support an idea or theory when they dont? Do you think this is funny?

This will be my only reply to you; you and brasil can enjoy being ignorant, since you obviously think its fun to do so.

From now on, anyone who is just saying "IM asking questions" will go to ignore. the "just asking questions" BS has gone on long enough, and is not an EXCUSE or even a replacement to learning and critical thinking.

[tsig]

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me? How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again. Seriously, what gives with you guys? I can't imagine making it any clearer than I did. I showed it's technically possible, I related it to what happened on 9-11, and I illustrated it with the perfect metaphor of a child's game. What part don't you understand?


It would be the child's game. I have an education beyond that.

[tsig]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Bombs could have been up your bum. Prove me wrong.

[tsig]

hey all, i broke up that rant earlier into paragraphs and shorter versions

totovader says “If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

totovader says “Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

Doesn't make sense to me??

[chillzero]

OK, let's steer this thread back on topic please, after two distractions in the past three pages. No more personalising of the discussion please.

[eeyore1954]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

so they weakened the support in the basement of the WtC so that when the collapsing building (over 100 floors of it traveling at a high speed)reached the basement it would not encounter resistance as it fell through the remaining few basement levels and they did this an hour before the collapse and timed it exactly to the second to coinside with the airplane hitting the building. Why?

Why were they so interested in it falling at near free fall speed that they would plant bombs in the basement? So Dr Griffin and Mr Rodriguez would have something to talk about on their respective speech circuits?

As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds.
i don't think so. Most would say it fell at least 30% slower than freefall. If the knicks lost a basketball game by 100- 70 would you say they almost won. If in the olympics 100 meter race one of the contestants finished in 13% would you say he was almost as fast as the winner even though he would have been about 30 meters behind at the finish line. Do you have any idea how much further an item will travel at freefall acceleration in the extra three seconds from about 10 seconds to about 13 seconds.

[Mobyseven]

Sounds like someone is not aware of what happened legally in the last 6 years.

How long were you away from the planet earth?

Gee, sorry. I must have been too busy actually studying law this year to keep up with the conspiracy lunacy.

So tell me, when exactly was the legislation passed that gives the POTUS complete, arbitrary, and immediately enforceable legislative powers?

[Totovader]

no you will respond i guarantee it, you will try to respond but you will be unable to refute my argument. let me tell you a little secret amigo. truth cannot be debunked.:)

What truth have you discovered, thewholesoul? Either you're JAQing off, or you have discovered some truth that you think supports your original claim of bombs in the basement. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead- post your truth, and provide your evidence, and then I will not be able to ignore you.

Until then... you're insignificant.

[brasil]

Gee, sorry. I must have been too busy actually studying law this year to keep up with the conspiracy lunacy.

So tell me, when exactly was the legislation passed that gives the POTUS complete, arbitrary, and immediately enforceable legislative powers?

When was the legistlation passed that allowed Hitler to start murdering his own citizens and then try to take over the world? If you've studied law then you know what a "signing statement" is and that Bush has issued more signing statements than any president in the history of the United States. But I'm sure you've been too busy "studying law" to know what's actually happening in this country.

What was that Gravy said about an "open hydrant of ignorance?" (and if Gravy can say that to me without getting banned or his post moved, and it can become someone else's signature, then I can say it)

[chillzero]

Veering off topic now, folks.

[brasil]

What truth have you discovered, thewholesoul? Either you're JAQing off, or you have discovered some truth that you think supports your original claim of bombs in the basement. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead- post your truth, and provide your evidence, and then I will not be able to ignore you.

Until then... you're insignificant.

"Good For You" Totovader, You should try JAQing off a little more. It would do you a lot of good. thewholesoul IS posting evidence, and it's the eyewitness testimony of people who "Corroborate Rodriguez's Claims," which is the topic of this thread, which you people are having such a difficult time focusing on. I have not seen you post one iota of meaningful content to this discussion since I joined it. All you do is pick apart and technically analyze the semantics and logic of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements. You're adding nothing intelligent to the topic, I don't care if you started it. I'll start my asking of questions when I'm finished responding to the inanity of the replies on here.

And finally, it's obvious to me and should be to you people: English is not thewholesoul's first language. I'd like to see you translate your condescension into Spanish, and how long you would last then.

[brasil]

Veering off topic now, folks.

It's my American duty to inform this "law student" about the "law" as it is actually being executed in the United States. To not educate this person would be unconscionable. I have also tried my hardest to stay on this topic and weather all of the personal attacks.

[chillzero]

It's my American duty to inform this "law student" about the "law" as it is actually being executed in the United States. To not educate this person would be unconscionable. I have also tried my hardest to stay on this topic and weather all of the personal attacks.

Wrong. It is your duty as a forum member to remember your Membership Agreement, which includes keeping threads on topic. If you wish to discuss this further, then start a new thread - under Forum Mgt would be best.

If you want to discuss Hitler, or anything outside of the confines of witnesses who corroborate WR's claims, then again, a new thread would be in order.

My comment was directed at more people than just you.

[brasil]

From now on, anyone who is just saying "IM asking questions" will go to ignore. the "just asking questions" BS has gone on long enough, and is not an EXCUSE or even a replacement to learning and critical thinking.

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone. You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw), and that it has nothing to do with critical thinking. I hope I am not alone in my utter shock and dismay at the statement you have just made. Apparently you have made up in your own mind that you are such an authority that you are above being questioned. I think I have a job for you in the cult of the Bush administration.

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning." The wikipedia entry on it states: "Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems."

Putting someone on ignore for "asking questions," especially an intelligent person who comes here with a completely different perspective on things, is tantamount to putting your head deep in the sand.

[funk de fino]

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone. You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw), and that it has nothing to do with critical thinking. I hope I am not alone in my utter shock and dismay at the statement you have just made. Apparently you have made up in your own mind that you are such an authority that you are above being questioned. I think I have a job for you in the cult of the Bush administration.

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning." The wikipedia entry on it states: "Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems."

Putting someone on ignore for "asking questions," especially an intelligent person who comes here with a completely different perspective on things, is tantamount to putting your head deep in the sand.

Wow, is it actually possible to miss someones point by as much as you just did?

talk about a swing and a miss, you're lucky you avoided an injury there skip

[brasil]

My comment was directed at more people than just you.

Yeah, right. Then why choose my comment to respond to. I think this thread is a special case because we have myself and thewholesoul trying our very hardest to keep the discussion on-topic and civil, and we have everyone else trying their hardest to derail all of our points and sidetrack us into replying to their off-topic attacks and inanities. Any unbiased observer reading over this thread would see that not only has the thread-starter contributed nothing of substance to it, but has also attempted to sidetrack and divert anyone who attempts to further it.

This entire thread is a "strawman" set up by Totovader, who doesn't believe Rodriguez in the first place, and whose only function here is to use dirty tricks and semantics to shoot down opposing views. I can't imagine anything more transparent.

[brasil]

Wow, is it actually possible to miss someones point by as much as you just did?

talk about a swing and a miss, you're lucky you avoided an injury there skip

Case in point: here we have a "drive-by" comment, off-topic, which makes a bold statement of..... opinion. Funk de fino, how about explaining what the point was and how exactly I "missed it?"

[beachnut]

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

But you sound like you are doing what these guys do.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
Ask your questions, but stop spewing BS on this thread, get back on topic and stop acting like a 9/11 truth drone. Topic is Witnesses that Corroborate Rodriquesz's Claims. Can you stay on topic and not seem like the stupid guys in the poster?

[Arus808]

wow, brasil talk about missing the entire ball park, by at least a hundred miled. if you bothered to read those articles, you'd see they actually support my position. that simply "just asking questions" is not enough to critical thinking

Asking questions, investitgating to find the answers and accepting those answers once you've narrowed down all the possibilities, and what is supported by verifiable sources, is when critical thinking is at its true potential.

Just asking questions is not in itself, critical thinking.

[chillzero]

Yeah, right. Then why choose my comment to respond to.

Ummm... no. You see this thing right here? That quote box just above these words? That's responding to your comment. See my original statement... it says "folks" - that's plural - to indicate that more than one person is being addressed. And to veer off topic requires a series of posts, not just one. As I said - any further issue with this, take it to Forum Mgt. Any further responses to this will most likely be moved there anyway.

Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement: Posts must be on topic to the thread.

[brasil]

What truth have you discovered, thewholesoul? Either you're JAQing off, or you have discovered some truth that you think supports your original claim of bombs in the basement. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead- post your truth, and provide your evidence, and then I will not be able to ignore you.

Until then... you're insignificant.

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement? What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement. I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility. I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

[brasil]

wow, brasil talk about missing the entire ball park, by at least a hundred miled. if you bothered to read those articles, you'd see they actually support my position. that simply "just asking questions" is not enough to critical thinking

At no point did I ever state that "asking questions" is the sum total of "critical thinking," and the fact that I posted links which I'm sure you didn't even click on which explain the steps in the process, of which "asking questions" is just a part, should make that abundantly clear. It's not my fault if you chose to ignore the obvious.

[ElMondoHummus]

Brasil, there are a few posts in the past that have some substance worth addressing. One particular example addresses your issue with proof of Flight 93:

You missed your chance to hear the Flight 93 CVR recording yourself last year. It was played in a public court session with the public and press present.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.html

That should be more than good enough. It would serve no further purpose for this tape to float around on Youtube as a kind of macabre entertainment. We are talking about a recording of humans pleading for their lives while they are killed.

Here is the court order protecting the tape:
http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72176/0.pdf

Would you be willing to provide commentary on that?

And, R. Mackey raises an argument:


However, unless you can show where the 9/11 Commission, NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, FBI, or any other investigating body actually made mistakes, then your complaints don't amount to a hill of beans. We aren't arguing the method of investigation, we're arguing its conclusion. That conclusion is, without a doubt, that 19 hijackers coordinated by al-Qaeda took over four airliners and crashed them deliberately, leading to destruction of numerous buildings and thousands of deaths.


Can you provide commentary on how the investigations conducted by any of the bodies listed above were in error. Of course, I'm not asking for an exhaustive list; rather, I'm seeing if you would provide specific examples of such mistakes. We all can then discuss those points to see whether they truly build to any sort of proof of government conspiracy or not.

Also, your arguments about Mackey's thesis regarding the jet fuel travelling to the basement were rather general; if you could demonstrate in more detail why you think the fuel 1. Wasn't sufficient, and 2. Couldn't have aerosolized, that would be helpful.

[brasil]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

2. is their testimony consistent?

3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?

4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

I have a request: I would like to hear the thread-starter offer up some theories, opinions, and answers to these questions. I have already submitted quite a few of my own, and so has thewholesoul.

[tsig]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement? What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement. I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility. I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

My hypocrisy rank is captain. We use electrons here. insignificant is as insignificant does.

[Arus808]

At no point did I ever state that "asking questions" is the sum total of "critical thinking," and the fact that I posted links which I'm sure you didn't even click on which explain the steps in the process, of which "asking questions" is just a part, should make that abundantly clear. It's not my fault if you chose to ignore the obvious.


I did not ignore it. YOU however are taking the stance of "just asking questions"> I know what critical thinking is, and you are not using it, as demonstrated by your posts here.

YOU are just asking questions, and when people REPLY to you with ANSWERS YOU ignore them. That is not critical thinking. When we ask that you search for the answers, you ignore that as well, and END UP repeating the same questions you've asked numerous times.


Did i state that asking questions is not part of the critical thinking process? NO.

Sorry if you can't read and understand what is being posted, and seeing things that weren't said.

AGain, YOU cannot just simply take the stance of "just asking questions" and then ignore the answers given you.

[tsig]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

2. is their testimony consistent?

3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?

4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

I have a request: I would like to hear the thread-starter offer up some theories, opinions, and answers to these questions. I have already submitted quite a few of my own, and so has thewholesoul.

Can I haz facts?

[Arus808]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

Would they have a reason to lie? Then yes their testimony is credible.


2. is their testimony consistent?
Which proves you've never ever participated or read a detailed report on how investigations works.

If too many witness testimony is too much alike or WAY too consistent, then there is a reason to suspect their testimony. Which is why REAL investigators know what to look for; not joe schmoe.



3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?


In reality; yes. But again, in this instance, NO EVIDENCE of a bomb has EVERY been found

you seem to GLOSS over that fact.


4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

as told you several times, the injuries suffered is CONSISTENT with deflagration of fuel. why you continue to ignore this is beyond imagination.

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

and everyones clock in the world are SET to correct time down to the second?

[Totovader]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement?

I've discovered logic, and noted your burden of proof fallacy.

What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

Because you are the ones making the claim. If you make the claim and then try and get others to do your research for you to substantiate your claim- you're self-debunking.

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement.

...but have been completely unable to back up your assertions. And, in fact, have ignored this any semblance of a scientific inquiry in favor of this philosophical solipsism.

I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility.

Burden of proof fallacy, again.

I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

Why would "my theory" help you "hone in" on providing evidence for your own?

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, there.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

Then perhaps you can remove yourself from the thread?

[Totovader]

"Good For You" Totovader, You should try JAQing off a little more. It would do you a lot of good. thewholesoul IS posting evidence, and it's the eyewitness testimony of people who "Corroborate Rodriguez's Claims," which is the topic of this thread, which you people are having such a difficult time focusing on. I have not seen you post one iota of meaningful content to this discussion since I joined it. All you do is pick apart and technically analyze the semantics and logic of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements. You're adding nothing intelligent to the topic, I don't care if you started it. I'll start my asking of questions when I'm finished responding to the inanity of the replies on here.

And finally, it's obvious to me and should be to you people: English is not thewholesoul's first language. I'd like to see you translate your condescension into Spanish, and how long you would last then.

There is nothing in here worthy of a response...

[Totovader]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:

FOGI33HsiCc

The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

This is the third time I've had to bump this, brasil.

All you're doing is ignoring the facts and then spending all your time here whining about how no one will pay attention to you.

[Totovader]

I believe that brasil is using the classic appeal to pity argument in order to avoid the debate itself- all the while pretending to be fighting for it.

I highly suggest that brasil cease these appeals and instead address the rebuttals that are waiting for him if he really wishes to maintain the appearance of being interested in the issues.

*cough*

brasil is still at it.

[phunk]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement?

How about the fact that not a single person was injured in a manner consistent with a bomb going off?

[thewholesoul]

TOTOVADER OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED

I asked myself why bother presenting an extensive argument when Totovader does not even bother to read it but instead prefers to rattle off his well rehearsed sound-bites? I have taken enough personal insults in this forum which i will neither accept or return. Its time to inject some logic into this forum! One thing i know is that the truth can not be debunked. And the truth is on my side. So why not use that to my advantage? Below i will present an argument consisting solely of true statements (and of course the correct spelling to appease my new friend Grravy).

When Totovader entered my youtube account he stated the following, quote “Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact” and on another occassion “Explosions are not unlikely- being thrown to the ground is not unlikely. It was a plane impact”.

Truth #1 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in Morelli’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

When i used logic Totvader changed his causal explanation, he said, quote “Then I misspoke – the elevators are likely to have caused him to fall to the ground – the impact of the plane probably would not - I’m confused as to whether it was actually the first impact that actually caused him to fall to the ground or not”

Totovader then suggested i come here to this forum to debate and in the presence of his fellow debunkers he remarkably returned to his intial position?

In relation to the testimony of Felipe David who states, quote “The building started shaking after i heard the explosion below” Totovader's explanation was, quote it was “the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would feel like it's something below” and what caused the vibrations?? Yes you’ve guessed it, quote “a plane hit the building”. (post # 349)

Truth # 2 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in David’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

My aim in this presentation is to prove through logic alone that Totovader’s causal explanation is impossible.

Truth #3 an “explosion” is both “heard” and “felt” by Morelli and David

Truth #4 the ONLY way Morilli could have heard the impact of the plane is if the sound waves travelled down the elevator shaft he was standing beside

Truth #5 Sound waves should continue travelling in the same direction away from the source

Truth #6 Morelli claimed the “explosion” came from floors above

Truth #7 David on B1 was standing directly infront of the same elevator shaft that Morelli was beside on B4

Truth #8 David claimed the “explosion” came from below

Conclusion: If the source of what David heard came from the impact of a plane above then David must necessarily have heard the explosion coming from above. Because this is not true, we are forced to conclude that the impact of the plane was not the source of the sound that David "heard". Because David did not hear the impact of a plane then Morelli did not hear the impact of a plane because David was closer and beside the the same passage and only passage through which the sound of a plane impacting could have travelled down.

Truth #9 Sound can travel through solids more quickly than air

Truth #10 Sound waves may have travelled down the entire building

Truth #11 Sound waves generated from the plane impact would decrease in energy over time and distance

Truth #12 It is impossible that these sound waves would increase in energy after passing through 90+floors

Conclusion: Because it is impossible for the sound waves from the plane impact to increase in energy after travelling down 90+floors we are forced to conclude that there was another source of energy which generated the “explosion” that Morilli and David “felt”.

Truth #13 If my argument is true and valid then Totvader believes in the impossible

Truth #14 Then Totovader has been rationally and elequently defending the impossible (on numerous occassions)

Truth #15 Then Totovader must change his causal explanation, if not, he is acting irrationally

Truth #16 Totovader got a nomination to game warden in this forum for defending the impossible

Truth #17 All those who agree with Totovader are also believing in the impossible

Question: What will your next causal explanation be? Santa Claus?:)

Of course if you have any objections or disagreements with any or all of the Truth statments outlined above please provide your reasons. If you can not provide sound reasons then please don’t waste my time with your philosophical sound-bites.

[Totovader]

"Officially" debunked?

What's your NWO ID number?

[T.A.M.]

How about the fact that not a single person was injured in a manner consistent with a bomb going off?

This is a good point actually. It was brought up at this forum recently elsewhere. At least from the rapid assessments in the ERs immediately after, the data does not seem to support the presence or barotrauma, post event.

Barotrauma, particularly tympanic (ear drum) would be expected by those near any form of high powered blast event, as has been reported by those near blast events from terrorist attacks where we KNOW bombs went off.

Now as I have noted to others, there are many possible reasons why such injury was not catalogued and/or reported, but it is "interesting" that no such injuries were reported...

I think this area could do with some further investigating, but it would be very difficult to do so...

TAM:)

[brasil]

This is the third time I've had to bump this, brasil.

All you're doing is ignoring the facts and then spending all your time here whining about how no one will pay attention to you.

Okay, since you have now brought some "evidence" into this discussion, it's time for you to back it up with some "critical thinking:"

Tell me exactly what information in that one video tells us anything about the condition and strength of the bottom of the structure. Hint: nothing whatsoever. If that is your "burden of proof" for evaluating the strength of the lower structure of the WTC, and whether it has been weakened or not, then you're not applying your same "logic" and "critical thinking" to your own evidence.

Although it's difficult to verify the authenticity of this quote from Mark Loisneaux, head of Controlled Demolitions Inc., I include it as an expert opinion on this question (considered one of the world's top experts, in fact):

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

Professor Steven E. Jones references that quote (with source) in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" here hosted at the University of Minnesota Duluth: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Why3Dec13.pdf

I will state confidently that A) your video proves nothing about the strength of the WTC lower structure at the initiation of collapse and B) it is perfectly plausible and not refuted by any known evidence that the structure could have been already weakened prior to collapse. I'm sorry, if your only evidence is a single YouTube video, then you have no right to be calling anyone out about "evidence."

[thewholesoul]

wholesole, sorry but your acting is the worst ive seen on this forum. stop playing dumb.I know that you know how to use this forum; after 40 posts, even a newb to a forum software would get the basics down

as for your argument, you've yet to present one. You are taking one person's statement, and one who doesn't believe that he heard any bombs go off, and doesn't believe that there were bombs in the buliding, and trying to use his statements as if it will argue down the hundreds of other witnesses testimony

You ignored Totovader's answer several times, and aren't even respectful enough to spell a victim's name correctly

I suggest that you take the next 24 hours before you even attempt a reply.


I wont suggest that you learn the forum software, as I already know that you are just playing ignorant. Your silliness is not tolerated, and is insulting to the users of this forum


since you refuse to listen to the replies you've gotten, then its obvious from your presence, that you are simply trolling.

What is it with you truther? Do you honestly think this is a game? Do you honestly think that those who were there that day, LIKE when you take their quotes out of context and make them sound like they support an idea or theory when they dont? Do you think this is funny?

This will be my only reply to you; you and brasil can enjoy being ignorant, since you obviously think its fun to do so.

From now on, anyone who is just saying "IM asking questions" will go to ignore. the "just asking questions" BS has gone on long enough, and is not an EXCUSE or even a replacement to learning and critical thinking.

thank you for you insightful objections to my argument

[thewholesoul]

"Officially" debunked?

What's your NWO ID number?

thanks you for your insightful objections to my argument

[brasil]

How about the fact that not a single person was injured in a manner consistent with a bomb going off?

That's not a fact, and if you think it is, then the burden falls squarely on you to prove that it is. Even if it were true, it still would not rule out explosives in the basements, because the blasts could have taken place far enough away from the victims, or through enough solid walls, as to not cause barotrauma (as TAM points out). In addition to that, I have already stated repeatedly that it's possible burning jet fuel was ALSO a factor in some of the injuries in the basements. No one has ruled out the presence of both in the basements.

[A W Smith]

Okay, since you have now brought some "evidence" into this discussion, it's time for you to back it up with some "critical thinking:"

Tell me exactly what information in that one video tells us anything about the condition and strength of the bottom of the structure. Hint: nothing whatsoever. If that is your "burden of proof" for evaluating the strength of the lower structure of the WTC, and whether it has been weakened or not, then you're not applying your same "logic" and "critical thinking" to your own evidence.

Although it's difficult to verify the authenticity of this quote from Mark Loisneaux, head of Controlled Demolitions Inc., I include it as an expert opinion on this question (considered one of the world's top experts, in fact):

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
which is a demolition from the bottom. not a top down demolition

Professor Steven E. Jones references that quote (with source) in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" here hosted at the University of Minnesota Duluth: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Why3Dec13.pdf

I will state confidently that A) your video proves nothing about the strength of the WTC lower structure at the initiation of collapse and B) it is perfectly plausible and not refuted by any known evidence that the structure could have been already weakened prior to collapse. I'm sorry, if your only evidence is a single YouTube video, then you have no right to be calling anyone out about "evidence."

It is clear that the bottom of the buildings structural elements remained standing after the collapse in many images of the aftermath showing intact perimeter column trees as well as core columns.

[Totovader]

TOTOVADER OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED

I asked myself why bother presenting an extensive argument when Totovader does not even bother to read it but instead prefers to rattle off his well rehearsed sound-bites? I have taken enough personal insults in this forum which i will neither accept or return. Its time to inject some logic into this forum! One thing i know is that the truth can not be debunked. And the truth is on my side. So why not use that to my advantage? Below i will present an argument consisting solely of true statements (and of course the correct spelling to appease my new friend Grravy).

When Totovader entered my youtube account he stated the following, quote “Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact” and on another occassion “Explosions are not unlikely- being thrown to the ground is not unlikely. It was a plane impact”.

Truth #1 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in Morelli’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

When i used logic Totvader changed his causal explanation, he said, quote “Then I misspoke – the elevators are likely to have caused him to fall to the ground – the impact of the plane probably would not - I’m confused as to whether it was actually the first impact that actually caused him to fall to the ground or not”

What "logic" did you use, and why did you stop using it?

If all you're doing is pointing out that I can be wrong- good luck. You'll be here forever.

What relevance does this have to the facts?

Totovader then suggested i come here to this forum to debate and in the presence of his fellow debunkers he remarkably returned to his intial position?

My complaint was that it was difficult to keep track of the argument in the YouTube comments section, and you were posting 30+ messages a day which get lost in the format. When you came here, it was much easier to keep track of what was being said, and what reference was being made.

Again, though- I am struggling to find the relevance.

In relation to the testimony of Felipe David who states, quote “The building started shaking after i heard the explosion below” Totovader's explanation was, quote it was “the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would feel like it's something below” and what caused the vibrations?? Yes you’ve guessed it, quote “a plane hit the building”. (post # 349)

Post 349 is this:

Well then- your error. Could you actually address the rebuttal instead of just ignoring it, then?

Again, how is this relevant to your argument?

Truth # 2 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in David’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

I think you're repeating yourself, here...

My aim in this presentation is to prove through logic alone that Totovader’s causal explanation is impossible.

Which would mean...

Truth #3 an “explosion” is both “heard” and “felt” by Morelli and David

Truth #4 the ONLY way Morilli could have heard the impact of the plane is if the sound waves travelled down the elevator shaft he was standing beside

False. As I explained earlier- sound can also travel through the structure.

Truth #5 Sound waves should continue travelling in the same direction away from the source

Same direction? As opposed to what?

What relevance does this have to your argument? Who has said that sound waves travel in opposite directions?

Truth #6 Morelli claimed the “explosion” came from floors above

Truth #7 David on B1 was standing directly infront of the same elevator shaft that Morelli was beside on B4

Truth #8 David claimed the “explosion” came from below

Conclusion: If the source of what David heard came from the impact of a plane above then David must necessarily have heard the explosion coming from above. Because this is not true, we are forced to conclude that the impact of the plane was not the source of the sound that David "heard". Because David did not hear the impact of a plane then Morelli did not hear the impact of a plane because David was closer and beside the the same passage and only passage through which the sound of a plane impacting could have travelled down.

I already addressed this claim, 2 posts ago. Others have as well- you continue to ignore the rebuttals.

Truth #9 Sound can travel through solids more quickly than air

(Negating your "Truth #4)

Truth #10 Sound waves may have travelled down the entire building

Truth becomes may?

Truth #11 Sound waves generated from the plane impact would decrease in energy over time and distance

Truth #12 It is impossible that these sound waves would increase in energy after passing through 90+floors

Strawman. Please quote where anyone has said that the soundwaves "increased in energy".

Conclusion: Because it is impossible for the sound waves from the plane impact to increase in energy after travelling down 90+floors we are forced to conclude that there was another source of energy which generated the “explosion” that Morilli and David “felt”.

Non-sequitur. Just because sound waves do not "increase in energy" with distance, that does not mean it's impossible for Morelli (who's name you STILL CANNOT SPELL CORRECTLY) to have heard an explosion.

That "logic" you claimed to have had at one point... it's run away.

Truth #13 If my argument is true and valid then Totvader believes in the impossible

Thank god your argument isn't true.

Truth #14 Then Totovader has been rationally and elequently defending the impossible (on numerous occassions)

Curious: how does one rationally defend the impossible?

Truth #15 Then Totovader must change his causal explanation, if not, he is acting irrationally

But since you're wrong... oh boy, what a day it will be!

Truth #16 Totovader got a nomination to game warden in this forum for defending the impossible

Lie. You do not understand how custom titles work. I requested the custom title here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3243061&postcount=1191), which has absolutely nothing to do with you, as I previously explained.

You can't get the quote function to work- but all the sudden you're an expert on JREF forum politics?

Truth #17 All those who agree with Totovader are also believing in the impossible

But since you're wrong- all those who agree with you are believing the impossible!

This is easy.

Question: What will your next causal explanation be? Santa Claus?:)

Hey, you're the one who believes in mythical invisible exploding bombs which leave no trace... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3244236&postcount=200)

Of course if you have any objections or disagreements with any or all of the Truth statments outlined above please provide your reasons. If you can not provide sound reasons then please don’t waste my time with your philosophical sound-bites.

I'm not sure how I can produce a sound-bite, here- but calling my position "philosophical" really doesn't help your case. It's more of a distinction than the crap you're spouting.

[Totovader]

Okay, since you have now brought some "evidence" into this discussion, it's time for you to back it up with some "critical thinking:"

Now? NOW?- I've posted this THREE DIFFERENT TIMES...

Putting the facts in scare quotes doesn't make them suddenly go away.

Tell me exactly what information in that one video tells us anything about the condition and strength of the bottom of the structure. Hint: nothing whatsoever.

Oh your hint was oh so tricky!

As I already explained in the comments- the bottom portion of the structure is clearly intact until the point when the collapse meets it.

It's really not that difficult to grasp. If what you were saying were true, then the building would not have collapsed the way it did.

If that is your "burden of proof" for evaluating the strength of the lower structure of the WTC, and whether it has been weakened or not, then you're not applying your same "logic" and "critical thinking" to your own evidence.

You caught me- facts are my burden of proof... Why you think that does not apply to my evidence is a mystery, though- especially since you have done nothing but whine about how I have apparently not had any...

Although it's difficult to verify the authenticity of this quote from Mark Loisneaux, head of Controlled Demolitions Inc., I include it as an expert opinion on this question (considered one of the world's top experts, in fact):

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

Since there is no evidence of bombs in the basement, and the building did not fall in a manner at all consistent with that claim, we can know for a fact that this individual was not involved in the event that did not occur.

Kudos on demonstrating that... But you're still in the negative for failing to address the video.

Professor Steven E. Jones references that quote (with source) in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" here hosted at the University of Minnesota Duluth: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Why3Dec13.pdf

How is that at all relevant?

I will state confidently that A) your video proves nothing about the strength of the WTC lower structure at the initiation of collapse

Clearly, you're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Wrongy McWrongerson.

and B) it is perfectly plausible and not refuted by any known evidence that the structure could have been already weakened prior to collapse. I'm sorry, if your only evidence is a single YouTube video, then you have no right to be calling anyone out about "evidence."

My evidence is not a single YouTube video- it's the entire collection of available data, it's logic- it's science. You... have nothing. You couldn't even address a very simple observation, here.

[T.A.M.]

That's not a fact, and if you think it is, then the burden falls squarely on you to prove that it is. Even if it were true, it still would not rule out explosives in the basements, because the blasts could have taken place far enough away from the victims, or through enough solid walls, as to not cause barotrauma (as TAM points out). In addition to that, I have already stated repeatedly that it's possible burning jet fuel was ALSO a factor in some of the injuries in the basements. No one has ruled out the presence of both in the basements.

Yes, but the burden of proof is on those who are trying to prove an alternative theory to the generally accepted one.

To that point, there have been no EYE witness accounts to the use of explosives. Those who HEARD "explosions" may have heard loud "booms" or what not, as a result of any number of other causes...the building was just hit by a jet airliner full of fuel, and many levels of the WTCs were on fire. The doors twenty, thirty storeys below the impact could not, in some cases, be opened due to the shift in the building caused by the impacts.

The absence of evidence of blast type injuries does CONTRIBUTE to the existing evidence pool. It would be made stronger if (A) more thorough accounts of patient injuries were available, and (B) if follow up studies were done, to see if in the subsequent weeks, people who were initially injured, returned (or did not return) to their doctor and reported injury from the event that were consistent with "blast type" injuries (such as barotrauma).

TAM:)

[brasil]

which is a demolition from the bottom. not a top down demolition

It is clear that the bottom of the buildings structural elements remained standing after the collapse in many images of the aftermath showing intact perimeter column trees as well as core columns.

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

[Totovader]

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

And you still stand by this comparison?

Please say yes...

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

beyond the lack of evidence, can you speculate as to WHY they would need to weaken the support at the bottom? I mean for the purposes of killing people, striking fear and anger in the people, and making the buildings a write off, so to speak, a complete collapse was not needed, so why bother??

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

do you remember your earlier claim?
To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

[AZCat]

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

I see you are making this claim without either an engineering background or testimony from the building designers. Please ask someone who actually knows what they are talking about before posting such claptrap again.

[ElMondoHummus]

This is a good point actually. It was brought up at this forum recently elsewhere. At least from the rapid assessments in the ERs immediately after, the data does not seem to support the presence or barotrauma, post event.

Barotrauma, particularly tympanic (ear drum) would be expected by those near any form of high powered blast event, as has been reported by those near blast events from terrorist attacks where we KNOW bombs went off.

Now as I have noted to others, there are many possible reasons why such injury was not catalogued and/or reported, but it is "interesting" that no such injuries were reported...


Yes, I can testify to this. There are very, very few reports of such barotrauma - Caveat: I'm only doing a superficial (read: Internet) search, so don't take that as absolutely being definitive - but I've still found very few reports of such, and none of them trace back to basement victims. One case was clearly not even inside the towers, and another one presumably not so (both were emergency personnel).

This stands in stark contrast to even popular mainstream reportage of various bombings: I'm now also finding news reports of barotrauma from the Beruit Marine barracks bombings too, mostly being the obvious ones (burst eardrums).

Investigating in the other direction, reports of the victims taken from the collapse do not report evidence of such barotrauma, although we must take into account TAM's warnings about underreportage.

(TAM: As a digression from topic - I tripped over an interesting article out of the NEJM briefly describing the sorts of barotraumas one would associate with blasts. It's here:

http://www.simquest.com/HRC-blastNEJM.pdf

It's only tangentally on topic, as it doesn't actually describe any victims from the WTC, but it is an interesting primer on the subject).

I think this area could do with some further investigating, but it would be very difficult to do so...

TAM:)


Here here. I agree with needing further investigating, and experience has led me to concur with the "very difficult" assesment :); this whole thing's turned into too big a project for me at the moment. I think I'd actually have to recall my college days and go into that mode: Contact primary emergency care providers (i.e. the emergency departments around Manhattan and nearby borroughs that participated), and contact Depts of Health, both state and federal levels. And also see what the CDC has (so far, I'm finding lots of info about tracking lingering effects on emergency workers, but little else from them). But that's so time consuming...

[Totovader]

No, you're trying to find the smallest scrap of dirt and then claim it's an "inconsistency".

You have been unable to explain why the differences would affect the overall argument.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. Similar to your Sherlock Holmes argument- you think that finding the smallest inconsistency (which is really just ignorance) means that the case goes out the window and that you can fill the void with your own version.

This needs to be fundamentally understood by you: this tactic is specifically employed to avoid the evidence and circumvent the scientific method. If you don't believe me- then watch what happens when you try and make the same case using evidence. Instead of starting in the middle and branching out from what you consider is an "inconsistency"- let's watch what happens when you start out with an observation, work your way into a theory, test the theory, and then draw a conclusion.

It'll be fun.

*bump* FTW

[T.A.M.]

Beyond time consuming, the doctor patient confidentiality issues might make it all but impossible to obtain the info you wish now.

TAM:)

[brasil]

Yes, but the burden of proof is on those who are trying to prove an alternative theory to the generally accepted one.
TAM:)

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

[beachnut]

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.
NO; The Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC said the impact and fires destroyed the building, and it was NOT designed for a high speed, high fuel load, aircraft impact! You have lost this point! Big time. Research the junk you post before you expose your ignorance on the subject; you just made up your post out of the crap of 9/11 truth junk. You make up stuff without any research.

[ElMondoHummus]

Beyond time consuming, the doctor patient confidentiality issues might make it all but impossible to obtain the info you wish now.

TAM:)

That's true, and I did think about that. I considered asking if they merely had injury counts, or if such HIPPA protected info could be redacted, but again, that shows how time-consuming such research would be: The info wouldn't just be released, there'd be a process of negotiation, and a very good chance of being denied exists.

Like I've said previously in so many words: Pain in the :rule10

[Totovader]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

Yet again- you're absolutely, completely, totally wrong.

You seriously need to study up on the burden of proof fallacy.

[A W Smith]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

No it does not. It is generally understood and accepted by the majority in a democracy supported by evidence and studies by thousands of experts the world wide that upon collapse initiation the structure could not have possibly arrested the collapse. Even mathematically in a best case scenario where column sections contacted directly on top of column sections in a collapse. Which the top sections clearly did not as observed by their rotation.

[AZCat]

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

1. The 9-11 Commission was not in charge of determining the cause and sequence of the WTC collapses - that was assigned to the NIST.

2. They recently expanded their FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm), conveniently providing the answer to your question.


10.Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.



1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


3. There has been an accepted theory on this for some time (although details are in dispute). If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming there are plenty of people here who would have pointed you in the right direction.