Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[brasil]

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.

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact. You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core. The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately. A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

[brasil]

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.


Thank you, the section answering the question about gravitational energy is very useful and requires some study for sure.

[AZCat]

Thank you, the section answering the question about gravitational energy is very useful and requires some study for sure.

There have been several papers published and quite a few threads started here about the collapse sequence. Some of the papers are available online. Bazant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Ba%C5%BEant) has written several, in conjunction with other authors (including Frank Greening, our very own Apollo20).

[brasil]

And you still stand by this comparison?

Please say yes...

comparison = simplistic yet perfectly relevant metaphor. Please drop the semantic nitpicking for just once, and actually address the substance of my posts! It's becoming very, very, very, very boring.

[ElMondoHummus]

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?

Brasil, in all due respect, TAM is correct. Sagan summarized this ideal in his statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The principle is correct, and validated over time. At risk of digressing from topic: The progression of medical knowledge over time validates this principle, as extraordinary claims without proof fail to not just progress medical science, but often fail to cure patients (i.e. treatments based on humorism), whereas extraordinary claims with proof advance knowledge and cure patients (i.e. Jenner's cowpox experiment, and later application).

We can all agree that your statement about authoritative arguments is correct: Judging a topic merely by who delivers the support is logically fallacious. However, it is not accurate to say that's what many of us here have done: Every one here with whom I'm familiar have indeed studied the claims of both the government and the academic researchers (such as the Purdue team that put together the impact and fire simulation earlier this year) as well as the conspiracy claims, and our stances are the products of our processes of evaluation. To be blunt, the conspiracy claims simply fail upon critical examination.

Also: (*Bump*) Pardon me, but I'm still curious about any responses you may have to the posts I pointed out earlier:

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://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.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 (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.


Thank you.

[A W Smith]

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact. You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core. The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately. A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.


that is incorrect ignorance as shown in this documentary (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365696/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse/). the core fell last

[Totovader]

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact.

Holy nonsense. I am rebutting your claim by providing evidence. The evidence that I have been provided has been ignored by you.

You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core.

In your efforts to move the goalpost, you have just shot yourself in the foot. If you want to claim that the interior columns (inner core) collapsed prior to the outer structure, then you will need to provide evidence for this claim.

Since we have evidence to the contrary- the fact that the inner core remained for several seconds after the building had collapsed- further debunks your claim.

http://www.correctedbyreality.com/research/wtc/corelows.jpg

The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately.

While they are... "distinct"- affecting one would necessarily affect the other. You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the construction of the WTC- and I suggest you do some more research before making claims like this again.

A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

The design and construction of WTC 1 and 2 are completely different than the design and construction of WTC 7.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

Ad hominem. I do not need credentials to debunk your absurd claims- just proof. I have it, you don't.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You again shot yourself in the foot- if there's "no way to know" (which is a lie- but let's roll with it) then you have no evidence with which to base your assertions- in other words, you arrived at your conclusion, and are now admitting you have no evidence to support it.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

You cannot be convinced by the evidence- therefore it is not my goal to convince you. This is an error on your part. My goal is simply to state the facts so that others who may fall into the trap of ignorance that you have will not be as affected- and (provided they have the desire) will research the facts themselves so that they do not make the same errors you have.

[Totovader]

comparison = simplistic yet perfectly relevant metaphor. Please drop the semantic nitpicking for just once, and actually address the substance of my posts! It's becoming very, very, very, very boring.

Ah- so now it's a metaphor, and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific inquiry.

Got it. Clever way to retract a statement, I must say. And, your projection is noted.

[brasil]

Yet again- you're absolutely, completely, totally wrong. You seriously need to study up on the burden of proof fallacy.

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies." Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

You are the one guilty of the burden of proof fallacy when you attempt to argue that a single youtube video, showing the exterior of the WTC at the moment of collapse tells us anything about the conditions in its sub-basements and it's core. It is simply amazing that you can continue this charade, while not addressing your own very clear errors of logic.

Explain to me, in your own words, how your video tells us anything about the foundation and core of the building, and how it also proves conclusively that the lower structure could not have been already weakened at the time the video was shot. Do not dodge the question, or you will be guilty of your own oft-cited crimes.

[DGM]

Brasil:
Please deal with the fact the core fell LAST.

[T.A.M.]

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?

was it not up to copernicuous, was it not up to Galileo to prove their cases? My point would stand up to anyone who is rational.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE TRYING TO PROVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ACCEPTED.

Was the world proved to be round simply because someone said it was round? No, it was PROVEN to be round. The accepted dogma was that the world was flat, and this held true until it was proven otherwise.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies."

There is no reason I cannot do both. However, your claim that the burden of proof is not on your shoulders is what is being addressed. Your ignorance on the issue has resulted in an incorrect conclusion on your part. I was correcting that with the facts.

It's not my fault you're wrong.

Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

Perhaps... but since you have not been able to point out a single error in my reasoning, it's more likely that you're just whining about being so inconsistent.

I would suggest you remedy the situation with further research, instead of trying to blame me.

You are the one guilty of the burden of proof fallacy when you attempt to argue that a single youtube video, showing the exterior of the WTC at the moment of collapse tells us anything about the conditions in its sub-basements and it's core.

Actually, that's quite a nasty strawman you have built up. Regardless- I've already addressed your lies.

It is simply amazing that you can continue this charade, while not addressing your own very clear errors of logic.

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE

... or retract the statement. Simple as that.

Explain to me, in your own words, how your video tells us anything about the foundation and core of the building, and how it also proves conclusively that the lower structure could not have been already weakened at the time the video was shot. Do not dodge the question, or you will be guilty of your own oft-cited crimes.

I have already done this- see previous post.

[brasil]

Since we have evidence to the contrary- the fact that the inner core remained for several seconds after the building had collapsed- further debunks your claim.

http://www.correctedbyreality.com/research/wtc/corelows.jpg

While they are... "distinct"- affecting one would necessarily affect the other. You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the construction of the WTC- and I suggest you do some more research before making claims like this again.


Congratulations, now that you are finally entering some actual substance into the thread along with your unsolicited lectures on logic and argument, you are finally digging a very deep hole for yourself and I am finally starting to enjoy this. To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. You posted this video and claimed that it proves that bombs were not used in the basement because the collapse "started from the top." You posted this video as "evidence" of your claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&e

Which WTC tower are we talking about in that video? Answer: WTC1

Which WTC tower did you just embed a photo of as "proof" that I was wrong? Answer WTC2

So, I will correct you with the facts: you need to learn the difference between WTC1 and WTC2 before you start attempting to put together an argument about either one of them, in this case WTC1. Please spend less time spouting your logic and argument diversions and more time learning how to tell the difference between the two towers.

[The Doc]

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies." Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

So by using your logic, someone pointing out a fallacy in another person's argument is ignoring what they are saying? How is one supposed to counter a fallacy then? If your argument contains a fallacy, chances are your argument is garbage.

I am also rather amused by your supposed psychology tactics. If your whole game is something rather similar to the clichéd, children's "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" style argument, then I'd suggest that you have a long way to go before you start arguing with us adults.

[brasil]

Brasil:
Please deal with the fact the core fell LAST.
I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.

[The Doc]

To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse.

It cannot be ruled out that there is a planet out there with super intelligent dogs that brew beer for fun on it. Is it rational to believe that simply because it cannot be disproved? Or is it more rational to not believe that until some solid evidence is presented that favors this assertion?

It's the same with controlled demolition at the World Trade Centers. You asked whether it was possible for bombs to have been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. Well, yes. Technically it is possible. However, the evidence provided for this assertion is completely underwhelming, and the evidence in favor of alternate explanations that explain these sub-basement anomalies is far more convincing.

[Garb]

I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.

So your assertion is that they only used bombs in the basement of one of the towers?

Did they just forget the other?

[A W Smith]

wtc 1
qlYTZtkTbV4

TDVap83AEmc

M9ssXQbnF9A

the cores fell last in both towers

brasil debunked

[Totovader]

Congratulations, now that you are finally entering some actual substance into the thread along with your unsolicited lectures on logic and argument, you are finally digging a very deep hole for yourself and I am finally starting to enjoy this. To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. You posted this video and claimed that it proves that bombs were not used in the basement because the collapse "started from the top." You posted this video as "evidence" of your claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&e

Which WTC tower are we talking about in that video? Answer: WTC1

Which WTC tower did you just embed a photo of as "proof" that I was wrong? Answer WTC2

So, I will correct you with the facts: you need to learn the difference between WTC1 and WTC2 before you start attempting to put together an argument about either one of them, in this case WTC1. Please spend less time spouting your logic and argument diversions and more time learning how to tell the difference between the two towers.

I never claimed they were the same- I assumed you would not care.

Is there a difference? Tower 1 was taken down with basement explosives, whereas Tower 2 was a legitimate collapse?

If that's your claim- then yes, I was in error: I expected you to be at least somewhat consistent in your claim.

Your argument is still defeated, however.

[Totovader]

Ah- looks like A W Smith beat me to the punch.

As I said, brasil, your argument is still defeated. Kudos on trying to skirt completely around the issue- but it was all for naught.

[DGM]

I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.
So your saying one tower was "weakened" and the other was not?

[pomeroo]

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?


Assuming that you are very young, you should understand that the 9/11 Commission does not offer a scientific explanation of the collapses. That was not one of its stated purposes. Your baseless belief that there were explosives in the basements is contradicted by seismic data compiled by the Lamont-Doherty labs showing no secondary explosions. Now, you will reflexively reject these findings, but you must acknowledge that you reject them because you so desperately want to maintain your fantasy.

[pomeroo]

I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.


It is terribly sad to imagine that you may actually think that, but, in reality, you ignored it completely. Why did the cores remain standing after the rest of the structure collapsed?

[tsig]

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.

If you had more color I would believe you more.

[thewholesoul]

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?



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.



Post 349 is this:



Again, how is this relevant to your argument?



I think you're repeating yourself, here...



Which would mean...



False. As I explained earlier- sound can also travel through the structure.



Same direction? As opposed to what?

What relevance does this have to your argument? Who has said that sound waves travel in opposite directions?



I already addressed this claim, 2 posts ago. Others have as well- you continue to ignore the rebuttals.



(Negating your "Truth #4)



Truth becomes may?



Strawman. Please quote where anyone has said that the soundwaves "increased in energy".



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.



Thank god your argument isn't true.



Curious: how does one rationally defend the impossible?




.


Truth: you changed your explanation in youtube. I can post the entire dialogue in order for everyone to see if you like.

I apologise post #348 not #349

Truth #2: was it true or not, yes it was, moving on...

My aim means exactly what it states, try reading it again, moving on...

Truth #4 and #5: you argue that they are not true because sound can travel through the structure – re-read truth no#9 and #10 – which addresses your objection.
I specifically addressed the two ways a person can experience an explosion (a) by sound i.e. hearing it as sound waves through the air (b) by touch i.e. by feeling it as sound waves, vibrations or shock waves through solids. Imagine your in a disco, if you can, you both "hear" the sound of travelling through the air and reaching your ears and tyou "feel" the sound waves travelling through the floor experienced as vibrations.

Your objection to truth #4 and #5 are not valid because when sound travels through a structure it is “felt” by the person touching or being beside that structure. you shadow boxing again.

truth #5 you say "Same direction? As opposed to what?" What a pointless question.

Are you saying that sound waves emmitted from its source travelling down an elevator will travel back towards its source? Truth #5 remains, moving on...

Truth #5 is relevant to my argument, its not my fault you unable or unwilling to understand it. But let me explain so as you may understand. If the sound was travelling in the same direction down the elevator shaft then it is not possible – repeat – not possible that David heard the sound coming from below. Why? Because that would mean that the sound passed him unheard(!!!) and then reversed direction (!!!) back towards the source it supposedly originated from. This is absurd and to believe that it is possible is to believe in the impossible.

Truth #6 #7 #8: remain true because you have not even presented your objections and more importantly they are sourced directly from the testimony of the persons in question.

The only way – repeat the only way - you can refute these statements is by arguing they did not experience what they claimed to have experienced.

Truth #9 does negate Truth #4: you present a word with no explanation behind it. A word which is not even applicable because truth #4 and truth #9 are not incompatible if they were you could please try and present your reasons.

T4 addresses the only passage by which the sound waves may have travelled down the air of the elevator shaft when the plane impacted the building. T9 makes another true statment about sound. T3-8 specifically address “hearing” not “feeling” the sound waves. T9-12 specifically address “feeling” not "hearing" the sound waves. “Hearing” and “feeling” are two distinct ways a person can experience a sound or explosion. i covered this before.

Truth #9 and #4 remain, moving on...

Truth #10. Is the statement true or not? Does stating “may” negate its truth?

I could have been more affirmative and say that the sound waves definitely did travelled down all of the building. But because i dont know that for sure i said it “may” have travelled down the entire building. T10 remains you have presented no valid objection, moiving on....

Truth #12 is a true statement based on science it is not a quotation. If you believe that the statement is not true then please provide your reasons. T12 remains, moving on...

You try to refute my conclusion by acknowledging the truth of the premises by which i reached that conclusion. You studied philosophy right?

Because totovader has not provided ANY reason which refutes or neagtes the truth of ANY of my premises then logically my conclusions still stand.

Totvader still believes in the impossible i.e. that the “explosion” mentioned in the testimony of David and Morelli were caused by the impact of a plane 90+ floors above because i have demonstarted through a series of true statments that it impossible.

I will be moving on however with my next presentation including more tetsimony. totovader talks philosophy but fails to apply it.

By debunking totvader i have successfully eliminated the possibility that the “explosion” mentioned by David and Morelli could have possibly been caused by the plane impact.

You mentioned something very telling with your opening remarks you effectively say that if all i am doing is pointing out that you can be wrong then i will be here forever. this troubles me greatly, after presenting quotations from your own mouth that PROVE you were wrong before, that PROVE you changed your story, you still believe that your not wrong!! This clearly demonstrates to me that you have the mentality of a fundamentalist – i.e. that your beleifs can never be proved wrong - even with reason. fundamentalists try to rational justify impossible beliefs.

you are unable to present a robust argument and are only able to produce catchy one liners. again if you cannot refute the truth of my statements then LOGIC demands that you accept the conclusion. please dont waste my time if you cannot refute the truth of my statements - or anyone else in the forum for that matter.

[Calcas]

If "bombs" were in the basements why were they placed there? Both buildings were a top down collapse. That much is irrefutable. Did someone actually try to argue that the childs game where you remove one block at a time to weaken the structure would actually be applicable here?

Again, the basement, or floors, where the bombs were supposedly placed didn't collapse until 90+ floors collapsed on top of them. What's the point?

Why people entertain such nonsense is beyond me. I don't even know why I read or participate in these kinds of discussions anymore...

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Let me make sure I have your analogy correct, because the way I understand it it is seriously flawed.

I assume you're making reference to a game like Jenga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga), where three rectangular blocks are stacked up upon each other, each level arranged in an alternating pattern. The players in turn have to carefully take out one block from any level except the highest and replace it on the top of the tower, without causing the whole thing to collapse. We'll forget about the replacing part since it obviously doesn't apply to the analogy.

Now, as I understand it, the scenario you're envisioning has the players take out, say, two blocks from the second or third level up from the ground, with the tower remaining standing. You are saying that this loss of structural integrity represents the sort of damage a basement bomb could have done to one of the Towers. Very well, that is good enough for the purpose of your analogy. So, by having the whole structure bearing upon one block near the bottom of the tower, it is now much more difficult for a player to remove any of the other blocks above that point without causing the tower to collapse. This much is obvious.

Are you saying that the initiation of the collapses of one or both of the Twin Towers could have been helped along by a basement bomb in the same way the damage done to the structural integrity of the Jenga tower at its base made it much more prone to collapse from a piece being taken out nearer to the top?

[brasil]

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened. i have only one goal, and that is to prove or at least show that the government is lying, about even one critical fact, and that will be enough to open the floodgates.

this is why Mark Roberts' site URL includes "WTC7lies." it is because everyone on both sides knows there are some extremely weak links in the "official story" and the weakest link is WTC7. the testimonies of the men trapped in the basement are another gaping hole in the official story. all i care about are the weak links, and pursuing them further in order to bring the house of cards down. talking about all of the un-provable little details is a complete waste of time.

1) i don't care about remote-controlled planes or useless speculation about them
2) i don't care about bombs in other parts of the buildings
3) i don't care about mini-nukes, aliens, pods, energy beams or anything of the like

All I am concerned with is the small holes in the official narrative which I would like to see ripped wide open. I'm practically holding my breath for one of the major networks to do the patriotic thing and let Sibel Edmonds tell her entire story, unedited, on national broadcast television. Daniel Ellsberg has called her story "worse than Watergate."

and Totovader, you and I both know you made a glaring factual error in an ongoing mini-debate we were having. You confused WTC1 and WTC2 by posting a video of one and a photo of the other, to try to argue the same point. And yes, I care. You're flat out wrong.

[DGM]

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened. i have only one goal, and that is to prove or at least show that the government is lying, about even one critical fact, and that will be enough to open the floodgates.

You believe the government is lying don't you. Make up your mind.

[thewholesoul]

If you had more color I would believe you more.

thanks for providing your insightful objections to my argument.

[thewholesoul]

and Totovader, you and I both know you made a glaring factual error in an ongoing mini-debate we were having. You confused WTC1 and WTC2 by posting a video of one and a photo of the other, to try to argue the same point. And yes, I care. You're flat out wrong.

correction, totovader is never wrong, my reasons in support of this assertion are as follows...

[brasil]

If "bombs" were in the basements why were they placed there? Both buildings were a top down collapse. That much is irrefutable. Did someone actually try to argue that the childs game where you remove one block at a time to weaken the structure would actually be applicable here?

Again, the basement, or floors, where the bombs were supposedly placed didn't collapse until 90+ floors collapsed on top of them. What's the point?

Why people entertain such nonsense is beyond me. I don't even know why I read or participate in these kinds of discussions anymore...

- I don't care why bombs were placed there, only to show that A) nothing rules out their placement and B) there is testimony that points to their possible placement there.

- Yes, that was me and the child's game is perfectly relevant: in a complex structure with redundant, distributed loads, you can remove parts of the lower structure without immediately causing a collapse. The removal of the parts will necessarily aid any eventual collapse.

If you can't see the relevance of using simplistic analogues to aid in the understanding of complex ones, then you must have been sleeping through a whole lot of math and science classes. What do you think those little colored balls with sticks to hold them together are used for when we learn about chemistry? Does anyone complain that looking at such an obviously "wrong" picture of what's going on doesn't actually help us to understand chemistry?

You're right, I don't know why you read or participate in these kinds of discussions either.

[brasil]

correction, totovader is never wrong, my reasons in support of this assertion are as follows...

yes master. totovader is never wrong, and these are not the droids you are looking for either!

[brasil]

You believe the government is lying don't you. Make up your mind.

It has been shown over and over by respected, mainstream journalists that the Bush Administration has lied repeatedly and suppressed information about issues of national importance. If you don't know this, then you've been sleeping for the last 7 years, just like the other poster who is supposedly a "law student" who was apparently unaware of Bush's record use of "signing statements" as a way of choosing to outright ignore the laws that have already passed.

With that track record, any sane person would have the same doubts about the Bush Administration's investigation and conclusions about 9-11. Keep in mind that NIST and FEMA are part of the Bush Administration, and overseen by it. That makes both departments of the USG suspect. Just look at FEMA's handling of Katrina as a perfect example. Was Bill Clinton's FEMA ever that incompetent? Not to my knowledge.

[tsig]

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact. You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core. The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately. A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

Convincing you would be like teaching a pig to sing.

[brasil]

Convincing you would be like teaching a pig to sing.

Takes one to know one, and btw I'm an 18-year trained vocalist. Unfortunately that training has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, just like your post.

[chillzero]

Firmer warning this time. Back to topic please, or the thread will be set to moderated status. It's about witnesses in the Towers.

[SDC]

These guys... Brasil and Wholesoul... it's pointless to talk with them. Fundamentally, they rely on a negative "proof" (which isn't even a proof, in this case): it comes down to, "you can't prove my baseless assertions didn't happen." They try to use small inconsistencies in the actual evidence (testimonies about the confusion that resulted right after the planes hit the buildings) in attempts to dismiss the entire, overwhelming weight of the actual evidence.

They assert that they don't have to prove anything... The burden of proof is on those who support the "official" story. Why? Chiefly because they despise Bush and claim that he is, well, All-Powerful and All-Evil.

What foolishness. Wholesoul is probably 12. Brasil the same. Perhaps one of his parents works at Columbia, but I doubt he is old enough to hold a serious job. Or competent enough; with his enraged chatter, he'd lose any job in no time. As for his clubbing, and how the ladies admire him... I can only say I wish some adult authority (parents, guardian, older sibling, dorm monitor, or the like) would keep a closer eye on him. Those aren't safe places for kids.

And in my view it always comes down to this, and the Truth folks (gentle enough?) always fail: you have to provide a positive, coherent narrative of what you believe did happen.

Wholesoul and Brasil, would you please do that?

[SDC]

Whoa! Now he is a vocalist with 18 years training. At least, I assume that's what he meant. Well, that is terribly relevant.

Chill, or whoever is in charge, may wax mighty in her wrath and accuse me of being off topic. While I grovel whimpering before her power, let me say this in my defense: the statements he makes about his own "qualifications" are such as to call into question his overall credibility. More than call into question; fully refute.

[brasil]

Are you saying that the initiation of the collapses of one or both of the Twin Towers could have been helped along by a basement bomb in the same way the damage done to the structural integrity of the Jenga tower at its base made it much more prone to collapse from a piece being taken out nearer to the top?

Note: this is on-topic!

No, the analogy only goes as far the idea that it is possible to weaken the lower structural elements of a building without causing it to immediately collapse, as in the Jenga game. This is to help demonstrate that the building continuing to stand after bombs have gone off in the basement and before the collapse is not impossible. I am saying nothing about what initiated the collapse, only about what could have helped the collapse to be as fast as it was, and total.

[beachnut]

Takes one to know one, and btw I'm an 18-year trained vocalist. Unfortunately that training has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, just like your post.
If there was time to bring out your facts on 9/11, this is it. That is what he is trying to say. Now demonstrate your 170 IQ and stop using hearsay, junk, lies, and clearly no substance, to support your ideas.

It is also time to use your 170 IQ to do some research on the topic before you stick your perfect pitch toes in your highly educated mouth.

Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims is the topic you seem to be currently fact less on. Bring on the facts and use your high IQ to blast your detractors away. Show us what you got.

[SDC]

For an analogy to be acceptable, it needs some supporting evidence. You have provided none. Please do not use children's games as evidence.

[SDC]

Before I go do the family shopping, in this Nor'easter mess... (Note: family shopping, not clubbing!) I'd like to ask for these from WS and B:

1/ provide a coherent narrative of what you believe your interpretations of the witnesses prove. Not "you can't prove it didn't happen" statements; but your direct, positive, coherent narratives.

2/ Explain why anyone should listen to you. Yes, you. What are your qualifications? (I have none that apply, except for graduate degrees and publications in modern history. Yes, my dad was an academic engineer, and my mother's father a civil engineer, but the genes skipped me.)

For example, from experience, people here know that Gravy is an obsessive researcher/ writer. And his tour guide experience gives him a thorough knowledge of the site. R.Mackey has his own name online. Both have provided extensive and coherent narratives.

But it isn't about them, personally. It's about public documents. Why should anyone read your statements rather than NIST reports, or Bazant's or Greening's (or many others') papers?

[brasil]

1/ provide a coherent narrative of what you believe your interpretations of the witnesses prove. Not "you can't prove it didn't happen" statements; but your direct, positive, coherent narratives.


I'll attempt this, but the only way it will happen is if I close this browser tab and write it offline. Too distracting here. I'm just one person, so my credentials alone certainly carry no weight as far as submitting a proposed narrative. I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory. Simple as that.

Now on the other hand, let's say I was a "truther" idiot who believed in a mini-nuke in the basement, and put that theory up for scrutiny. I imagine someone would present all manner of pages of official and even independent data showing there were no signs of any radiation or radiation sickness at GZ.

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up. And now, all browser tabs closing... ttyl

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory.

[...]

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up.


You seem to be confused about your own position. None of the survivors from the basement of the tower actually support the notion that there were explosives in the basement.

[thewholesoul]

These guys... Brasil and Wholesoul... it's pointless to talk with them. Fundamentally, they rely on a negative "proof" (which isn't even a proof, in this case): it comes down to, "you can't prove my baseless assertions didn't happen." They try to use small inconsistencies in the actual evidence (testimonies about the confusion that resulted right after the planes hit the buildings) in attempts to dismiss the entire, overwhelming weight of the actual evidence.

What foolishness. Wholesoul is probably 12. Brasil the same. Perhaps one of his parents works at Columbia, but I doubt he is old enough to hold a serious job. Or competent enough; with his enraged chatter, he'd lose any job in no time. As for his clubbing, and how the ladies admire him... I can only say I wish some adult authority (parents, guardian, older sibling, dorm monitor, or the like) would keep a closer eye on him. Those aren't safe places for kids.

And in my view it always comes down to this, and the Truth folks (gentle enough?) always fail: you have to provide a positive, coherent narrative of what you believe did happen.

Wholesoul and Brasil, would you please do that?

you have really impressed me on how many insults you can fit in a single posting. congratulations. i debunked the assertion that a plane impacting the north tower is responsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. if you can provide reasons why any of the true statements i presented in my argument are false - then do it. thats a challenge. i numbered the true statments to make it easy. pick out one and provide reasons why you think it is untrue.

next i will prove through logic that the compressed-air explanation is not possible and is not consistent with witness testimony of people who where in the basement taht morning.

then i will compile all the testimony of witnesses in the basement which do not support the fireball explanation of what happened.

take it easy

[Totovader]

Truth: you changed your explanation in youtube. I can post the entire dialogue in order for everyone to see if you like.

No need to post the entire dialog- just quote the relevant sections where you think I was in error.

I apologise post #348 not #349

Truth #2: was it true or not, yes it was, moving on...

My aim means exactly what it states, try reading it again, moving on...

This is not going to work. Going "I'm right, you're wrong, moving on" on every point is useless, pathetic, and a waste of my time.

Truth #4 and #5: you argue that they are not true because sound can travel through the structure – re-read truth no#9 and #10 – which addresses your objection.

Proving, of course, that you contradicted yourself. I obviously read it since that is specifically what I commented on.

pquote]I specifically addressed the two ways a person can experience an explosion (a) by sound i.e. hearing it as sound waves through the air (b) by touch i.e. by feeling it as sound waves, vibrations or shock waves through solids. Imagine your in a disco, if you can, you both "hear" the sound of travelling through the air and reaching your ears and tyou "feel" the sound waves travelling through the floor experienced as vibrations. [/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to support your assertion.

Your objection to truth #4 and #5 are not valid because when sound travels through a structure it is “felt” by the person touching or being beside that structure. you shadow boxing again.

I hate to tell you this, but sound is interpreted through the ear.

truth #5 you say "Same direction? As opposed to what?" What a pointless question.

Proving, of course, that your "truth" was non-sequitur.

Are you saying that sound waves emmitted from its source travelling down an elevator will travel back towards its source? Truth #5 remains, moving on...

No, but that's apparently what you were arguing against. For whatever reason still remains unclear.

Truth #5 is relevant to my argument, its not my fault you unable or unwilling to understand it.

If you fail to explain it- it's not my fault.

But let me explain so as you may understand. If the sound was travelling in the same direction down the elevator shaft then it is not possible – repeat – not possible that David heard the sound coming from below. Why? Because that would mean that the sound passed him unheard(!!!) and then reversed direction (!!!) back towards the source it supposedly originated from.

How you arrive at that conclusion is a mystery.

This is absurd and to believe that it is possible is to believe in the impossible.

... perfectly demonstrating why strawman arguments are so particularly pointless.

Truth #6 #7 #8: remain true because you have not even presented your objections and more importantly they are sourced directly from the testimony of the persons in question.

On the contrary- an explanation for these events has been handed to you several times. You have ignored those explanations, and instead continued to propose your absurd notions. Much like your lies regarding Morelli's testimony, it's pointless to continue to re-explain these things to you. You go off on tangents, disregard the rebuttal, and then pretend like you have accomplished some kind of victory.

The only way – repeat the only way - you can refute these statements is by arguing they did not experience what they claimed to have experienced.

Or, by pointing out that your misrepresentations of their accounts is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

So, I'll take option C, thank you.

Truth #9 does negate Truth #4: you present a word with no explanation behind it. A word which is not even applicable because truth #4 and truth #9 are not incompatible if they were you could please try and present your reasons.

I need to explain words to you?

I explained why your "Truth #9" negated "Truth #4", you ignored it and complained about a word not being explained to you... why do you think this is adequate?

T4 addresses the only passage by which the sound waves may have travelled down the air of the elevator shaft when the plane impacted the building. T9 makes another true statment about sound.

Do I need to quote you?

Apparently, I do.

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

This is a lie- as demonstrated by your own statement:

Truth #9 Sound can travel through solids more quickly than air

I don't know if I can make this any more clear for you- you debunked yourself.

T3-8 specifically address “hearing” not “feeling” the sound waves. T9-12 specifically address “feeling” not "hearing" the sound waves. “Hearing” and “feeling” are two distinct ways a person can experience a sound or explosion. i covered this before.

You have given no reason as to why these distinctions are crucial to your argument, nor have you given any reason as to how a person can feel a sound wave... (hint: we don't)

Truth #9 and #4 remain, moving on...

Correction: 9 negates 4, Queen takes Rook. Checkmate.

Truth #10. Is the statement true or not? Does stating “may” negate its truth?

Yes. Stating that a fact may have happened is pointless- it's equivocation. If you're trying to argue your point, setting up statements that have no evidence to support them is bad enough, but just simply stating that something may have happened and that's a "fact"- is meaningless... and if you base a conclusion on that (which you appear to have at least tried to do) then it's fallacious.

I could have been more affirmative and say that the sound waves definitely did travelled down all of the building. But because i dont know that for sure i said it “may” have travelled down the entire building. T10 remains you have presented no valid objection, moiving on....

Actually- you said quite the opposite. You said that it was impossible. Your evidence for such a claim: nothing.

Truth #12 is a true statement based on science it is not a quotation. If you believe that the statement is not true then please provide your reasons. T12 remains, moving on...

It's a strawman. Moving on...

You try to refute my conclusion by acknowledging the truth of the premises by which i reached that conclusion. You studied philosophy right?

That makes no sense at all.

Because totovader has not provided ANY reason which refutes or neagtes the truth of ANY of my premises then logically my conclusions still stand.

Oh, I provided them- but like a child, you just cupped your ears and ignored them without any justification. Just stating "you're wrong, moving on" is entirely insufficient. All you did throughout this entire post is just restate your positions and ignore my rebuttals. That's all you have ever done throughout this thread.

Totvader still believes in the impossible i.e. that the “explosion” mentioned in the testimony of David and Morelli were caused by the impact of a plane 90+ floors above because i have demonstarted through a series of true statments that it impossible.

Incorrect. You have demonstrated through a series of contradictory and fallacious statements that your assertions are baseless, but that you are entirely incapable of changing your mind.

I will be moving on however with my next presentation including more tetsimony. totovader talks philosophy but fails to apply it.

So now it's a good thing that I'm philosophical? A couple posts ago you said it was a bad thing...

By debunking totvader i have successfully eliminated the possibility that the “explosion” mentioned by David and Morelli could have possibly been caused by the plane impact.

Like hell you have. You've just shown that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, refuse to provide any evidence of your own, and won't even begin to address the rebuttals provided for you.

You mentioned something very telling with your opening remarks you effectively say that if all i am doing is pointing out that you can be wrong then i will be here forever. this troubles me greatly, after presenting quotations from your own mouth that PROVE you were wrong before, that PROVE you changed your story, you still believe that your not wrong!!

It troubles you that I can be wrong?

Unlike you- I concede to the facts. If I'm wrong- it's no big deal. Proving me wrong certainly does not make your case for you, despite what you may think.

This clearly demonstrates to me that you have the mentality of a fundamentalist – i.e. that your beleifs can never be proved wrong - even with reason. fundamentalists try to rational justify impossible beliefs.

That makes no sense at all. I just stated that I'm wrong all the time... so I'm a fundamentalist?

How do you think it helps your case to be so self-contradictory?

you are unable to present a robust argument and are only able to produce catchy one liners.

Get this through your head: YOUR ARGUMENTS REQUIRE NOTHING MORE. Got it? If you can't get past the VERY SIMPLE notion that you have NO EVIDENCE to support your claim, why would I waste my time with a... "robust argument" (whatever the crap that means)?

again if you cannot refute the truth of my statements then LOGIC demands that you accept the conclusion.

And what the :rule10 does logic demand if I have proven your statements wrong, but you ignore my rebuttals in favor of simply repeating them?

What does logic say about that?

Does logic say that when the evidence is shown to you- and you willfully ignore it in favor of a fantasy- that you are a king of logic? Please- think for 10 minutes on what you have accomplished here. You have cupped your ears, arrived at a conclusion with no rational basis whatsoever- and then subsequently ignored everyone in this thread. It's astounding how pathetic your argument has been- but you march on as if you don't even care.

How does logic even enter into your argument? The entire thing is fallacious from the start- adding just a drop of logic causes all the little particles of your absurd lies to scatter about until nothing of your claim remains.

please dont waste my time if you cannot refute the truth of my statements - or anyone else in the forum for that matter.

Please don't waste my time by ignoring my rebuttals with "still stands, moving on". It's transparent and pathetic.

[twinstead]

you have really impressed me on how many insults you can fit in a single posting. congratulations. i debunked the assertion that a plane impacting the north tower is responsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. if you can provide reasons why any of the true statements i presented in my argument are false - then do it. thats a challenge. i numbered the true statments to make it easy. pick out one and provide reasons why you think it is untrue.

next i will prove through logic that the compressed-air explanation is not possible and is not consistent with witness testimony of people who where in the basement taht morning.

then i will compile all the testimony of witnesses in the basement which do not support the fireball explanation of what happened.

take it easy

With all due respect you haven't debunked crap. The fact that you think you have is irrelevant. I'll trust the opinion of the vast majority of experts from around the world over some anonymous internet ideologue, thank you very much.

Take it easy.

[Slayhamlet]

Note: this is on-topic!

No, the analogy only goes as far the idea that it is possible to weaken the lower structural elements of a building without causing it to immediately collapse, as in the Jenga game. This is to help demonstrate that the building continuing to stand after bombs have gone off in the basement and before the collapse is not impossible. I am saying nothing about what initiated the collapse, only about what could have helped the collapse to be as fast as it was, and total.

Then you must agree that the collapse would have initiated at the point of impact, from the combined damage done by the airplane and the resultant fires, whether there were any basement bomb or not. The real purpose of the bomb then would have been to facilitate the continued collapse of the structure all the way to the ground. Besides the fact that not a single practicing structural engineer in the world believes it was possible for the intact remaining columns to have arrested the collapse, or even to have significantly retarded it, why would the core of the building stand for several seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed around it if it were damaged significantly enough by the basement bomb to actually affect the collapse?

[Totovader]

thewholesoul - This is the last time I will ask you. If you continue to posts these long, rambling diatribes I will no longer address them unless they are properly formatted with the accompanying quotes. You have misquoted me several times and then subsequently ignored the corrections- and indeed the posts themselves- by just inventing a new method of reference. At this point, it's obvious to me that it's intentional- as I pointed out before- and I will not continue to engage you in a discussion where you're doing this.

It is entirely a waste of my time to have to go back, requote what I said, and then format your posts for you just so you can ignore me a 2nd time.

I will no longer respond to any more posts of yours until you take the time to quote them properly.

[Norseman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&e

Which WTC tower are we talking about in that video? Answer: WTC1

Which WTC tower did you just embed a photo of as "proof" that I was wrong? Answer WTC2

So, I will correct you with the facts: you need to learn the difference between WTC1 and WTC2 before you start attempting to put together an argument about either one of them, in this case WTC1. Please spend less time spouting your logic and argument diversions and more time learning how to tell the difference between the two towers.

It is you who needs to get your facts right, brasil. The video shows the collapse of WTC 2, the first collapse, WTC 1 is in the background in the video. The photo Totovader posted was from the collapse of WTC 1, the tower closest to WTC 7. WTC 7 is in the foreground of the picture.

The fact is that both towers collapsed from the top down. And that in both towers large parts of the core remained standing after the rest of the tower had collapsed to the ground. Please go and look at the available photos and videos of the collapse of the towers, both collapsed in the same manner. It is more difficult make out the the remaining sections of the core in the videos of WTC 2 because of dust and that the remaining part was lower than the part in WTC 1, but it is there.

[Totovader]

- I don't care why bombs were placed there, only to show that A) nothing rules out their placement and B) there is testimony that points to their possible placement there.

- Yes, that was me and the child's game is perfectly relevant: in a complex structure with redundant, distributed loads, you can remove parts of the lower structure without immediately causing a collapse. The removal of the parts will necessarily aid any eventual collapse.

If you can't see the relevance of using simplistic analogues to aid in the understanding of complex ones, then you must have been sleeping through a whole lot of math and science classes. What do you think those little colored balls with sticks to hold them together are used for when we learn about chemistry? Does anyone complain that looking at such an obviously "wrong" picture of what's going on doesn't actually help us to understand chemistry?

You're right, I don't know why you read or participate in these kinds of discussions either.

Your claims were easily debunked by the facts- but you continue to dance around the evidence. It's quite amazing how far you're stretching your own story.

Instead of continuing this dance- how about you provide us with what fact or piece of evidence it would take for you to admit that there were no bombs in the basement?

Can you do that? You hint that there is nothing that would rule them out- but I wonder if you aren't just practicing solipsism. Think carefully- claiming that there is nothing would be disastrous to your position and to your credibility.

[Slayhamlet]

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened. i have only one goal, and that is to prove or at least show that the government is lying, about even one critical fact, and that will be enough to open the floodgates.

You don't believe anything and don't make any claims about 9/11, yet you believe the government is lying about something critical, you just don't know what? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? How did you come to this staggeringly illogical conclusion?

this is why Mark Roberts' site URL includes "WTC7lies." it is because everyone on both sides knows there are some extremely weak links in the "official story" and the weakest link is WTC7.

Are you seriously claiming Mark used the URL WTC7lies because he thinks the government is lying about it? What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to be funny, or is your research really this shoddy? You clearly haven't read the document, and you still haven't found a single thing in it that Mark gets wrong and the liars of the "Truth Movement" he's exposing get right. Your claiming that both "sides" know there are weak links is risible, and shows that you are not acting in good faith.

the testimonies of the men trapped in the basement are another gaping hole in the official story. all i care about are the weak links, and pursuing them further in order to bring the house of cards down. talking about all of the un-provable little details is a complete waste of time.

More contradictions of your first paragraph. In fact you do believe things; you just have no idea why, which is very disturbing. That is not the way honest researchers operate. That is the way charlatans and people with hidden agendas operate.

1) i don't care about remote-controlled planes or useless speculation about them
2) i don't care about bombs in other parts of the buildings
3) i don't care about mini-nukes, aliens, pods, energy beams or anything of the like

You don't care about them, yet you try to use them as arguments to "bring the house of cards down"? How much nonsense can you put into one post? If you don't care about these things stop basing your arguments on them. Simple as that.

All I am concerned with is the small holes in the official narrative which I would like to see ripped wide open. I'm practically holding my breath for one of the major networks to do the patriotic thing and let Sibel Edmonds tell her entire story, unedited, on national broadcast television. Daniel Ellsberg has called her story "worse than Watergate."

Well, if it's supposed to blow open 9/11 MIHOP or LIHOP, calling it "worse than Watergate" makes it sound like tiddlywinks. Obviously it has nothing to do with that. She herself never made any such claims except for incompetence. Furthermore she was never in such a position where she could ever have disclosed anything on the scale of a massive conspiracy involving 9/11. Her own actions speak against her having such knowledge.

and Totovader, you and I both know you made a glaring factual error in an ongoing mini-debate we were having. You confused WTC1 and WTC2 by posting a video of one and a photo of the other, to try to argue the same point. And yes, I care. You're flat out wrong.

Fine, he made a mistake and thought you weren't referring specifically to WTC1. Yet of course we know, having debunked such nonsense hundreds of times, that both Towers' cores remained standing a significant amount of time after the rest of the Towers had collapsed around them. This is shown in numerous videos which have been provided. You are flat out wrong.

[tsig]

thanks for providing your insightful objections to my argument.

I gave it all the effort it deserved.

[Gravy]

Are you seriously claiming Mark used the URL WTC7lies because he thinks the government is lying about it? What on earth are you talking about?If you extract every 33rd word from that document, it spells out PNAC's new plan for world domination, which hinges on a "New Squirrel Harbor (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=138)."

[tsig]

Takes one to know one, and btw I'm an 18-year trained vocalist. Unfortunately that training has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, just like your post.

The towers fell by planes, fire and gravity. Sing all you want it won't change it. Oink!

[Slayhamlet]

I'll attempt this, but the only way it will happen is if I close this browser tab and write it offline. Too distracting here. I'm just one person, so my credentials alone certainly carry no weight as far as submitting a proposed narrative. I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory. Simple as that.

Now on the other hand, let's say I was a "truther" idiot who believed in a mini-nuke in the basement, and put that theory up for scrutiny. I imagine someone would present all manner of pages of official and even independent data showing there were no signs of any radiation or radiation sickness at GZ.

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up. And now, all browser tabs closing... ttyl

Are you going to complain and have a temper tantrum when it gets ripped to shreds, then? To be honest, it still doesn't look like you've done anything close to the requisite amount of research to make a case that isn't already dead in the water. Look, it's obvious to us that you're new to this. I have no idea why you expect to be taken so seriously when you're coming up half-cocked with long-debunked nonsense that's been around the block for years. Don't you think we've seen this stuff before? The "Truth Movement" recycles old crap by the bucketload, mainly because they can't come up with anything new. In fact, I can't recall seeing any new "smoking guns" for a couple of months now. Going by the standards of the previous ones, that's worse than pathetic.

[thewholesoul]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy

[T.A.M.]

I can tell you one thing...the explosions they experienced WERE NOT produced by explosives in the lower levels...the rest is not really of any concern.

TAM:)

[tsig]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy

How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?

[T.A.M.]

The answer my friend....

TAM;)

[DGM]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy
I thought you were just having a mini session with Totovader.

To be honest I find you points a bit tough to follow. You never seem to connect it to some sort of conclusion.

None of the witnesses statements really lead to the conclusion of explosives. Explosives with enough power to do anything (besides superficial) to the structure on those levels would do far more harm to the witnesses themselves. These people were in close proximity to these explosions.

[stateofgrace]

It has been shown over and over by respected, mainstream journalists that the Bush Administration has lied repeatedly and suppressed information about issues of national importance. If you don't know this, then you've been sleeping for the last 7 years, just like the other poster who is supposedly a "law student" who was apparently unaware of Bush's record use of "signing statements" as a way of choosing to outright ignore the laws that have already passed.

With that track record, any sane person would have the same doubts about the Bush Administration's investigation and conclusions about 9-11. Keep in mind that NIST and FEMA are part of the Bush Administration, and overseen by it. That makes both departments of the USG suspect. Just look at FEMA's handling of Katrina as a perfect example. Was Bill Clinton's FEMA ever that incompetent? Not to my knowledge.

Yet the same respected mainstream journalists are not investigating the Bush’s administration involvement in the cold blooded mass murder of citizens from over 70 countries on Sept 11th

Why is that brazil ?

[Totovader]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy

No you didn't! No you didn't!

Olly olly oxen free!

No tagbacks!

[The Doc]

Step one to increasing the amount of posts in your thread: Get a conspiracy theorist to post in your thread. :)

[Totovader]

Step one to increasing the amount of posts in your thread: Get a conspiracy theorist to post in your thread. :)

Step 2: Do not ignore them when they refuse to post evidence.

:talk038:

[R.Mackey]

hey,


Hello, thewholesoul. I haven't posted in response to you at all, so hopefully you can view this comment as one of neutral and objective critique.


it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

I have not. I have never, in my life, even speculated about what happened, when, to Mr. Morelli. There is no way you can say something like this and maintain that you have been paying attention.

The three "Theories" that you would play off of each other are not mutually exclusive. All three effects could have been present, or any one of them, or any combination of two. We don't know for sure, and we don't care.

It seems your entire argument is to set up what is known as a "false dilemma." This isn't proof of anything, nor is it a "debunking" of anyone else.

While you continue to fixate on minutiae, the rest of us have long concluded what should have been patently obvious -- that effects caused by the aircraft impact, including falling elevators, debris, flex in the structure, jet fuel flow and ignition -- quite plausibly explain everything witnessed by everyone. There is no reason to speculate about anything else.

The fact that you cannot even distinguish those you claim to be arguing with suggests that you are at a marked disadvantage in any investigation. In other words, please try to learn, rather than blindly sticking up for your own incoherent opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but this does not mean that your opinion is or even could be valid.

[The Doc]

Step 2: Do not ignore them when they refuse to post evidence.

:talk038:

Exactly :)

[Belz...]

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

Priceless!

[Belz...]

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?

What's unfortunate is that you hadn't investigated the picture and simply assumed it supported your argument.

I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is.

Please stop trying to guess what people think. You're not good at it.

[Belz...]

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.

If you can't format them properly, no, you can't.

[SDC]

I think WS and Br are mistaking their assertions for proof, evidence, and "debunking" of the generally accepted narrative.

Here is my assertion: the answer is blowing in the wind. But that is not proof or evidence, and I haven't debunked any counterarguments by stating it.

And again, I'd be glad if they could (perhaps) step back, take a little time, and then present a reasoned, coherent narrative of some aspect of the 9/11 events. It doesn't have to be a dissertation, or as detailed and extensive as Gravy's or R.Mackey's. But they have to make a case. Attempts to point out possible inconsistencies, or holes, in testimonies and the like about what surely was an enormously confusing and panic-filled day get one nowhere.

I've never been in a battle. (And I'm well past any enlistment age, thank heaven.) But I suspect they are enormously confusing for the participants. Certainly, people have been trying to figure out the facts of Civil War battles, with great documentation and testimonies, for almost 150 years now.

That's the US Civil War. Not the Russian, the English, or any others. But the same points apply.

[Belz...]

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone.

No truther seems to ever doubt that anybody who disagrees with him/her MUST be paid off.

You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw)

BS = Cow manure.

"Just asking questions" IS BS because it doesn't seek an answer. It amounts to trolling.

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning."

You're nowhere near Socrates.

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement?

You're not very good at this. Although we DO have very solid evidence that no bombs were used, we have reasonable explanations for what YOU call inconsistencies. You see, sometimes it's just better to use Occam's Razor than to keep looking for absolute proof.

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.

Brasil, if you're going to use bare possibiilties to argue your points, I suggest you stop right now.

[Belz...]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement.

Then you have never been more wrong.

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."

Exactly, which is why the "alternative" theories won out: it was THEIR burden of proof, and they were proven, and ultimately accepted.

Your turn.

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies."

You don't think it's important for you to be logical ?

Congratulations, now that you are finally entering some actual substance into the thread along with your unsolicited lectures on logic and argument, you are finally digging a very deep hole for yourself and I am finally starting to enjoy this.

This isn't a game, bloke. Thousands of people died, that day.

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened.

Irrelevant.

[Lurker]

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.
You are correct, Brasil. I cannot demonstrate that there were no bombs in the WTC. Unfortunately, the evidence you have provided for their presence is pretty thin at best.


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 am sorry, I must have missed it. What is the reason for setting off bombs an hour before the collapse? Surely by thet time the collapse got to the basement no matter how structurally sound it was the basement had no chance of arresting the collapse, right? So why put bombs there?

Botton line again, is there is very little evidence that bombs were in the basement yet we have a tremendous amount of evidence that a fireball was in the basement.

[Lurker]

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?

I believe their stance was once the collapse initiated, the structural strength of the building was insufficient to arrest the collapse. Recall our discussion on factors of safety and impact load.

[Lurker]

They recently expanded their FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm), conveniently providing the answer to your question.
...Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2,

Ah, not to toot my own horn but NIST has corroborated the equation I provided to you Brasil, which you questioned.

[SDC]

Some time ago, there was a video of a fellow who set up a model of the collapse using something like plastic office trays... Or did I dream that? (And if I did, why? what was my unconscious up to?)

[Lurker]

Yes, that was me and the child's game is perfectly relevant: in a complex structure with redundant, distributed loads, you can remove parts of the lower structure without immediately causing a collapse. The removal of the parts will necessarily aid any eventual collapse.
Having played Jenga, I find your analogy lacking. If the Jenga towers collapsed from the top down then it would be better. But if they do, it has nothing to do with what was taken out at the base. Further, Jenga towers always fail due to structural instability and have NOTHING to do with failure of the members. I have yet to see one of those wooden pieces actually break in a game of Jenga.

Let me repeat that last point. Jenga fails due to structural instability while the WTC failed due to loss of structural strength. Two very different failure modes.

[Slayhamlet]

Some time ago, there was a video of a fellow who set up a model of the collapse using something like plastic office trays... Or did I dream that? (And if I did, why? what was my unconscious up to?)

No need to worry about your subconscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys



ETA: Hmm..the embed isn't working. Did I do something wrong?

Anyway, here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys)

[T.A.M.]

The line of thinking, the approach to this whole thing by brasil and others, reminds me of how I use to think as a young boy...

"Well what if there really were dragons. Just because we don't have any today, just because there is no proof, that doesn't mean they still didn't exist."

At some point you grow up, and realize that absence of proof, while not iron clad proof of absence, is pretty close. Such it is with the 9/11 truth theories, including the "bombs in the basement" theory.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT BOMBS WERE USED IN THE BASEMENT OF THE WTCs ON 9/11. LET IT GO FOR GOD'S SAKE!!

except perhaps, in IMAGINATIONLAND.

TAM:)

[thewholesoul]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level teh following people corroborate his claim.
1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia "we heard a massive explosion"
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion"

[DGM]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level teh following people corroborate his claim.
1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia "we heard a massive explosion"
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion"
I think your finally starting to understand. Yes people heard explosions in the towers. If that's all Willie was claiming we all would say he was right.

Is that all you came to say?

[Totovader]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level teh following people corroborate his claim.
1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia "we heard a massive explosion"
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion"

I agree with DGM- if that's all you're trying to say, then you've accomplished your task. Well done.

On the other hand, if what you're trying to pull here is just another equivocation... then we's gonna has sum prolems...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think WS and Br are mistaking their assertions for proof, evidence, and "debunking" of the generally accepted narrative.

Truthers don't want the truth; they just want to be perceived as better than others, where "better" can be more intelligent (claiming to "know" that so-and-so expert is wrong, whether intentionally or unintentionally), more intuitive (seeing through the "lies" when very few others can) or more popular (getting lots of people to hang on your every word).

Basically, they want to be seen as heroes.

[A W Smith]

No need to worry about your subconscious.

lBuH8NNIBys



ETA: Hmm..the embed isn't working. Did I do something wrong?

Anyway, here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys)

yes just use the id code of the video. lBuH8NNIBys

not the full url, I fixed it for you in the above quote

9/11 was an inbox/ outbox job

[Totovader]

LMFAO- 9/11 was an inbox job.

You owe me a new monitor, A W Smith.

[Slayhamlet]

yes just use the id code of the video. lBuH8NNIBys

not the full url, I fixed it for you in the above quote

9/11 was an inbox/ outbox job

Ah, I get it. Thanks!

[T.A.M.]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level teh following people corroborate his claim.
1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia "we heard a massive explosion"
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion"

I agree, and have no dispute with William's claim of hearing "an explosion" in the basement.

I am willing to bet not a single debunker here has a problem with that claim, so there is no need to argue it.

HOWEVER;

Still no evidence to corroborate the presence of EXPLOSIVES and their DETONATION in the basement.

TAM:)

[brasil]

Still no evidence to corroborate the presence of EXPLOSIVES and their DETONATION in the basement.
TAM:)

I may have some evidence which virtually rules out jet fuel and points to explosives in the WTC1 basement, but it would be stupid to even mention it until I locate every possible information source about it, and even more importantly, find where it has already and inevitably been debated in these forums. I'm already seeing some conflicting information here as pertains to it, compared with the mainstream media accounts I'm reading elsewhere. More later if this pans out....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I may have some evidence which virtually rules out jet fuel and points to explosives in the WTC1 basement, but it would be stupid to even mention it until I locate every possible information source about it, and even more importantly, find where it has already and inevitably been debated in these forums. I'm already seeing some conflicting information here as pertains to it, compared with the mainstream media accounts I'm reading elsewhere. More later if this pans out....


Can we expect to wait another 6 years for your results? :rolleyes:

[brasil]

Can we expect to wait another 6 years for your results? :rolleyes:

You'll wait until i'm good and sure it's airtight and fully referenced. Btw, since my last comment it is starting to look like this might also be a solid candidate for the "Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread." :covereyes

[AZCat]

You'll wait until i'm good and sure it's airtight and fully referenced. Btw, since my last comment it is starting to look like this might also be a solid candidate for the "Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread." :covereyes

If it is contradictory to what we've seen so far, I agree with your plan to investigate your hypothesis fully before bringing it up here. Perhaps then you will be able to answer any questions the other members might have.

[Totovader]

I may have some evidence which virtually rules out jet fuel and points to explosives in the WTC1 basement, but it would be stupid to even mention it until I locate every possible information source about it, and even more importantly, find where it has already and inevitably been debated in these forums. I'm already seeing some conflicting information here as pertains to it, compared with the mainstream media accounts I'm reading elsewhere. More later if this pans out....

So... really, you already have your conclusion and are desperately seeking to try and prove it because you've been spanked too many times before when you jumped the gun without even so much as checking beyond your original conspiracy theory website?

Well- at least you're "learning"...

[Slayhamlet]

You'll wait until i'm good and sure it's airtight and fully referenced. Btw, since my last comment it is starting to look like this might also be a solid candidate for the "Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread." :covereyes

Don't get your hopes up, kid.

[LashL]

I may have some evidence which virtually rules out jet fuel and points to explosives in the WTC1 basement, but it would be stupid to even mention it until I locate every possible information source about it, and even more importantly, find where it has already and inevitably been debated in these forums. I'm already seeing some conflicting information here as pertains to it, compared with the mainstream media accounts I'm reading elsewhere. More later if this pans out....

I hereby claim copyright to the "Twelvth of Never Fallacy".

[beachnut]

- 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"
Swing Dangler is the source for this tripe. He is a fact less 9/11 truth lie pusher who thinks he discovered that we shot ourselves with a missile at the Pentagon on 9/11. Not 77, a missile. So you are using a source for your arguments that spews totally insane ideas on 9/11 on the web for all to see how dumb some people can be on 9/11. Forget all the dead people found at the Pentagon from flight 77 impact, just make up a new story and post it! Swing, you dirty dog. And you are pathetic for posting his tripe without support.

I would rate your evidence as junk. This is pathetic, using a source that posts regular nut case ideas on 9/11 and repeating them here with out checking the sources from your source. You are spreading second hand hearsay; like hearsay on hearsay! Why are you spewing the lies of 9/11 truth people like Swing; do you find it too hard to make up your own lies?

You will find most of your false information is old stuff. You have not started with some epiphany the world has never seen. No, you woke up one day and thought you had discovered the truth about 9/11, but you fell into a putrid pack of pathetic lies born from 9/11 truth and irrational followers thinking they have a cause and will save us. Like zealots saving us from witches, 9/11 truth lies and accuses the wrong people for 9/11. And in their plight of ignorance they fail to mention who the real villains are, nor do the offer real evidence to support their crazy conclusions. JAQ becomes the way to recruit the dim wits with promise of enlightenment never backed with facts or evidence. Just hearsay junk talk from a few idiots is enough to propel a directionless movement to inaction and the spread ignorance about 9/11. The bottom line becomes selling books and DVDs to fools too stupid to understand any aspect on 9/11 that comes up, but smart enough to repeat the favorite false information to others, over and over as if they had joined some cult and enjoyed being stupid, suspend rational thought and logic, and just be so smart knowing they are "right" because they say so. Telling us over and over they have engineers (0.00067 percent of all engineers in the world) they have pilots (even fewer percent than engineers), they have professors (just lump them with the 0.00067 percent of all engineers) who know 9/11 was an inside job! Some of these experts do not even know they are supporting some of the dumbest ideas on the face of the earth. But since the percent of all engineer is so low, only idiots fail to see that millions of engineers do not support their lies (what happen to asking questions). Real experts are not walking the street listening to idiots on bull horns say 9/11 was an inside job; they are solving real problems all over the world. You need to ask them, not rant on the comer of the internet spewing half baked ideas about 9/11 made up by moronic biased nit wits.

Now how were you fooled by this group of idiots and how did they get you to repeat the same old lies?

Why are you not able to support your ideas on 9/11 with real facts?

OMG, I googled the stuff you said, and I found the dumbest junk on the internet. Thanks for showing me where you get your false information from. Good job using google to find zero fact on 9/11; easy to do with so many people making up lies about 9/11. Now to find the truth you must gain knowledge, experience, add some logical thinking, add some rationally thinking, mix I a bunch of good judgment (based on knowledge, etc), and you may be able to find some real information and cure your case of terminal stupidity on 9/11. good luck

[brasil]

Now to find the truth you must gain knowledge, experience, add some logical thinking, add some rationally thinking, mix I a bunch of good judgment (based on knowledge, etc), and you may be able to find some real information and cure your case of terminal stupidity on 9/11. good luck

How is your rant even on-topic and not just another long-winded personal attack? Isn't there another thread somewhere for "ranting and raving?" I think "truthers" are stupid, and I think "debunkers" are just as stupid - they're just two biased sides of the same coin with agendas. Then there are the people who sincerely are looking for evidence and are willing to revise their theories and conclusions when new information comes along. From your attitude, I don't see any likelihood that you fall into this third, open-minded group. On the other hand, after about a week of reading 911 debunking sites, I'm starting to much more seriously consider a gravity-propelled collapse of the WTC towers than a "bombs all over the building" theory, but still I have no reason so far to rule out a bomb or bombs in the basement, for reasons I will explain further down.

Here's an example that pertains to this thread, in that it shows what can and does happen to witnesses and whistleblowers in the real-world. In the "debunker" worldview, witness or expert/whistleblower intimidation by the authorities never happens, and all "official" sources can be trusted 100%. This is an absolutely ridiculous, out-of-touch with reality proposition as demonstrated by this story:

Coast Guard Employee Alleges Retaliation
Whistle-Blower Seeks Probe of His Charges Against Staff of DHS Inspector General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501400.html?hpid=moreheadlines

"A civilian U.S. Coast Guard employee was placed on paid administrative leave, threatened with a criminal investigation and confronted by guards at gunpoint in retaliation for disclosing information embarrassing to the service's troubled fleet replacement program, his attorney said."

"D'Armiento was placed on leave Oct. 1 and told to cooperate with Coast Guard investigators or face criminal prosecution, said Debra S. Katz, his attorney, in a letter to Skinner and the White House."

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract. Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse. This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies.

Just about every "debunker" on here thinks it has to be either jet fuel, or bombs. Has anyone considered, assuming that 9-11 really was the work of 19 hijackers, that maybe they also planted a bomb in the basement because they thought it would help destory the towers, and never imagined that the planes alone could topple the towers? Why are people like R.Mackey trying so hard to "prove" that jet fuel caused all of the damage in the basement within seconds of the impacts?

Here's a perfectly valid theory that is a lot easier to explain than R.Mackey's: Radio detonators and bombs were planted in the WTC basements (in a car, truck, or somewhere else). Co-conspirators waited within radio-triggering range early in the morning and waited for the arrival of the planes. Seconds before impact the bombs were set off. Why? Perhaps they thought if they weakened the lower structure enough, then hit the towers high enough up with enough force, they would fell the buildings like trees. I don't care if that sounds like a stupid, implausible idea, so don't quote-mine this sentence and tell me it is. To a terrorist, it might sound like a great idea, and we have witness statements about sounds and damage that in no way conclusively contradicts this theory.

As has been pointed out before, it wasn't the first time they tried to bomb the basement of the WTC. Don't try to tell me these people were able to predict ahead of time that they were going to destroy 3 buildings in one day just with planes and boxcutters. Will anyone here admit to being smart enough to predict such a thing possible prior to 9-11? If they acted alone, then their friends back home must have been dancing for joy at how wildly successful they were.

There is just no way 9-11 is a "black or white" issue with either the "truthers" correct, or the "debunkers" correct. There is too much evidence of lying on the part of the government and too many valid motives to leverage the events of that day to pursue pre-existing agendas.

The most innocent the USG could possibly be is that they ignored multiple warnings, were already monitoring the hijackers, knew that planes could be flown into buildings (for chrissakes, they wargamed that very scenario on 9-11) and then were utterly incompetent and unprepared on 9-11. With all that was at stake, that alone is a reason for a massive cover-up. It does not get any prettier than that, and if anything I'm saying does not jibe with the "reality-based" community, then I'd like to hear it. Rational and polite replies only, no insults or totovader-esque technical dissections of my logic thank you.

[chillzero]

I don't know if anyone will 'dissect' your post, considering it is heading off topic again.

[SDC]

Speaking as someone who encouraged Brasil to do some research and come back with an extensive narrative, I'm very disappointed. This is just a diatribe on the level of "I'm rubber you're glue."

With regard to the specific claims apparently advanced: first, there is no physical or other evidence to suggest that there were bombs in addition to the planes. Second, well, see the first. (Do I remember correctly that the conspirators evidently didn't even really believe the buildings would fall?) Without evidence -- and confused accounts of victims, and references to "explosions" do not change the generally accepted narrative -- there's nothing to say.

Brasil, I would hope you could review the sources and the evidence and come back with a real counter-explanation. I don't say "convincing" because I don't think that is possible, but at least more interesting.

I must add that I admire Totovader's work, and his comments.

[brasil]

I don't know if anyone will 'dissect' your post, considering it is heading off topic again.

Your bias is so one-sided as to be almost comical. Before you've even had time to read my post (other than the last line) you say it's off-topic, while ignoring a blatantly off-topic post by beachnut that is filled with personal attacks against thewholesoul. LOL. My post IS on-topic because:

A) it comments on the factors at play when witnesses have potentially incriminating, corroborating evidence and uses a real-world example about what can happen to witnesses with information embarrassing to the government.

B) it presents a plausible theory for bombs in the basement to explain the witness testimonies of Pecoraro, Rodriguez, Morelli, and others.

C) i have been challenged repeatedly to provide an alternative theory that would explain a reason for planting bombs in the basement, and i've done that.

[brasil]

Speaking as someone who encouraged Brasil to do some research and come back with an extensive narrative, I'm very disappointed. This is just a diatribe on the level of "I'm rubber you're glue."

That is not the "research" or "extensive narrative" I was referring to. It was something I only thought about after reading beachnut's post. However, I think I raised some very valid points about the "big picture," and I also think my alternative theory is well within the scope of something the terrorists would plan . In light of the 1993 attack, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise, and you certainly haven't yourself.

[thewholesoul]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

[chillzero]

I read the full post, and I think you are stretching it to consider it on topic.

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

EVIDENCE...EVIDENCE...EVIDENCE.

I can create a dozen seemingly "plausible" theories or scenarios that could fit into the 9/11 scenario, but if I have no proof then they are just speculation, conjecture, or more accurately...FICTION.

Bring the evidence, or move on to the next topic is my suggestion.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

In case you missed my post earlier (it may have been addressed to wtc), or in another thread, I will restate...

I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOU THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE, INCLUDING WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, HEARD AN EXPLOSION, OR EXPLOSIONS, WHILE IN THE BASEMENT LEVELS OF THE WTC ON 9/11.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

I think "truthers" are stupid, and I think "debunkers" are just as stupid

You haven't been closely following, then.

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract.

So goes the claim. But even if it's true, what does this have to do with anything ?

Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse.

Non sequitur.

This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies.

Strawman.

Just about every "debunker" on here thinks it has to be either jet fuel, or bombs.

Mostly, because once you have the one, why would you need the other ?

Has anyone considered, assuming that 9-11 really was the work of 19 hijackers, that maybe they also planted a bomb in the basement

Since everybody agrees that the towers would be expected to collapsed with just the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and considering the supposed agenda, why would they ?

Why are people like R.Mackey trying so hard to "prove" that jet fuel caused all of the damage in the basement within seconds of the impacts?

Because you're wrong.

Here's a perfectly valid theory that is a lot easier to explain than R.Mackey's: Radio detonators and bombs were planted in the WTC basements (in a car, truck, or somewhere else). Co-conspirators waited within radio-triggering range early in the morning and waited for the arrival of the planes. Seconds before impact the bombs were set off. Why? Perhaps they thought if they weakened the lower structure enough, then hit the towers high enough up with enough force, they would fell the buildings like trees.

You think that's "perfectly" valid ? How about ignoring reality altogether and say aliens did it ?

I don't care if that sounds like a stupid, implausible idea, so don't quote-mine this sentence and tell me it is.

You don't care if your theory is stupid and implausible ?

The most innocent the USG could possibly be is that they ignored multiple warnings, were already monitoring the hijackers, knew that planes could be flown into buildings (for chrissakes, they wargamed that very scenario on 9-11) and then were utterly incompetent and unprepared on 9-11.

That's an outright lie.

[brasil]

"Swing Dangler is the source for this tripe." "
He is a fact less 9/11 truth lie pusher"
"Swing, you dirty dog."
"you are pathetic for posting his tripe"
"I would rate your evidence as junk."
"This is pathetic"
"You are spreading second hand hearsay"
"Why are you spewing the lies of 9/11 truth"
"do you find it too hard to make up your own lies?"
"most of your false information is old stuff"
"you fell into a putrid pack of pathetic lies"
"Like zealots saving us from witches"
"JAQ becomes the way to recruit the dim wits with promise of enlightenment"
"Just hearsay junk talk from a few idiots"
"fools too stupid to understand any aspect on 9/11"
"as if they had joined some cult and enjoyed being stupid"
"they are supporting some of the dumbest ideas on the face of the earth"
"only idiots fail to see that millions of engineers do not support their lies"
"Real experts are not walking the street listening to idiots"
"You need to ask them, not rant on the comer of the internet spewing half baked ideas about 9/11 made up by moronic biased nit wits."
"how were you fooled by this group of idiots"
"I googled the stuff you said, and I found the dumbest junk on the internet."
"find some real information and cure your case of terminal stupidity on 9/11."


Oh really chillzero? If beachnut is so on topic then I guess it's okay to quote and reply to him. My reply to beachnut: actually, nah... not really. i'll check with Swing Dangler. nope. I thought they made some good points. they're not idiots. ok, i'll ask them. I've been told i'm pretty smart. thanks.

[Totovader]

How is your rant even on-topic and not just another long-winded personal attack? Isn't there another thread somewhere for "ranting and raving?" I think "truthers" are stupid, and I think "debunkers" are just as stupid - they're just two biased sides of the same coin with agendas. Then there are the people who sincerely are looking for evidence and are willing to revise their theories and conclusions when new information comes along.

Perfect example (again) of the ambiguous middle ground fallacy. You have been entirely unable to demonstrate how the "debunkers" are wrong- at all- but continue to try and maintain that you're somewhere "in the middle", all the while contradicting your JAQ attitude with assertions you cannot support. You're again throwing a temper tantrum because your claims were so easily debunked. You need to take responsibility for that instead of pretending like it's everyone else's fault.

From your attitude, I don't see any likelihood that you fall into this third, open-minded group.

You're certainly in no position to make this observation on anyone.

On the other hand, after about a week of reading 911 debunking sites, I'm starting to much more seriously consider a gravity-propelled collapse of the WTC towers than a "bombs all over the building" theory, but still I have no reason so far to rule out a bomb or bombs in the basement, for reasons I will explain further down.

Remember that bias you were talking about? Your agenda is quite clear from this statement.

Nothing will rule out "bombs in the basement" for you. That's your problem, not anyone else's.

Here's an example that pertains to this thread, in that it shows what can and does happen to witnesses and whistleblowers in the real-world. In the "debunker" worldview, witness or expert/whistleblower intimidation by the authorities never happens, and all "official" sources can be trusted 100%. This is an absolutely ridiculous, out-of-touch with reality proposition as demonstrated by this story:

Coast Guard Employee Alleges Retaliation
Whistle-Blower Seeks Probe of His Charges Against Staff of DHS Inspector General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501400.html?hpid=moreheadlines

"A civilian U.S. Coast Guard employee was placed on paid administrative leave, threatened with a criminal investigation and confronted by guards at gunpoint in retaliation for disclosing information embarrassing to the service's troubled fleet replacement program, his attorney said."

So- when individuals are threatened... the truth is exposed?

Thanks for debunking your own position. Now multiply this by about 8,000 and see if you can keep your head from exploding because of the straight-up absurdity of your claim.

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract.

Again- he knew "too much" (according to you) about a defense contract, so your absurd accusation is that this type of behavior is not only commonplace, but standard practice- and therefore proves that the government was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people?

There's so many "holes" and "inconsistencies" in that line of thinking that I don't know where to begin. Hopefully just forcing you to think about it will help you in your own admission of ignorance.

You indicated above that you have been looking for evidence- this non-sequitur nonsense shows that you are doing quite the opposite: you've arrived at your conclusion, which (for the sake of saving face) you have reduced to "a possibility" or something you "can't rule out" publicly, but are clearly desperate to find any sort of disparate fact to try and weave in. It's painfully transparent, and the individuals here are seasoned and smart enough to see through it.

Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse.

They are unsuccessful at this "small level". What makes you think complicating the problem and making the "offense" a million times worse supports your theory?

This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies.

Here we see a much bigger problem with your error: bigotry. I discuss this in more detail on my blog (Conspiracism and Bigotry (http://www.correctedbyreality.com/2007/11/30/conspiracism-and-bigotry/)), but in short, you're committing the fallacy of division. An individual who works for "the government" is not "the government". And the actions of that individual are unique to the individual (and dare I say, the situation)- to then equate that action to some kind of omniscient and collective consciousness known as "the government" is a startling feat of ignorance. In reality, the government is slow, bureaucratic, self-contradictory, and often quite ignorant. That's why 9/11 happened in the first place. (coincidentally, contradicting your claim that "both bombs and planes" could have happened)

Just about every "debunker" on here thinks it has to be either jet fuel, or bombs.

Strawman. "Just about every debunker" here concedes to the evidence. It's not up to "us" to entertain your fantasies- it's up to "us" to recognize that the evidence clearly does not support them.

As a public service, we patiently provide that information for you when you completely muck it up- in only a way that people like you can.

Has anyone considered, assuming that 9-11 really was the work of 19 hijackers, that maybe they also planted a bomb in the basement because they thought it would help destory the towers, and never imagined that the planes alone could topple the towers? Why are people like R.Mackey trying so hard to "prove" that jet fuel caused all of the damage in the basement within seconds of the impacts?

R. Mackey needs to make no "attempt"- he's simply recognizing the evidence and providing the logical conclusion. Again, you seem to be about 6 years behind. 9/11/2001 was not yesterday. There have been a ton of studies, calculations, errors, further findings, research, researchers, etc involved since the event trying to find out specifically what happened.

Here's the important part: Not a single shred of evidence suggests that bombs were in any way responsible for the collapse of the Towers, and- indeed- were not even present.

Did you catch that? Let me repeat it: Not a single shred of evidence suggests that bombs were in any way responsible for the collapse of the Towers, and- indeed- were not even present.

If you don't believe me- then stop avoiding my previous question, and explain what it would take for you to admit you're wrong. When you do that- we can look for that specific evidence and put this stupid fantasy of yours to rest, for good.

Of course... I'm not holding my breath.

Here's a perfectly valid theory that is a lot easier to explain than R.Mackey's: Radio detonators and bombs were planted in the WTC basements (in a car, truck, or somewhere else).

Already problems with that "perfectly valid theory": 1) it's not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. 2) Occam's Razor (despite what you try to claim) does not indicate that this is the "easier" explanation. 3) "Radio detonators" would have been highly susceptible to the radios that were being used in immediate fire-fighting and police efforts. The likelihood that these "radio bombs" would have detonated before the actual building collapse increases exponentially with every single radio transmission. Your theory is not the least bit "easier". Oh... and then there's that part about not having a single shred of evidence to support it.

Co-conspirators waited within radio-triggering range early in the morning and waited for the arrival of the planes. Seconds before impact the bombs were set off. Why? Perhaps they thought if they weakened the lower structure enough, then hit the towers high enough up with enough force, they would fell the buildings like trees. I don't care if that sounds like a stupid, implausible idea, so don't quote-mine this sentence and tell me it is. To a terrorist, it might sound like a great idea, and we have witness statements about sounds and damage that in no way conclusively contradicts this theory.

As has already been demonstrated to you- the "bombs in the basement" theory holds no water. The lower sections of the building were structurally sound until the point that the collapse met up with them. Furthermore, this truck would have had to have passed security- and then left absolutely no trace of its existence in the rubble.

Again- not the "easier" explanation.

As has been pointed out before, it wasn't the first time they tried to bomb the basement of the WTC. Don't try to tell me these people were able to predict ahead of time that they were going to destroy 3 buildings in one day just with planes and boxcutters.

Just planes and boxcutters?

The ignorance- and can I just say the outright stupidity- of such a statement is both troubling and insulting to the victims of September 11th. Take pot-shots at the ineptitude of the government in your spare time, but claiming that these "people" were just a bunch of "planes and boxcutters" is pathetic.

Bin Laden has made several statements regarding what he expected, and how happy he was with the result. I will defer to his statements as to what you should know about the expectations.

Again- however- this line of accusations that they would "do it again" requires ignorance of not only their goals, but of their deadly ability to learn. It also requires the belief that we did not learn- we did not increase security, etc. That belief would also not be based on any facts.

Will anyone here admit to being smart enough to predict such a thing possible prior to 9-11?

I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

If they acted alone, then their friends back home must have been dancing for joy at how wildly successful they were.

Your ignorance truly precedes you. I suggest you spend some of your valuable research time on the comments that Bin Laden has made regarding the results of the operation.

There is just no way 9-11 is a "black or white" issue with either the "truthers" correct, or the "debunkers" correct. There is too much evidence of lying on the part of the government and too many valid motives to leverage the events of that day to pursue pre-existing agendas.

Yet none of that evidence supports any wild assertions you have been making. It appears as though your agenda has quickly met its end.

The most innocent the USG could possibly be is that they ignored multiple warnings, were already monitoring the hijackers, knew that planes could be flown into buildings (for chrissakes, they wargamed that very scenario on 9-11) and then were utterly incompetent and unprepared on 9-11. With all that was at stake, that alone is a reason for a massive cover-up. It does not get any prettier than that, and if anything I'm saying does not jibe with the "reality-based" community, then I'd like to hear it. Rational and polite replies only, no insults or totovader-esque technical dissections of my logic thank you.

Again, an ambiguous middle ground fallacy- on the one hand you set up a ridiculous conspiracy and on the other complete and total ignorance, and then claim that somewhere in the middle truth must exist. Your support for this (and your failure to address any evidence to the contrary) has been painstakingly documented by the folks here. You have been informed- repeatedly and consistently- that your theory does not conform to reality, and your attempts to ignore that have not gone unnoticed.

If you do not want technical dissections of your so-called logic- then I suggest you post in the Loose Change Forums. There you will find complete and unquestioning support of your ridiculous assertions, and no mention of your fallacious claims, lack of evidence, or contradictory theories. Here, we're much more fascinated by the cold hard truth- fantasies be damned.

[brasil]

You haven't been closely following, then. So goes the claim. But even if it's true, what does this have to do with anything ? Non sequitur. Strawman. Mostly, because once you have the one, why would you need the other ? Since everybody agrees that the towers would be expected to collapsed with just the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and considering the supposed agenda, why would they ? Because you're wrong. You think that's "perfectly" valid ? How about ignoring reality altogether and say aliens did it? You don't care if your theory is stupid and implausible ? That's an outright lie.

Belz, just to illustrate how utterly useless and irrelevant your reply is to what I actually wrote (other than to attempt to bury my post - the reigning diversionary tactic here), adding absolutely nothing to this polite discussion, I took your one-liners and formed them into a paragraph. Do you know how to write english in paragraph form, where you develop complete ideas, or are you only capable of responding to one isolated sentence at a time with your opinion and no facts of your own? It's really funny reading your reply in paragraph form. I challenge you to reply to the ideas and concepts in my post, and not 6 word strings, taken completely out of context.

[DGM]

I think brasil's whole post boils down to he wants so much for the USG to be at fault that nothing will ever convince him otherwise and it's pointless to try.

[Totovader]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

So when you got all the replies to your previous post agreeing with your observation of "explosions"- you decided to try and stretch it (exactly as everyone predicted)?

I would like you to reconsider this post (and source your claims... if you're stealing directly from Gravy's work, it should be easy to source what he's found). It's impossible to tell what you're injecting as part of your own narrative, and what you're taking out of context unless you actually source your claims. You may not think it's necessary (at this point) but because it's easy to see where you're taking this crazy train, it's a requirement.

[Totovader]

I think brasil's whole post boils down to he wants so much for the USG to be at fault that nothing will ever convince him otherwise and it's pointless to try.

I concur. I asked him back in post #552 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250653&postcount=552) what it would take, and he completely ignored me.

I have a sneaking suspicion he won't be able to answer the question- but I'm more afraid that the topic is veering too far off course, and mod action is imminent.

[Totovader]

Your bias is so one-sided as to be almost comical. Before you've even had time to read my post (other than the last line) you say it's off-topic, while ignoring a blatantly off-topic post by beachnut that is filled with personal attacks against thewholesoul. LOL. My post IS on-topic because:

A) it comments on the factors at play when witnesses have potentially incriminating, corroborating evidence and uses a real-world example about what can happen to witnesses with information embarrassing to the government.

B) it presents a plausible theory for bombs in the basement to explain the witness testimonies of Pecoraro, Rodriguez, Morelli, and others.

C) i have been challenged repeatedly to provide an alternative theory that would explain a reason for planting bombs in the basement, and i've done that.




Whoever it was that predicted suicide-by-mod should hurry up and submit their predictions for the Million Dollar Challenge.

[Lurker]

Brasil:

Couple of points. First off, it is possible that bombs went off in the basement. The problem is, there is little to no evidence to support that which is why I am skeptical that bombs existed down there. A fireball has evidence for it (burns, kerosene aroma...) so I go with that. I guess you could split the two by saying the terrorists (or others) planted fuel bombs in the basement.

Second, your anecdote about the Coast Guard is interesting. You have established that intimidation has been used in the past to keep things quiet. I personally was not doubting that. Some differences between your anecdoate and a govt WTC CT is that only one guy was intimidated while a WTC CT would require many more witnesses and so on. Further, the Coast Guard guy was intimidated directly by his employers who will have more leverage against him. US citizens outside the govt would not have similar leverage against them.

I guess you can keep concocting scenarios and we can discuss opinions on them for quite some time. Isn't that the very essence of a standard Conspiracy Theorist? They concoct scenarios whether evidence exists to support them or not. I'll admit that 911 CTers seem to have some anomalies in the data which they construe as evidence, but the world is a complex place and chaotic events occur which defy simple explanations. Anomalies will exist all over the place if you look hard enough to find them. As our discussion about equations revealed, equations are idealized systems and reality is prone to be a tad different.

[thewholesoul]

nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used.

The basement explosions are not "demolitions." The structural damage was light compared to the interior damage. This is part of the reason why we know it was a fuel deflagration, and not TNT.

The military does indeed use FAE's in certain applications.

Normal demolition does not use fuel explosives because they try to expend as little energy as possible. There's no advantage at all for them in using a higher energy-density approach. None.

how do you know from the testimony that the structural damage was light? was there a structural engineer checking the core structure on B3 level that morning?

why are you assuming TNT was the explosive of choice? obviously liquid explosives is an alternative and viable possibility and your own comments support liquid explosives as a plausible alternative.

if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job.

according to your own statment below a low amount of liquid explosives would be sufficient to cut through steel. and the impact of a plane with jet fuel would be the perfect deception as it would account for the smell of kerosene - or rather what they beleived was the smell of kerosene.

low explosives can too cut through steel, etc. Even hear of a pipe bomb?

as brasil argued all that would be required is enough to weaken the core structure.

[thewholesoul]

So when you got all the replies to your previous post agreeing with your observation of "explosions"- you decided to try and stretch it (exactly as everyone predicted)?

I would like you to reconsider this post (and source your claims... if you're stealing directly from Gravy's work, it should be easy to source what he's found). It's impossible to tell what you're injecting as part of your own narrative, and what you're taking out of context unless you actually source your claims. You may not think it's necessary (at this point) but because it's easy to see where you're taking this crazy train, it's a requirement.

yep all quotes are from grravy's paper - apologise i should have stated my source.

[ElMondoHummus]

why are you assuming TNT was the explosive of choice? obviously liquid explosives is an alternative and viable possibility and your own comments support liquid explosives as a plausible alternative.

if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job.


This begs the question of why many truthers keeps saying the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, but I understand that's not an argument that you specifically advance here. I merely point this out for bystanders to understand that the "obvious controlled demolitions" arguments are without merit, even by conspiracy theory standards.


according to your own statment below a low amount of liquid explosives would be sufficient to cut through steel. and the impact of a plane with jet fuel would be the perfect deception as it would account for the smell of kerosene - or rather what they beleived was the smell of kerosene.


The obvious question that results from that thesis is how liquid explosives would have been emplaced to guarantee detonation against the core structures they're supposed to limit themselves to.


as brasil argued all that would be required is enough to weaken the core structure.

But that thesis fails, given that the core was one of the last structures to collapse. If explosives were used with the intent of weakening the core structure, the explosives were insufficient.

Granted, that in and of itself does not rule out explosives, but at that point you have to ask yourself how they would have had the expertise to install such explosives, get them to only detonate against the core structure, and still fail to collapse the core.

If one accepts that the core was still standing yet still argue that explosives were there, then one must also accept that explosives ended up contributing nothing to the collapse, since they failed to take down the core.

Again, this is another reason why the "minimum demolitions required" thesis fails.

[SDC]

I'm putting on my academic historian hat. Reviewing the wealth of evidence about 9/11, specifically discussing the towers, I have to say that most of the personal testimonies, while of great interest, really tell us very little that is useful about the causes and course of the event. Rather, what we see is how people respond to a disastrous event, which created near-chaotic conditions. It is pointless to argue what exactly Rodriguez or anyone else "heard" or "experienced."

The eye is a liar, as is the ear, in a situation such as this. Rely on the physical evidence -- by which I mean the rubble and ruins. Rely on the eyewitnesses who had a little time and scope to reflect or document -- such as those who watched, or some professional cameramen/ videographers who were on site or nearby. Rely on the engineers/ scientists who have the knowledge and experience to interpret the physical event.

There is no disrespect in saying that someone, like Rodriguez or others, caught in a situation like this is not a reliable witness. The eye lies; the ear lies; the time sense becomes wildly distorted.

Edit: I should have said: the most important thing is to rely on the engineers/ scientists etc. Absolutely the most.

[Totovader]

I'm putting on my academic historian hat. Reviewing the wealth of evidence about 9/11, specifically discussing the towers, I have to say that most of the personal testimonies, while of great interest, really tell us very little that is useful about the causes and course of the event. Rather, what we see is how people respond to a disastrous event, which created near-chaotic conditions. It is pointless to argue what exactly Rodriguez or anyone else "heard" or "experienced."

The eye is a liar, as is the ear, in a situation such as this. Rely on the physical evidence -- by which I mean the rubble and ruins. Rely on the eyewitnesses who had a little time and scope to reflect or document -- such as those who watched, or some professional cameramen/ videographers who were on site or nearby. Rely on the engineers/ scientists who have the knowledge and experience to interpret the physical event.

There is no disrespect in saying that someone, like Rodriguez or others, caught in a situation like this is not a reliable witness. The eye lies; the ear lies; the time sense becomes wildly distorted.

Edit: I should have said: the most important thing is to rely on the engineers/ scientists etc. Absolutely the most.

A small point of contention- because it's a pet peeve of mine. The eyes and ears are not the liar, it's the bias and poor recall ability of the observer. Eyes and ears do not have the consciousness required for lying.

[SDC]

Mmmph. Engineers; no sense of poetry. I really mean: don't believe automatically what your eyes seem to see, or your ears seem to hear. They are struggling to interpret (in a sense!) a terrifying and chaotic situation and they naturally draw upon bias and previous experience -- which may be no help at all. And the unreliability of the time sense in a terrifying and confusing situation is also well known and documented.

It's disturbing to see WS and Br (as many before them) try to build castles of explanation on the sands of the testimonies of the immediate experiences of the victims. (Meaning the ones caught in the buildings.)

Hah! Metaphors! Next I'll trot out a simile or two.

Edit: yeah, yeah, I should say "you are struggling to interpret," not "they." Just be glad I don't put the whole thing into verse.

[brasil]

Brasil:
Couple of points. First off, it is possible that bombs went off in the basement. The problem is, there is little to no evidence to support that which is why I am skeptical that bombs existed down there. A fireball has evidence for it (burns, kerosene aroma...) so I go with that. I guess you could split the two by saying the terrorists (or others) planted fuel bombs in the basement.

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously). On this point we simply have to agree to disagree until more evidence is presented, better computer models are made, or some other piece of information comes our way. I know all of the arguments which try to discredit the basement witnesses' use of the word "explosions" but those arguments are not enough to prove anything either way. I am still researching and sourcing my theory that could show that a bomb in the basement was more likely to cause some of the damage and injuries in the basement than jet fuel alone. In other words, that Occam's Razor would apply and jet fuel would be a much more complex and implausible explanation. It's taking time, and believe me, I'm reading FEMA, NIST, MSM sources, even.. gasp... Gravy's opinions on the matter.

Second, your anecdote about the Coast Guard is interesting. You have established that intimidation has been used in the past to keep things quiet. I personally was not doubting that. Some differences between your anecdoate and a govt WTC CT is that only one guy was intimidated while a WTC CT would require many more witnesses and so on. Further, the Coast Guard guy was intimidated directly by his employers who will have more leverage against him. US citizens outside the govt would not have similar leverage against them.

I'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11. I don't think we should underestimate the power of intimidating just a few key people as "examples" as a way of making the rest think twice. A very public example is Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator I have mentioned. She has been called "the most gagged person in U.S. history." It is not a stretch to think she's had a gun to her head either, if enough is at stake. I have never suggested that the witnesses this thread addresses are getting visits from men in black and being hushed, although I'm sure that has happened before. It's people inside the government who would be in a position to know things.

I guess you can keep concocting scenarios and we can discuss opinions on them for quite some time. Isn't that the very essence of a standard Conspiracy Theorist? They concoct scenarios whether evidence exists to support them or not.

It baffles me that any side can lay claim to "not being a conspiracy theorist." The official story itself is unproven speculation, nothing more than a theory. Unless a lot more evidence is made public, it will never be more than that. This just seems so obvious as to be axiomatic, but of course it isn't due to politics. Everyone knows, deep down, that labeling someone a "CT" is no different a psychological tactic than the overuse of the label "anti-semite." We're supposed to simply stop thinking about anything labeled with the scarlet "CT." This is just not intelligent.

I'll admit that 911 CTers seem to have some anomalies in the data which they construe as evidence, but the world is a complex place and chaotic events occur which defy simple explanations. Anomalies will exist all over the place if you look hard enough to find them. As our discussion about equations revealed, equations are idealized systems and reality is prone to be a tad different.[/QUOTE]

Just in case anyone missed it, I will say it again: since joining this forum and reading a lot of sources on the collapses of the towers which I found through "debunking" sites, I have changed my opinion. I used to think it was absurd that planes could have been the cause. I now think it's more likely than not that the planes could have been solely responsible for top-down, gravity-propelled failure. Sometimes "common sense" turns out not to be the right answer.

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration. If NIST, FEMA, Gravy, R.Mackey, and everyone else on these boards is allowed to have a theory, then so am I. I still have not heard anyone put forth a good reason why my theory does not fit with the laws of physics, what we know about the previous WTC attack, the capabilities of the terrorists, the witness accounts, and the damage.

[brasil]

I have to say that most of the personal testimonies, while of great interest, really tell us very little that is useful about the causes and course of the event. Rather, what we see is how people respond to a disastrous event, which created near-chaotic conditions. It is pointless to argue what exactly Rodriguez or anyone else "heard" or "experienced." The eye is a liar, as is the ear, in a situation such as this.

There is no disrespect in saying that someone, like Rodriguez or others, caught in a situation like this is not a reliable witness. The eye lies; the ear lies; the time sense becomes wildly distorted.

Then why don't we remove all of the EMT, firemen, and police testimony from the debate? In my brief examination of Gravy's writing I have seen an awful lot of selective use of witness accounts to bolster the point. By your reasoning, all of this is irrelevant and should not be considered. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that our basement witnesses are any less adept at handling themselves during a disaster than anyone else. Some of them were there for the '93 attack. Some may be war or law enforcement veterans (I don't know). Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure. If we're ruling out using witnesses, then we rule ALL of them out, and we close this thread.

What do I really think? Ignoring witness testimony makes no sense at all and goes against the most basic methodology of conducting criminal investigations. To suggest otherwise is to live in fantasy.

[DavidJames]

Just in case anyone missed it, I will say it again: since joining this forum and reading a lot of sources on the collapses of the towers which I found through "debunking" sites, I have changed my opinion. I used to think it was absurd that planes could have been the cause. I now think it's more likely than not that the planes could have been solely responsible for top-down, gravity-propelled failure.This is a rare, but not unheard of CT tactic. I've seen it here a couple of times.

1. The CTists believes, ultimately, that the event was a conspiracy
2. The CTists presents directly or indirectly a particular belief
3. When presented with contradictory evidence, they back off that specific belief and return to #1.

It's rare because it's rare to see a CTists change their beliefs at all.

Sometimes "common sense" turns out not to be the right answer.This is due to your inflated confidence of your own "common sense". You lack the relevant education, knowledge and experience but are to stubborn (or arrogant) to admit it. It's encouraging that you are able learn and change your mind (as you admit above).

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration. If NIST, FEMA, Gravy, R.Mackey, and everyone else on these boards is allowed to have a theory, then so am I.NIST, FEMA are stocked with experts in multiple disciplines, experts because of their education and experience. Mackey is a trained and working scientist and Gravy has done an enormous amount of research. I don't mean to be cruel, but face it, you don't measure up to them. But you have shown that you can learn.

A phrase that you may find helpful is "the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know". The biggest lesson you should have learned from this is to realize your limitations and not leap from one CT to the next. Take a step back and recognize you're not as smart as you thought you were. That one admission shows you are much smarter then pretty much every other CTists out there.

I'm not suggesting you buy into anything, NIST, 9/11 commission, etc. without doing your own research. What I'm suggesting is you hold off on the assumption they are wrong. Don't assume anything without doing honest research.

Good luck.

[T.A.M.]

If it can be scientifically proven that I can crush a can with my fist, and then a demonstration confirms it, is it necessary to consider whether or not the can was weakened with microscopic holes at the base, especially if the can is examined after the fact, and no microscopic holes are found?

The Towers fell after being struck by planes, and fires raged (Demostration). Bazant, Greening, NIST, FEMA, MIT, have all provided scientific papers to show that this was scientifically possible, and most likely. In addition, no physical evidence has been found to corroborate use of explosives.

Get the drift?

TAM:)

[Totovader]

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously).

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".

You're getting pathetic, here, brasil. You're trying to excuse your utter lack of a rebuttal by somehow claiming it would be cowardly and a cop-out if you were to respond...

A new low. I am absolutely amazed.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".


Didn't you know? Making an effort to address each point individually is for... cats. Wholesale dismissal of an opponent's post makes you manly. :rolleyes:

[brasil]

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".

You're getting pathetic, here, brasil. You're trying to excuse your utter lack of a rebuttal by somehow claiming it would be cowardly and a cop-out if you were to respond...

A new low. I am absolutely amazed.

(Note: my post is on-topic because I'm replying to the thread-starter about the ground rules for debate in his own thread)

It's not a "concise point-by-point refutation." Not even close. It's reducing my larger ideas to one-liners that you have "quote-mined" because they appear as easy fodder for critique when taken out of context. I would argue that by ignoring my actual ideas, you mold mine (and everyone's) posts with whom you disagree with into convenient little strawmen.

Not once have I seen any evidence that you have any comprehension of the larger ideas I'm talking about, and are able to respond in full paragraphs with your own ideas. It's as if you're autistic and can only see things granularly and you can't deal in concepts larger than one sentence, or even reply with any sort of counter-theory of your own. I think you're chicken and wouldn't dare put a "theory" out there for fear it would get ripped apart on the same technicalities you apply to everyone else.

I mentioned a few pages back that I'm a vocalist, and I'm also a musician on a couple of instruments. The musical analogy of what you do would be as follows:

Two guitarists perform one after another, and the first plays a classical piece by bach in a completely dry and technical manner, hitting all of the notes in perfect rhythm and time as they were written on the page, but with absolutely no feeling or dynamics. The audience is completely uninspired. The second guitarist puts the guitar on his lap and taps and hits the soundboard and the strings with a technique no one has ever seen before that breaks every technical rule and gets a 5 minute standing ovation.

You're the guy in the back who gave up the guitar in frustration after two weeks, and who says "bah humbug, his fretboard positions were atrocious, he didn't use alternate picking, he didn't resolve to the tonic, he slapped his instrument for godsakes, his harmonization broke every rule of classical theory, and his arrangement is unclassifiable."

You think it's "cute" to rehearse your knowledge of logic and fallacies because it avoids you having to submit even one idea of your own. I've got a great book recommendation for you:

GODEL ESCHER BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198025748&sr=1-1

No one who communicates the way you do could possibly have read that book. Who needs robots when we have you?

[brasil]

This is a rare, but not unheard of CT tactic. I've seen it here a couple of times.

1. The CTists believes, ultimately, that the event was a conspiracy

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.

[brasil]

The following illustrates perfectly the point I'm making about you completely ignoring what I'm saying and molding it into your own strawman. Below you have quoted only part of a longer statement I was making, and then you accuse me of asserting that this "proves the gov't was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people." Excuse me? I said no such thing, and actually said the opposite, but you conveniently left that part out to misrepresent my statement and try to make me look bad.

The rest of the paragraph, which you neglected to quote was was "Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse. This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies."

You're accusing me of accusing the government of murdering 3000 people on account of mis-quoting the part where I explicitly state that I'm not making that connection. If you think your so-called "friends" on this board can't see through your transparent games, you're sadly mistaken. This is the last time I ever reply to you. Have a nice life.

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract.

Again- he knew "too much" (according to you) about a defense contract, so your absurd accusation is that this type of behavior is not only commonplace, but standard practice- and therefore proves that the government was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people?

There's so many "holes" and "inconsistencies" in that line of thinking that I don't know where to begin. Hopefully just forcing you to think about it will help you in your own admission of ignorance.

[DavidJames]

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.Please don't play semantic games, pal. You knew exactly what I meant. Semantic games, another ploy by your kind.

Grow up.

As for extreme prejudice. I am extremely prejudiced against the combination of arrogance and ignorance you guys display. I am extremely prejudiced against the their disingenuous tactics and I am extremely prejudiced against the feigned outrage at perceived insults directed at themselves, yet have no qualms about accusing people of mass murder without due process. And if you get insulted at the last point, please refer back to the second one.

[funk de fino]

I'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11. I don't think we should underestimate the power of intimidating just a few key people as "examples" as a way of making the rest think twice. A very public example is Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator I have mentioned. She has been called "the most gagged person in U.S. history." It is not a stretch to think she's had a gun to her head either, if enough is at stake. I have never suggested that the witnesses this thread addresses are getting visits from men in black and being hushed, although I'm sure that has happened before. It's people inside the government who would be in a position to know things.


I just wanted to pint out to you the ridiculousness of this line of argument. This one guy who was threatened because he was a potential whistleblower still managed to get his story out there so well that you and me and everybody else can read about it and the whistle is well and truly blown.

The initimidation quite blatantly failed.

Why has it not failed at any point in the last 6 years from anyone who may have been involved or threatened or heard of someone else who had been threatened over 911? You do see the failure of this argument and how it actually stacks against your theory?

You're treading very closely to the pathetic compartmentalist argument of the woo people here.

[funk de fino]

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.

911 was a criminal terrorist act IMO

Prior to 911 there was a conspiracy to commit said act by 19 hijackers and associates

Later, a conspiracy theory evolved around 911 fed by liars and taken onboard and believed by stupid and/or uninformed people. Some people eventually looked at the evidence and changed their minds. Some people continued to be stupid. Some people turned into bigger liars regarding the theories. Some people went completly nuts and made up even stupider theories.

The vast majority of people are ignorant to the fact there are actually liars and stupid people who push these theories. The stupid people and the liars do not like this and try to claim different because they think they are actually the clever people.

[SDC]

Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure.

Cut by me to one sentence.

This speaks to his credibility, or lack thereof. I've tried to suggest that he not brag, because his credibility drops like a paralyzed pigeon when he does so.

But here we see that the man is not only a genius, and a devil with the ladies, and a master-of-many-arts (remember the fashion photography?), but he is a hero. Sorry, I meant to say Hero.

The sentence I have quoted above is simple foolishness. He is a judge of nothing.

I vote we just declare him, well, Lord A'mighty.

Now he is going to rage that he has been insulted, by the way.

[funk de fino]

Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure.

Someone lose the pencil sharpener?

[Belz...]

Belz, just to illustrate how utterly useless and irrelevant your reply is to what I actually wrote (other than to attempt to bury my post - the reigning diversionary tactic here), adding absolutely nothing to this polite discussion, I took your one-liners and formed them into a paragraph. Do you know how to write english in paragraph form, where you develop complete ideas, or are you only capable of responding to one isolated sentence at a time with your opinion and no facts of your own? It's really funny reading your reply in paragraph form. I challenge you to reply to the ideas and concepts in my post, and not 6 word strings, taken completely out of context.

So, I take it you've decided to not adress my points and instead cover your ears and shut your eyes and chant "la la la la la!" ?

[Belz...]

according to your own statment below a low amount of liquid explosives would be sufficient to cut through steel. and the impact of a plane with jet fuel would be the perfect deception as it would account for the smell of kerosene - or rather what they beleived was the smell of kerosene.

I hope we're not talking about thermite, as you probably know it's not an explosive.

[twinstead]

Cut by me to one sentence.

This speaks to his credibility, or lack thereof. I've tried to suggest that he not brag, because his credibility drops like a paralyzed pigeon when he does so.

But here we see that the man is not only a genius, and a devil with the ladies, and a master-of-many-arts (remember the fashion photography?), but he is a hero. Sorry, I meant to say Hero.


I for one welcome our Hero overlords...

[Belz...]

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously).

Actually, it's a good way to pick apart an argument for all it stands and answer each point, individually, noting what's good and what's bad about it.

Of course, if that's too complicated for you, I'm sure we can oblige.

On this point we simply have to agree to disagree until more evidence is presented, better computer models are made, or some other piece of information comes our way.

I don't think there's a need to. We have plenty of evidence, already.

I know all of the arguments which try to discredit the basement witnesses' use of the word "explosions" but those arguments are not enough to prove anything either way. I am still researching and sourcing my theory that could show that a bomb in the basement was more likely to cause some of the damage and injuries in the basement than jet fuel alone. In other words, that Occam's Razor would apply and jet fuel would be a much more complex and implausible explanation.

Why would you want to do that ? Wouldn't you rather form a conclusion based on the evidence then find evidence to support your conclusion ?

I'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11.

You mean, all of them ? Thousands of them ? How would you go around to doing that ? And while you're at it, how do you ENSURE that not a single one of them will slip ?

It baffles me that any side can lay claim to "not being a conspiracy theorist." The official story itself is unproven speculation, nothing more than a theory.

Whatever you need to keep you asleep at night. Of course, if you keep ignoring all the evidence we DO have, you can safely see this "official story" as speculation.

Nitpick: you do know that it is not the "official" story, right ?

Unless a lot more evidence is made public, it will never be more than that. This just seems so obvious as to be axiomatic, but of course it isn't due to politics. Everyone knows, deep down, that labeling someone a "CT" is no different a psychological tactic than the overuse of the label "anti-semite." We're supposed to simply stop thinking about anything labeled with the scarlet "CT." This is just not intelligent.

Are you done whining, now ?

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration.

And this despite all the evidence ? Why would you think so ?

[thewholesoul]

This begs the question of why many truthers keeps saying the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, I merely point this out for bystanders to understand that the "obvious controlled demolitions" arguments are without merit, even by conspiracy theory standards.

The obvious question that results from that thesis is how liquid explosives would have been emplaced to guarantee detonation against the core structures they're supposed to limit themselves to.

But that thesis fails, given that the core was one of the last structures to collapse. If explosives were used with the intent of weakening the core structure, the explosives were insufficient.

Granted, that in and of itself does not rule out explosives, but at that point you have to ask yourself how they would have had the expertise to install such explosives, get them to only detonate against the core structure, and still fail to collapse the core.

If one accepts that the core was still standing yet still argue that explosives were there, then one must also accept that explosives ended up contributing nothing to the collapse, since they failed to take down the core.

1- how were they installed and who would have the expertise to install them is not an arument against the impossibility of it having occured. all your saying is that it has a low probability of occuring. the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring, but if we factored in the low probability of explosives being used then it becomes very likely that steel frame buildings would exhibit progressive global collapse.

2- you say the core was the last structure to fall. as we can see from the video only part of the core remained. the part that remained was adjacent to the position it should of been. then we see that if falls down into its own

3- if your arguing that the collapse exhibited none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition then what may i ask characteristics of a natural gravity collapse did it exhibit?

[Lurker]

I am still researching and sourcing my theory that could show that a bomb in the basement was more likely to cause some of the damage and injuries in the basement than jet fuel alone. In other words, that Occam's Razor would apply and jet fuel would be a much more complex and implausible explanation. It's taking time, and believe me, I'm reading FEMA, NIST, MSM sources, even.. gasp... Gravy's opinions on the matter.

All right. I am sure I speak for many here when I say that I am interested in hearing what you come up with.



With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration. If NIST, FEMA, Gravy, R.Mackey, and everyone else on these boards is allowed to have a theory, then so am I. I still have not heard anyone put forth a good reason why my theory does not fit with the laws of physics, what we know about the previous WTC attack, the capabilities of the terrorists, the witness accounts, and the damage.

Well, you have yet to provide a single person that was harmed by a high powered explosion, right? I mean, wasn't it established that one of the hallmarks of said explosion would be ear problems? Have you found any sort of reports from witnesses?

[funk de fino]

1- how were they installed and who would have the expertise to install them is not an arument against the impossibility of it having occured. all your saying is that it has a low probability of occuring. the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring, but if we factored in the low probability of explosives being used then it becomes very likely that steel frame buildings would exhibit progressive global collapse.

It has a low probability of occuring unless two planes are rammed into them at very high speed, full of fuel, which damages the building and sets it on fire. It was not impossible to place explosives in the building it is just there is zero evidence to even give it a miniscule probability

2- you say the core was the last structure to fall. as we can see from the video only part of the core remained. the part that remained was adjacent to the position it should of been. then we see that if falls down into its own

Are you trying to claim this core shifted sideways? Without the rest of the building to support it should fall down.

3- if your arguing that the collapse exhibited none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition then what may i ask characteristics of a natural gravity collapse did it exhibit?

It fell down

[Belz...]

1- how were they installed and who would have the expertise to install them is not an arument against the impossibility of it having occured.

Of course it is. If installing them is impossible under any reasonable scenario, then they could not have been planted.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of their existence, and you have a problem.

the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring,

Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.

3- if your arguing that the collapse exhibited none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition then what may i ask characteristics of a natural gravity collapse did it exhibit?

Er... falling down with gravity and smashing everything in their path ?

[Totovader]

(Note: my post is on-topic because I'm replying to the thread-starter about the ground rules for debate in his own thread)

It's not a "concise point-by-point refutation." Not even close. It's reducing my larger ideas to one-liners that you have "quote-mined" because they appear as easy fodder for critique when taken out of context. I would argue that by ignoring my actual ideas, you mold mine (and everyone's) posts with whom you disagree with into convenient little strawmen.

This is absolutely absurd. You're whining about having your points reduced to their specific statements and then having those statements refuted. This is pathetic.

I cannot possibly be taking your comments out of context, and under no definition of the term is it quote mining or a strawman to break up your argument into it's specific claims, and then respond to those.

What's the alternative? To do what you did and only pick one sentence- and then ignore the rest? If that's the way you debate, it's not wonder you've settled on a position you cannot defend.

Not once have I seen any evidence that you have any comprehension of the larger ideas I'm talking about, and are able to respond in full paragraphs with your own ideas.

That would be believable if you hadn't completely ignored every one of my rebuttals and spent so much of your energy whining about everyone else pointing out that you're wrong.

You're trying very desperately to completely dodge the issues by whining about having them dissected. Are you listening to yourself? Are you proud of this behavior?

It's as if you're autistic and can only see things granularly and you can't deal in concepts larger than one sentence, or even reply with any sort of counter-theory of your own.

On the one hand you'll complain that I'm refuting your arguments point-by-point, but then on the other when I try and point out that you're ideas themselves are flawed, you'll claim you were just asking questions and made no claims.

This is your cognitive dissonance: when people refute your arguments point-by-point, you whine because you can't dispute them. When people refute your arguments in general, you whine because you can't face the evidence. When people point out that your arguments are pathetic, lazy, and incomprehensible- you whine that you're being attacked.

That statement you posted above shows just how immature and unprepared you are to defend your own position.

I think you're chicken and wouldn't dare put a "theory" out there for fear it would get ripped apart on the same technicalities you apply to everyone else.

Says the coward who has shifted his claims so many times that he eventually had to say "I don't believe in anything"???

That's rich.

I mentioned a few pages back that I'm a vocalist, and I'm also a musician on a couple of instruments. The musical analogy of what you do would be as follows:

Two guitarists perform one after another, and the first plays a classical piece by bach in a completely dry and technical manner, hitting all of the notes in perfect rhythm and time as they were written on the page, but with absolutely no feeling or dynamics. The audience is completely uninspired. The second guitarist puts the guitar on his lap and taps and hits the soundboard and the strings with a technique no one has ever seen before that breaks every technical rule and gets a 5 minute standing ovation.

That was completely ridiculous. I'm getting so sick of your useless boasting that I'm just have to start ignoring them. Nothing in your arguments can be compared to music. You are not (or should not) be considering it as a performance- it's supposed to be an argument, therefore the building blocks of that argument are prone to error... a lot of errors in your case.

Your analogy once again proves that you can't even grasp your own position. You're the guitar player (apparently a master at that, too) but instead of going by the notes on the page, you just hit the strings, wildly. You fail at the competition because you can't even recognize the notes on the page and instead want to play by your own rules- no rhythm, no tone, no recognizable theme. That's your idiocy, here- and when the judges stop you 5 minutes in, you complain that they haven't heard the whole piece yet.

"No need to," they say "you've already failed."

You're the guy in the back who gave up the guitar in frustration after two weeks, and who says "bah humbug, his fretboard positions were atrocious, he didn't use alternate picking, he didn't resolve to the tonic, he slapped his instrument for godsakes, his harmonization broke every rule of classical theory, and his arrangement is unclassifiable."

Since I have been offering a complete point-by-point refutation of every single one of your claims, you aren't even using this analogy as an analogy- you're just using it in a pathetic attempt to say "I'm right and you're wrong, oh and by the way I'm an expert in music, too"

Why you think this helps your case is beyond me- it just makes you look even more desperate that you can't respond to the claims within your assertions.

You think it's "cute" to rehearse your knowledge of logic and fallacies because it avoids you having to submit even one idea of your own.

... says the guitar hero...

I've got a great book recommendation for you:

GODEL ESCHER BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198025748&sr=1-1

No one who communicates the way you do could possibly have read that book. Who needs robots when we have you?

Who needs book when we have walking experts, such as yourself? Who needs logic when we can just think of everything as a music piece which is untouchable and immune from criticism? Who needs communication itself, if all you're going to do is ignore everything wrong with your claims?

Judging by your arguments, you're reading the wrong books.

[Totovader]

The following illustrates perfectly the point I'm making about you completely ignoring what I'm saying and molding it into your own strawman. Below you have quoted only part of a longer statement I was making, and then you accuse me of asserting that this "proves the gov't was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people." Excuse me? I said no such thing, and actually said the opposite, but you conveniently left that part out to misrepresent my statement and try to make me look bad.

The rest of the paragraph, which you neglected to quote was was "Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse. This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies."

You're accusing me of accusing the government of murdering 3000 people on account of mis-quoting the part where I explicitly state that I'm not making that connection. If you think your so-called "friends" on this board can't see through your transparent games, you're sadly mistaken. This is the last time I ever reply to you. Have a nice life.

Since I quoted your entire argument, in succession, this whining has no merit. You are again using this as a scapegoat so that you don't have to respond to the rebuttal.

[DavidJames]

It's reducing my larger ideas to one-liners that you have "quote-mined" because they appear as easy fodder for critique when taken out of context. I would argue that by ignoring my actual ideas, you mold mine (and everyone's) posts with whom you disagree with into convenient little strawmen.

Not once have I seen any evidence that you have any comprehension of the larger ideas I'm talking about, and are able to respond in full paragraphs with your own ideas. (emphasis above is mine) Another common trait of the CTists. They fashion themselves as uniquely gifted with the ability to see "the big picture". No need to dilly dally with the details. The US government is evil, they did it. This is very convenient of course, since they don't possess any ability to work through those natty details. Those details which when added up, may result in a completely different picture. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. The CTists claim to see the picture on the front of the box. They then throw out a 1000 pieces on a table, but they won't let anyone look at the individual pieces, much less attempt to put them together

In their mind breaking down the "big picture" into specific details is being "quote-mined".

[ElMondoHummus]

1- how were they installed and who would have the expertise to install them is not an arument against the impossibility of it having occured. all your saying is that it has a low probability of occuring. the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring, but if we factored in the low probability of explosives being used then it becomes very likely that steel frame buildings would exhibit progressive global collapse.


That is somewhat of a sophistic argument. Arguing a confluence of two low probability acts does not increase the probability of either. But that's irrelevent. My point wasn't in arguing relative probabilities. It was to highlight the extreme requirements a demolitions hypothesis imposes. It requires an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge, and leaves no room for random events, such as the precise location of the jet impacts.

Anyone experienced with the history of science knows why Occam's Razor is an important evaluation tool: Because hypotheses with extreme requirements often turn out to be wrong. And the demolitions hypothesis has extreme requirements of opportunity, knowledge, and event coordination to satisfy.


2- you say the core was the last structure to fall. as we can see from the video only part of the core remained. the part that remained was adjacent to the position it should of been. then we see that if falls down into its own


That supports my argument. The core, whether in part or in total, was one of the last structures to fall. If the argument was that explosives were needed to weaken the core, and the core collapsed after the rest of the structure, then the natural conclusion is that explosives contributed nothing to the collapse.

Now, if the argument is that explosives were installed not to weaken the core, but to sever supports between it and the rest of the structure, at that point my argument is invalidated. However, that suddenly increases the amount of explosives necessary, right? And imposes an even bigger burden of opportunity and coordination?

Anyway, the point is that claiming explosives were there to weaken the core fail in the light of the core being the last structure to fall.

By the way, what is the significance of the fact that the core structure visible in the videos was "adjacent" to the position it should have been? Did it move? If so, is the argument that the demolitions caused it to move to a position adjacent to the position it should have been in?


3- if your arguing that the collapse exhibited none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition then what may i ask characteristics of a natural gravity collapse did it exhibit?

No, no, you're missing my point. I was playing off your statement "if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job". My point was that many conspiracy fantasists keep on insisting that the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. Again, I know that you weren't making that argument in your post, so I wasn't accusing you of saying this, but many, many others do, even nowadays. Anyway, my statement was one of amused irony, that if the demolition job was "by no means a normal" one, then other fantasists must be wrong when they assert "obvious controlled demolition". Because an event cannot be a standard and obvious one at the same time that it is not a "normal" one; those are contradictory assertions.

You see what I'm saying? I was taking the opportunity presented by your statement to make a point (and a sort of subtle joke) criticising remarks made by other truthers claiming that the WTC collapses are "obvious" CDs, or showed all the "hallmarks" of a standard CD.

[Totovader]

Here's brasil's "larger ideas": by employing a rather pathetic and transparent tactic of incessant whining (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3244865&postcount=268), brasil is able to scapegoat the entire argument by attacking everything from the medium, to the moderators, to the posters, to the method of debunking, to the facts themselves. To brasil it's incredibly inconvenient that he's an expert in everything, but a fool to his own claims.

By employing this tactic, he's successfully (I use the term lightly) ignored the following glaring inconsistencies in his claims: the burden of proof fallacies (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250003&postcount=471); the rebuttal to the video proving his "bombs in the basement" claim was erroneous (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250106&postcount=485) (which had to be posted 3 times for him to stop ignoring it); and when it's not good enough that his posts are pointed out as wrong by evidence- the use of logic itself becomes a scapegoat (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250254&postcount=512); but then we cannot forget that he completely skirted around the contradiction he created by pointing out that the picture from Tower 2 was not Tower 1- but that it clearly showed no signs of "bombs in the basement" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250300&postcount=519); and will continually ignore the fallacies in his "bombs in the basement" claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3250653&postcount=552); but after he was beaten so badly by the evidence, he agreed to go do some research- unsuprisingly he came back with nothing (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3257143&postcount=609).

These posts are just a small sample of the recent rebuttals that brasil has never responded to, and these are just the observations I have made- there are many more posts that he has entirely ignored from others as well. This is a tactic that I pointed out early on in the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3246023&postcount=342), and subsequently bumped to try and get him back on topic- to no avail. It's not just an appeal to pity, either- but several different fallacious arguments that brasil has tried to employ at various times and in various degrees in a desperate attempt to dodge the issues. The fallacious nature of his arguments as a whole is far too numerous to list out, but is clearly documented- and entirely unchallenged by brasil himself- throughout this entire thread.

[thewholesoul]

R. Mackey needs to make no "attempt"- he's simply recognizing the evidence and providing the logical conclusion. Again, you seem to be about 6 years behind. 9/11/2001 was not yesterday. There have been a ton of studies, calculations, errors, further findings, research, researchers, etc involved since the event trying to find out specifically what happened.

Yet none of that evidence supports any wild assertions you have been making.

Funny, so after 6 years of research you concluded that the impact of the plane caused the explosion heard by the witnesses? nice work. or have you now decided to adopt mackey's far more plausible argument that it was a fireball?

[Belz...]

I think you're chicken and wouldn't dare put a "theory" out there for fear it would get ripped apart on the same technicalities you apply to everyone else.

:id:

[Totovader]

Funny, so after 6 years of research you concluded that the impact of the plane caused the explosion heard by the witnesses? nice work. or have you now decided to adopt mackey's far more plausible argument that it was a fireball?

I refuse to adopt the argument that it was "bombs in the basement" until I see some credible, irrefutable, and specific evidence supporting that theory.

You seem to think you can win support for your argument by pitting us "debunkers" against each other so that you can avoid the gaping abyss that is your evidence. Now all the sudden it's you and R. Mackey versus me?

:boggled:

[thewholesoul]

If installing them is impossible under any reasonable scenario, then they could not have been planted.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of their existence, and you have a problem.

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

i said the progressive global collapse of tower 1, 2, and 7 had a low probability of occuring, you said

Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.

i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane. FEMA said in a 2002 report quote "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." and of course their report did not include the explosives possibility.

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse - and no you cannot use the plane impact as the causal explanation - NIST descibes anotehr causal explanation other than the planes. The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

i said name the characteristics of a natural gravity collapse that were exhibted by the fall of the twin towers, you said

Er... falling down with gravity and smashing everything in their path ?

the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

[Alferd_Packer]

Wow, I'm stundied

[thewholesoul]

You seem to think you can win support for your argument by pitting us "debunkers" against each other so that you can avoid the gaping abyss that is your evidence. Now all the sudden it's you and R. Mackey versus me?

:boggled:

hahahahha, look i wasnt the one spouting that the causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement was caused by a plane impacting 90+floor above - that was all you my firend. and given that you have still not accepted that you were wrong on that i am forced to conclude that you still support this view eventhough it is physically impossible and all evidence and testimony points to an explosion either caused by a fireball or liquid explosives.

i like mackey's style of argument as he provides a "robust" presentation in defence of his position that it was a fireball as opposed to your one liner counterpunching tactic. like i said i am not wedded to the claim that the explosions were caused by explosives - i just like debate and in this forum i can do so. but i will later try to debate mackey's fireball theory - the question is what type of explosives were used - no one knows. so perhaps they were liquid explosives? that would counter a lot of the good points mackey has made in previous postings.

[Totovader]

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

i said the progressive global collapse of tower 1, 2, and 7 had a low probability of occuring, you said



i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane. FEMA said in a 2002 report quote "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." and of course their report did not include the explosives possibility.

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse - and no you cannot use the plane impact as the causal explanation - NIST descibes anotehr causal explanation other than the planes. The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

i said name the characteristics of a natural gravity collapse that were exhibted by the fall of the twin towers, you said



the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

Oh my lord, thewholesoul.

Have you even bothered to do any research? Every single one of your claims here is old, already debunked, and not even maintained by the conspiracism movement as a whole anymore...

[Totovader]

hahahahha, look i wasnt the one spouting that the causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement was caused by a plane impacting 90+floor above - that was all you my firend.

Um, I hate to remind you of this little embarrassing tidbit- but you claimed it was "bombs in the basement".

You sort of said that a lot.

and given that you have still not accepted that you were wrong on that i am forced to conclude that you still support this view eventhough it is physically impossible and all evidence and testimony points to an explosion either caused by a fireball or liquid explosives.

You never told me what I'm supposed to be wrong about.

i like mackey's style of argument as he provides a "robust" presentation in defence of his position that it was a fireball as opposed to your one liner counterpunching tactic. like i said i am not wedded to the claim that the explosions were caused by explosives - i just like debate and in this forum i can do so. but i will later try to debate mackey's fireball theory - the question is what type of explosives were used - no one knows. so perhaps they were liquid explosives? that would counter a lot of the good points mackey has made in previous postings.

If you have no intention of supporting your assertions- then I suggest you go the way of brasil: tuck your tail and go do some reading. If you are now going to JAQ off all over the place, you're wasting everyone's time.

There's a reason I look down on people that do that- you claimed not that long ago that the only conclusion was "bombs in the basement" and went through a series of "truths" which you tried to claim led to your conclusion. Instead of admitting fault, now you're pretending like you've just been asking questions as a past time- like it's just a stroll through the park. You're even going so far as to try and position yourself with people who have debunked your claims as if you have the ability to draw a line in the sand.

thewholesoul- Almost everyone in this forum has seen this pathetic technique done a dozen times before with the same results: you will slip away into nothing without ever having to admit a single error in your claims. Meanwhile- elsewhere you're still holding onto them confidently and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's fraudulent, self-deceiving, and transparent.

If you're unwilling to support your claims, do your own research, or even address the rebuttals- then what is your purpose here?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Belz... http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3259841#post3259841)
Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.


i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane.

That's exactly what Belz said. WTC1 and 2 are "the two former" and WTC7 is "the latter".

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse

Kader toy factory.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

So, at last, another JAQ'er descends into outright woo. Steel framed buildings don't exist "in nature", they're highly artificial constructs. Progressive collapse is a well-known phenomenon, and the physics of the collapses of the Twin Towers is very well understood, even if the mathematics is intractable.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

Someone posted a video of a building collapsing due to a fire the other week. It fell vertically into its own footprint, producing huge amounts of dust. Funny, that. Oh, and the fallacious appeal to authority is noted, but we've already looked at what those experts have to say, and it's drivel.

Dave

[Belz...]

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

Why would they install bombs in the basement ? The building came down from the top.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

Do you think that liquid explosives are installed without a casing and a detonator ?

i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane.

What _I_'m surprised about is that you didn't understand when I said this: "Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter."

The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

Obviously. Gravity is responsible for that.

the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

That's because you know next to nothing about physics.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below.

Let me get this straight. You think that 30+ floors worth of mass CANNOT break through 75+ successive floors ? What do you think these things are made of, anyway ?

and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible.

No, because skyscrapers don't collapse unless you make them collapse. It's a non sequitur to conclude that it's impossible because it never happened.

1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

I'm sorry, since when does the weight of what you're crashing into make it impossible ?

Are you saying that hurricanes can't fling vinyl discs through wood ?

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

There are no buildings in nature.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...

Indeed. And there was none of that at the WTC on 9/11. Or do you have evidence that there was ?

[Belz...]

One thing that Truthers fail to appreciate is that skyscrapers are built to prevent collapse initiation. It's a given that, once collapse begins, there's precious little to stop it from coming down entirely. Besides, I would think it would be far more important to make collapse initiation as unlikely as possible than to stop it once it starts.

[brasil]

I just wanted to pint out to you the ridiculousness of this line of argument. This one guy who was threatened because he was a potential whistleblower still managed to get his story out there so well that you and me and everybody else can read about it and the whistle is well and truly blown.

The initimidation quite blatantly failed.

Why has it not failed at any point in the last 6 years from anyone who may have been involved or threatened or heard of someone else who had been threatened over 911? You do see the failure of this argument and how it actually stacks against your theory?

You're treading very closely to the pathetic compartmentalist argument of the woo people here.

My point is to show that only once in a long while do we ever hear about these stories, and the majority of the time the intimidation works. I think the Coast Guard incident is an exception. Sibel Edmonds is an example of a witness/whistleblower case where it has not worked. She was an FBI translator before 9-11 who claims to have proof that the government shut down multiple investigations into terrorism and that the FBI translation office was compromised by foreign spies. She has said her story implicates sitting and former congressman or senators (or both), and reaches into the top levels of government. She has tried every legal avenue to get to tell her story but the threats and gag orders have so far prevented her from talking. She offered all of the major television networks an exclusive interview on the condition that they air it unedited, knowing she will probably be escorted off the set by federal agents. All have refused. You have to wonder what is going on in this situation. What do the networks have to lose by airing what could be the story of the decade? And why is it that her phone is ringing off the hook with invitations from foreign stations? She has refused, obviously. I can't think of a better example to illustrate just how effective intimidation is in cover-ups.

How exactly does Sibel Edmonds fit into the debunker worldview? Seems she has no place whatsoever in it. Does not compute....

EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers'
Gagged' FBI Whistleblower, Risking Jail, Says American Media Has Refused Her Offer to Disclose Classified Information, Including Criminal Allegations, Information Concerning 'Security of Americans'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/exclusive-daniel-ellsber_b_74022.html

There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" [Ellsberg] told us.

"I have been receiving calls from the mainstream media all day," Edmonds recounted the day after we ran the story announcing that she was prepared to violate her gag-order to disclose all of the national security-related criminal allegations she has been kept from disclosing for the past five years.

"The media called from Japan and France and Belgium and Germany and Canada and from all over the world," she told The BRAD BLOG.

"But not from here?," we asked incredulously.

"I'm getting contact from all over the world, but not from here. Isn't that disgusting?," she shot back.

[thewholesoul]

Um, I hate to remind you of this little embarrassing tidbit- but you claimed it was "bombs in the basement".

i have only stated that explosives in the basement were a possibility among others. why dont you present my quote in context?

You never told me what I'm supposed to be wrong about.

let me say it to you again then. you were WRONG to make the assertion that the causal explanation behind the explosions reported in the the testimony of numerous witnesses was NOT A PLANE IMPACTING THE BUILDING.

If you are now going to JAQ off all over the place, you're wasting everyone's time.

If you continue personal insults you will be reported. besides that sort of degrading behaviour is more commonly practised by un-married men. i am a married man.

There's a reason I look down on people that do that- you claimed not that long ago that the only conclusion was "bombs in the basement" and went through a series of "truths" which you tried to claim led to your conclusion.

the aim of that presentation you are reffering to "totovader officially debunked" was to prove your assertion that the explosions experienced in the basement was caused by the impact of a plane was impossible. i did that.

now if your not intellectually honest enough to admit when your wrong, even when i can post several occassions when you with your own words that the explosion felt by morelli was caused by the impact of a plane well thats your problem. and it doesnt reflect favourably on your intellect.

Instead of admitting fault, now you're pretending like you've just been asking questions as a past time- like it's just a stroll through the park. You're even going so far as to try and position yourself with people who have debunked your claims as if you have the ability to draw a line in the sand.

what are you talking about - i admit fault when i wrong - i have no problem with that. only you do. this is my past time - i enjoy debate. i dont take debating too seriously - i have a life outside of this forum. if there were no bombs in the basement, fine - but if you think that asking questions is jaqing off well then thats your opinion. and that opinion is wrong. [/QUOTE]

[brasil]

Why would they install in the basement ? The building came down from the top.

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything. I have already suggested that I find the top down, gravity-propelled collapse more plausible after reading a lot more material from the "other" side. However, to answer you question, I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes. In '93 they attempted just bombs in the basement, and in '01 perhaps they refined their plan and added planes to the equation, never predicting ahead of time that the planes would be enough.

The only reason to even consider a theory like that is because, like it or not, we have tons of witness testimony and not fully explained damage that backs it up. All the debunkers have is what seems to be a far-fetched jet fuel theory, and a need to discredit and parse the words of these witnesses. This debate about Rodriguez et al is happening for a reason. We're not just making this stuff up.

[DavidJames]

...but if you think that asking questions is jaqing off well then thats your opinion. and that opinion is wrong.

JAQ stands for Just Asking Questions. Now don't you feel silly.

[DavidJames]

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything....I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes.oh my.

edit to remove condescending comment. It was unnecessary as the quotes speak for themselves.

[ElMondoHummus]

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.


In all due respect, sir, the 1/5ths - 4/5ths argument shows you lack understanding. I say this gently and without insult, as I genuinely do not want say anything derogatory about you or what you've written, but unfortunately it does have to be said. You do not understand what happened. The collapse as we've described it is not impossible, as you claim above. The fundamental issue is whether the segment above the impact zone on each building have enough potential energy to overcome the resistance of the segment below. Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

So you cannot say "in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below... ", etc. Your statement is demonstrably false. The "1/5 of the structure" - in other words, the building segments above the impact zones - indeed has the potential energy required to 'collapse' and 'crush' through the segments below. The math shows it's possible. If you disagree with the scenario, you must address the energy argument put forth by Dr. Greening in the links above. That his how you show us you're correct: You demonstrate where Dr. Greening is wrong. At that point, you can claim that the 1/5ths segments were incapable of accomplishing what happened. But not before; Greening's work is in direct contradiction to your statement.

Again, I say this with much respect.

[thewholesoul]

That supports my argument. The core, whether in part or in total, was one of the last structures to fall. If the argument was that explosives were needed to weaken the core, and the core collapsed after the rest of the structure, then the natural conclusion is that explosives contributed nothing to the collapse.

i believe that the vertical structure i.e. the intact 47 steel core columns, would have arrested the impact of the falling portion of the building. so we should not have seen a portion of the core remaining, the progressive global collapsed should not have occured. unless explosives were used to cut the structural support.

Now, if the argument is that explosives were installed not to weaken the core, but to sever supports between it and the rest of the structure, at that point my argument is invalidated. However, that suddenly increases the amount of explosives necessary, right? And imposes an even bigger burden of opportunity and coordination?

according to mackey low explosives can cut through steel (see post #44) and only a small quantitiy of liquid explosives would be required for devastating effects. so no, a lot of liquid explosives would not have been required to cut through the steel frame core.

the opportunity and coordination to pull off such an endevour i believe is less than the opportunity and coordination to pull off the terrorist attack with 14 hijackers with box cutters.

By the way, what is the significance of the fact that the core structure visible in the videos was "adjacent" to the position it should have been? Did it move? If so, is the argument that the demolitions caused it to move to a position adjacent to the position it should have been in?

yes it seems like it was moved. how is the question. would gravity cause it to move to an adjacent position still in a vertical position? or something else? i dont know but it seems extremely weird, especially the part when it starts to disintegrate, pulverise or whatever word you wish to use, before hit hits the ground.

No, no, you're missing my point. I was playing off your statement "if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job". My point was that many conspiracy fantasists keep on insisting that the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. Again, I know that you weren't making that argument in your post, so I wasn't accusing you of saying this, but many, many others do, even nowadays. Anyway, my statement was one of amused irony, that if the demolition job was "by no means a normal" one, then other fantasists must be wrong when they assert "obvious controlled demolition". Because an event cannot be a standard and obvious one at the same time that it is not a "normal" one; those are contradictory assertions.

i take your point but it doesnt appear like a normal gravity collapse either.

and i appreciated the fact that you could make a post without inserting any insults like some others around here.

[SDC]

WS, please provide your expert credentials to support what your statements. And also please provide the mathematical calculations which you have undertaken. (Not that I can follow them, but others can, quite well.)

I'd also say "and use your shift key, for heavens sake," but that's secondary.

[SDC]

Br makes this unsubstantiated assertion: "My point is to show that only once in a long while do we ever hear about these stories, and the majority of the time the intimidation works." Concerns intimidation of witnesses, or whistle-blowers, by authorities.

Please substantiate your assertions. You are using numeric expressions: "only once," "majority of the time." Provide a list, or other calculations, of how often it happens. Examples required. Or else just admit to making useless assertions.

[thewholesoul]

In all due respect, sir, the 1/5ths - 4/5ths argument shows you lack understanding. You do not understand what happened. The collapse as we've described it is not impossible, as you claim above. The fundamental issue is whether the segment above the imapct zone on each building have enough potential energy to overcome the resistance of the segment below. Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

.


hey thanks for the links i will check them out when i get time and of course i could refer you to other studies were they claim there was not enough potential energy.

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

or imagine a fly lands on top of a pin, vertically upright in a pin cushion. because the fly (1g) has enough potential energy to crush the first few molecules (.001g) then this process will continue until you have no pin left.

the vertical spin or the pin are designed to support the head or the fly, as was the 90+ floors of vertical columns designed to support the upper 20 floor portion.

the resistance of the first vertical column derives from ALL the vertical columns below.

i simply find it conceptually unrealistic. even NIST claims that the connections between the core and the outer columns could not resist the collapse of the upper portion. they do not refer to the core itself which i submit should have arrested the initial collapse.

[thewholesoul]

My point wasn't in arguing relative probabilities. It was to highlight the extreme requirements a demolitions hypothesis imposes. It requires an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge, and leaves no room for random events, such as the precise location of the jet impacts.

Anyone experienced with the history of science knows why Occam's Razor is an important evaluation tool: Because hypotheses with extreme requirements often turn out to be wrong. And the demolitions hypothesis has extreme requirements of opportunity, knowledge, and event coordination to satisfy.


how you can make this argument against the possibility that explosives were implanted is surprising. let me respond in kind the extreme requirememts of a terrorist attack as grand as 911 includes an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge.

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.

indeed if we are to remove the most extreme hypothesis through occam's razor then the "terrorist plotting in a cave" hypothesis over "the planting liquid explosives" should be the one to go, in my opinion.

[thewholesoul]

JAQ stands for Just Asking Questions. Now don't you feel silly.

yes :) but english is not my first language so i misinterpretated the meaning. but JAQing off does have remarkable connotations to...you know what.

but hey i was wrong.

[DGM]

hey thanks for the links i will check them out when i get time and of course i could refer you to other studies were they claim there was not enough potential energy.

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

or imagine a fly lands on top of a pin, vertically upright in a pin cushion. because the fly (1g) has enough potential energy to crush the first few molecules (.001g) then this process will continue until you have no pin left.

the vertical spin or the pin are designed to support the head or the fly, as was the 90+ floors of vertical columns designed to support the upper 20 floor portion.

the resistance of the first vertical column derives from ALL the vertical columns below.

i simply find it conceptually unrealistic. even NIST claims that the connections between the core and the outer columns could not resist the collapse of the upper portion. they do not refer to the core itself which i submit should have arrested the initial collapse.
This one is easy if you watch the videos.

Did the top block destroy the whole bottom at once or did it destroy a couple of floors at a time all the way to the bottom.

If you look at it that way it's much easier to understand.

[DavidJames]

yes :) but english is not my first language so i misinterpretated the meaning. but JAQing off does have remarkable connotations to...you know what.

but hey i was wrong.This small point, your misinterpreting an acronym, getting corrected and realizing your were wrong, should be educational for you.

You could have avoided this by, instead of jumping to a conclusions about what JAQ meant, did some research.

This lesson, if applied to most everything you post here, could have a dramatic impact on what you post.

[Lurker]

because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

This really demonstrates that you are quite clueless when it comes to strength of structures and basic statics. Your "analysis" is wrong simply because your whole argument is based on weight when it needs to be based on structural strength. A clue - weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength.

[Belz...]

So, did thewholesoul ignore me entirely ? I think so!!

[Belz...]

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything.

When discussing a theory for which there is no evidence, whatsoever, motive becomes relatively important.

However, to answer you question, I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes.

"Could have" is not good enough.

In '93 they attempted just bombs in the basement, and in '01 perhaps they refined their plan and added planes to the equation, never predicting ahead of time that the planes would be enough.

Perhaps. We can speculate until the end of time, Brasil. The point is, do you have evidence that they did, and if not, do you have any other reason to believe that they did ?

The only reason to even consider a theory like that is because, like it or not, we have tons of witness testimony and not fully explained damage that backs it up.

We don't have "tons" of witness testimony. In fact, there is precious little that cannot be quickly explained with reasonable assumptions of things that we witness in any similar scenario.

All the debunkers have is what seems to be a far-fetched jet fuel theory

That's right. Fire doesn't damage buildings. Ever.

and a need to discredit and parse the words of these witnesses.

Please refrain from trying to guess what happens in other people's minds.

[Belz...]

This small point, your misinterpreting an acronym, getting corrected and realizing your were wrong, should be educational for you.

You could have avoided this by, instead of jumping to a conclusions about what JAQ meant, did some research.

This lesson, if applied to most everything you post here, could have a dramatic impact on what you post.

I must admit that I had the same thought as thewholesoul, here.

If people stopped using ridiculous condensed versions of what they mean (acronyms), the world would be a far better place (for me).

[thewholesoul]

below is a point by point argument by mackey concerning the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the explosions were caused by jet fuel. does this evidence remove the possibility that the explosion heard by numerous people in the basement was caused by liquid explosives?


•Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used.

•Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration

They are also consistent with liquid explosives were used

•Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack

Nobody knows what damage was done to the core in the basement

•Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event

I thought that the fact they reported an “explosion” accounts for something that sounds like an explosion. This could have been liquid explosives

•Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

because nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used means that liquid explosives is a possibility. and none of the evidence provided by mackey removes this possibility, in fact, some of it supports this hypothesis.

[Alferd_Packer]

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.



And just how would the fact that OBL was a Muslim impair his ability to have been behind the attacks?

What does the cave have to do with anything?

I find this argument to be arrogant, elitist and racist in the extreme.

[Lurker]

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.
Be wary of these simplifications.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.
Weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength. Aluminum weighs less than steel yet it can have a higher yield strength.

Anyway, back to your concept. What is more important is the factor of safety in the human vertebrae, not the weight. I assume it is much higher than 2 since I can blance heavier objects on my head than the weight of my head. Thus, the structural strength is what is resisting the weight, not the weight.

A recall building rather lightweight toothprick bridges. It was not the weight of the toothpicks that held the added weights but how we arranged them to distribute the load.

[DGM]

below is a point by point argument by mackey concerning the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the explosions were caused by jet fuel. does this evidence remove the possibility that the explosion heard by numerous people in the basement was caused by liquid explosives?


/snipped for space/

What would the liquid explosives be used for?

Surely your not saying to weaken the structure. Remember the large thick structural steel members and the lack of blast injuries.

[Lurker]

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.

Why? Osama was technical, I believe even college educated. The plot did not need too much. Basic flight training, carry on box cutters which were legal at the time. Some coordination on timing. That's about it, right? Sure there are some questions about how to get everyone into the US but the logistics are not a deal breaker.

What do you consider so difficult?

[beachnut]

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.
This is the dumbest statement of the whole truth movement! Super dumb.
Look at this complicated long list of hard steps to make 9/11 come true.
1. Hijack plane
2. Kill pilots
3. Fly planes into buildings.

[thewholesoul]

And just how would the fact that OBL was a Muslim impair his ability to have been behind the attacks?

What does the cave have to do with anything?

I find this argument to be arrogant, elitist and racist in the extreme.

i find your response entirely missed the point i was making in order to throw in a few insults.

whether it was a muslim, jew or some christian in a cave really had nothing to do what i was saying. your twisting my words.

my point was that i find it more plausible that liquid explosives could be planted in a building in terms of organisation etc as opposed to the planning and execution of a terrorist attack as witnessed in 911.

[DavidJames]

i find your response entirely missed the point i was making in order to throw in a few insults.

whether it was a muslim, jew or some christian in a cave really had nothing to do what i was saying. your twisting my words.

Boy you guys really have problems defending your own words. Here were your exact words, no twisting, your EXACT words.i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.You really need to take a few steps back and think hard and long about what you intend to write. I would suggest the same strategy for what you believe.

[thewholesoul]

Boy you guys really have problems defending your own words. Here were your exact words, no twisting, your EXACT words.You really need to take a few steps back and think hard and long about what you intend to write. I would suggest the same strategy for what you believe.

so it is racist if i expressed doubt that a christian or jew could plan such an event? it was about the planning and execution NOT about there race. that was my point and that is why i said you twisted my words.

because it is beleived that muslims carried out 911 people in america and elsewhere have become more racist against muslims, it increases islamaphobia.

911 truthers believe it was an inside job thus they are claiming that muslims are not responsible.

[beachnut]

so it is racist if i expressed doubt that a christian or jew could plan such an event? it was about the planning and execution NOT about there race. that was my point and that is why i said you twisted my words.

because it is beleived that muslims carried out 911 people in america and elsewhere have become more racist against muslims, it increases islamaphobia.

911 truthers believe it was an inside job thus they are claiming that muslims are not responsible.
LOL

To prove he is not a racist bum, who thinks guys in caves are too challenged to do 9/11. Our "I am not racist but you are" guy says, the United States did it to themselves. See I am not racist, he says, I am blaming Americans who are racists.

Sorry, I think you missed the point and are making up weird ideas. 19 terrorist did attack the United States and people who are ignorant of that fact are making stupid statements like yours. And it appears the terrorist were of Islam, seems you can not even get your insults correct, they did attack the United States, it is a small group of fools who make up lies about 9/11. You are the one who said Muslims could not do 9/11, it is most likely you are racist on the subject, most Americans know most Muslims were not in on 9/11. Guess you could try again to learn about 9/11 before you continue to make errors and false conclusions, and sweeping generalizations.

[R.Mackey]

because nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used means that liquid explosives is a possibility. and none of the evidence provided by mackey removes this possibility, in fact, some of it supports this hypothesis.

You are deeply confused.

There is nothing special about "liquid explosives." The most commonly known, I think, is nitroglycerine. Its effects are basically indistinguishable from any typical solid explosive, such as dynamite, which is a derivative of nitroglycerine.

There is nothing about the WTC events that suggests explosives. As before, had explosives, liquid or otherwise, been employed, we would expect to see structural, sonic, or seisomgraphic events consistent with explosives. We do not.

You're grasping at straws in a subject you do not comprehend. Stop it. Learn from us. Your whole approach is predicated on you being right and us being wrong, and all the evidence suggests this assumption is wrong.

[HawksFan]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with thewholesoul and admit that there is ample evidence that liquid explosives were used in the towers. The liquid explosives were (not so) secretly brought into the towers in the large fuel tanks of the planes. Those liquid explosives were then transferred to the basement area through the various elevator shafts and the resultant damage is quite apparent in the testimony of the survivors in the basement areas.

Congratulations, thewholesoul, you got one right.

[DavidJames]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with thewholesoul and admit that there is ample evidence that liquid explosives were used in the towers. The liquid explosives were (not so) secretly brought into the towers in the large fuel tanks of the planes. Those liquid explosives were then transferred to the basement area through the various elevator shafts and the resultant damage is quite apparent in the testimony of the survivors in the basement areas.

Congratulations, thewholesoul, you got one right.You realize of course you just made thewholesoul's head explode, I hope you're happy :)

[HawksFan]

As long as I don't have to clean it up, I'm good with it. :D

[Blackwell]

so it is racist if i expressed doubt that a christian or jew could plan such an event? it was about the planning and execution NOT about there race. that was my point and that is why i said you twisted my words.

because it is beleived that muslims carried out 911 people in america and elsewhere have become more racist against muslims, it increases islamaphobia.

911 truthers believe it was an inside job thus they are claiming that muslims are not responsible.

What is it about the planning of the event that you find doubtful? Are you aware of the airliner hijackings that occurred during the 70s and 80s? Is it too much of a stretch for you to think that rather than simply hijack an aircraft, someone could then go and pilot that aircraft into a building?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.


Would you consider yourself a racist, thewholesoul? Because... that was a pretty damn racist comment. Is this the seed that's sprouted the black and twisted tree we're all looking at right now?

"[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] attended Chowan College, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, for a few years (beginning in 1983) before transferring to the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and completing a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986."

Edit:
so it is racist if i expressed doubt that a christian or jew could plan such an event?


OK, so... you're not being racist. Fine. The only other option I see now is that you're just stupendously ignorant of the subject matter. See above.

"In a cave" suggests that you believe the perpetrators lacked the education or the resources to carry out the attacks as detailed. You'd be amazingly wrong on both counts.

[ElMondoHummus]

hey thanks for the links i will check them out when i get time and of course i could refer you to other studies were they claim there was not enough potential energy.



No problem. If you want to link to rebuttals to Greening's work, you can go ahead. I've seen some of them already; others here have as well, but it wouldn't hurt at all to replicate the links. And some might welcome it, so that they'll be saved from having to do a search. Anyway, I'll let the engineering types here - rwguinn, R. Mackey, et. all (forgive me for missing anyone else who's commented on this topic) - handle that. Short and to the point, there are some flaws in others works, Ross's in particular, that make the claim about not enough PE being available.


conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

or imagine a fly lands on top of a pin, vertically upright in a pin cushion. because the fly (1g) has enough potential energy to crush the first few molecules (.001g) then this process will continue until you have no pin left.

the vertical spin or the pin are designed to support the head or the fly, as was the 90+ floors of vertical columns designed to support the upper 20 floor portion.

the resistance of the first vertical column derives from ALL the vertical columns below.



Due respect, you're making several mistakes there. I think I may need some of the engineering types whom I keep invoking to word the arguments better, but as I understand them, 1. There's a scaling issue, as a totally homogenous structure like a pin, or even a far less homogenous one such as a spine wouldn't react to stress from the upper level in the same way as the lower segments of the Twin Towers do. And 2. A head is not a static load, and the dynamic load of a fly landing on a pin is insignificant compared to the load the segments above the impact zones imposed on the lower sections when the collapse started.



how you can make this argument against the possibility that explosives were implanted is surprising. let me respond in kind the extreme requirememts of a terrorist attack as grand as 911 includes an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge.
i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.
indeed if we are to remove the most extreme hypothesis through occam's razor then the "terrorist plotting in a cave" hypothesis over "the planting liquid explosives" should be the one to go, in my opinion.



Again, with all due respect, that's a stretch. First of all, the terrorists were hardly "in caves"; that implies the planners as well as the hijackers were from some paleolithic culture, and had an educational level equivalent to that. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principle planner, had been living in Kuwait and Pakistan, and had a degree in mechanical engineering. Bin Laden had attended college in either economics, business, or civil engineering (multiple sources disagree on specifics, but agree that he had indeed at least started along a higher-education path. Hani Hanjour (an oft mentioned participant, given all the posts regarding his flight) attended university in Germany and was living in the states, and not in some cave. You'll see that all the participants were hardly "living in caves".

Plus, you're not outlining why the terrorist attack scenario imposed extreme requirements. Purchasing tickets, attacking people with knives, boxcutters, and other weapons, etc. are hardly extreme requirements. So the question stands: What coordination of opporunity, expertise, and knowledge to execute the "terrorist scenario" would be necessary? The pilot training would be one that could be a small difficulty, but there's much evidence to show that some participants did indeed manage to obtain some. What coordination of opportunity was required besides obtaining tickets for flights on the same day? That's hardly an extreme act; it's merely an act of selecting a specific time during the purchase. What coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge was involved in overcoming what little resistance exists on a commercial flight? Back then, it's not like people were told to actively resist.

It is of course your perogative to claim that the "terrorist attack" scenario imposed extreme requirements, but it would help if you would identify what those requirements are. Frankly, I don't see them. Whereas the extreme requirements imposed upon the demolitions scenario have been listed many times over in this forum (but to repeat a subset of them: How to install explosives and not change the collapse initiation point, how to actually install the explosives (liquid or not), when would plotters have the opportunity to install such explosives, and so on, and so forth).

Again, the hijack scenario is the most likely one requiring the least amount of extraordinary occurances. Remember: Flights had been hijacked before, and if anything, the problem was that passenger and air crews had been habituated into giving in, not resisting (no hijacking had resulted in a suicide flight before). All the other events to get the hijackers in place and prepared for the hijackings were hardly unlikely confluences of events, opportunity, and knowledge. They were, in fact, mundane occurances: Enter the country on student or visitors visas, get pilot training, purchase knives, obtain airplane tickets, etc. But the explosives scenario... well, I've stated the problems over and over, and so have others in this forum. Frankly, none of the events in a demolitions scenario are mundane or expected. That's why I called them "extreme" and "extraordinary".
I'm rambling. I'll let others also respond to this. But in summary, it would help to have some elucidation on what makes the "terrorist scenario" so complex and unusual.

Thank you.

[brasil]

Not surprisingly, everyone is ganging up on thewholesoul and I don't see any intelligent, well-thought out replies to the points I made before they got buried. I suggested that it would make perfect sense for terrorists to try to improve on their 1993 strategy, which used a truck bomb in the basement, and add plane impacts to the scenario. Not surprisingly, the twisting around of my words and the insults flew and I was told it's a "stupid" idea and that i'm an "idiot." Well, if you think I'm an idiot then you think the FBI are idiots:

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGE6GNKNpPA
relevant transcript:

Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."

Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"

Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."

Before saying "then why didn't the buildings collapse from the bottom up blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda," I'll say it again:

Because maybe the terrorists could not predict what was going to happen but merely added to the 1993 strategy of only using bombs, and hoped to get lucky and finally destroy the towers. If this is in fact what happened, then they most definitely did get lucky. There is nothing unreasonable about any of this, especially considering the reporting by USA today saying it's what the FBI initially thought. The FBI was right down there at their headquarters and had plenty of opportunity to investigate for themselves and talk to witnesses. So is the FBI "stupid" too?

[Alferd_Packer]

Brazil, did it ever occur to you that after the '93 bombing, that they changed/ improved security in the building?

[T.A.M.]

How about, instead, you look at it this way...

LEARNING from the mistake in 1993 that failed to bring the tower down, and failed to kill any great number of people, the terrorists abandoned the "bombs in the basement" theory, and instead went with "planes as weapons".

TAM:)

[thewholesoul]

Basic flight training

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.

bush not even going under oath to the 911 commission and had to be accompanied by cheney- the whole thing stinks. and whether or not there were explosives in the towers at the very least someone had foreknowledge - how could a cook like alex jones predict 911??

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.

[brasil]

Brazil, did it ever occur to you that after the '93 bombing, that they changed/ improved security in the building?

Did it occur to you that the terrorists would obviously be aware of this and change their methods for getting bombs into the building? How many terrorists have used bombs in the last decade? If security is being improved all over the world in response to continuing attacks with bombs, it is apparently having little to no effect on the blowing up of trains, buildings, and cars. Everyone here is so condescending it's ridiculous. I'm not stupid, and I don't feel I have to spell out the obvious. All you're doing is wasting space with comments like that, and not actually replying to my ideas. So typical here....

[brasil]

How about, instead, you look at it this way...

LEARNING from the mistake in 1993 that failed to bring the tower down, and failed to kill any great number of people, the terrorists abandoned the "bombs in the basement" theory, and instead went with "planes as weapons".

TAM:)

How about you respond to what i actually wrote and explain why the FBI's first working theory on 9-11 was bombs+airplanes?:)

[tomwaits]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

[brasil]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

That's one of the weakest arguments i've ever heard. The CIA has at least a 30 or 40 billion dollar budget. There's a "black budget" in this country that is huge, and classified. I think they're just a little better funded than the DMV, and just a little more excited about their job.

[thewholesoul]

Would you consider yourself a racist, thewholesoul?

you're just stupendously ignorant of the subject matter.

"In a cave" suggests that you believe the perpetrators lacked the education or the resources to carry out the attacks as detailed. You'd be amazingly wrong on both counts.

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness. i did not come here to defend myself against YOU. you have no idea who i am.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

"in a cave" suggests they were terrorists hidding and plotting in the mountains of afganistan. it could also be interpreted the way you have suggested. i apologise if you are muslim and if i have offended you in any way. but if i am not mistaken ITS YOUR COUNTRY BOMBING RAPING AND PILAGING THE MIDDLE EAST so dont start with all this righteous bs when your probably even for the "stay the course" policy in iraq and the other regions of the world where your corrupt empire now infests.

i wont be responding to you again.

[ElMondoHummus]

Not surprisingly, everyone is ganging up on thewholesoul and I don't see any intelligent, well-thought out replies to the points I made before they got buried.


Some of us have posted responses to you, not on that particular topic, but on others that have been touched here. You yourself have choosen not to respond to those. Perhaps doing so would be a polite gesture, as your request would turn into one for reciprocation rather than be a straight-out, unreciprocated demand for a response on one of your points, and would also cease being a not-so-veiled insult directed at the readership here (well, maybe that won't change, but whatever). Anyway, as a reminder:

Brasil, in all due respect, TAM is correct. Sagan summarized this ideal in his statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The principle is correct, and validated over time. At risk of digressing from topic: The progression of medical knowledge over time validates this principle, as extraordinary claims without proof fail to not just progress medical science, but often fail to cure patients (i.e. treatments based on humorism), whereas extraordinary claims with proof advance knowledge and cure patients (i.e. Jenner's cowpox experiment, and later application).

We can all agree that your statement about authoritative arguments is correct: Judging a topic merely by who delivers the support is logically fallacious. However, it is not accurate to say that's what many of us here have done: Every one here with whom I'm familiar have indeed studied the claims of both the government and the academic researchers (such as the Purdue team that put together the impact and fire simulation earlier this year) as well as the conspiracy claims, and our stances are the products of our processes of evaluation. To be blunt, the conspiracy claims simply fail upon critical examination.

Also: (*Bump*) Pardon me, but I'm still curious about any responses you may have to the posts I pointed out earlier:

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://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.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 (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.

Thank you.

[Gravy]

Yeah, Jack Kelley, the reporter who faked major stories (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm). Good source.

Ashcroft and Mueller press conference, 9/12/01. Planes. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/mueller_ashcroft_text_9-12.html)

[Gravy]

How about you respond to what i actually wrote and explain why the FBI's first working theory on 9-11 was bombs+airplanes?:)It wasn't, nor was Kelley's interview on the 11th. Great research.

[brasil]

Yeah, Jack Kelley, the reporter who faked major stories (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm). Good source.

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

[LashL]

Did it occur to you that the terrorists would obviously be aware of this and change their methods for getting bombs into the building?


What methods do you believe the terrorists used to get bombs into the World Trade Center buildings?

[Slayhamlet]

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

But he's the only source for that claim. The FBI denies that they ever had such a working theory, and no other correspondents anywhere were told of this "working theory".

Why you're quoting Rumsfeld is beyond me.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness.


Uhh... You need to calm the hell down. Did you happen to noticed the part of my post where I essentially retracted my labeling of you? Or did you simply choose to ignore it so that you could continue to act indignant?

i did not come here to defend myself against YOU.


And yet here you are. Obviously you think it's necessary in some way. Also, this is a public forum. You don't exactly get a say in who responds to your poorly-worded statements.

you have no idea who i am.


Hey, look... I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think it's time you take a reflective look at your own participation on this thread. You don't know any one of us, either, but you seem to have absolutely no problems slinging baseless insults.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?


Her name, and you can report any post to the moderators by clicking on the http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/report.gif that appears at the bottom left of that post.

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.


Actually, I didn't... I was "just asking questions". Heh. Boy, that's annoying, isn't it, when those "questions" insinuate something that isn't true?

. . .so dont start with all this righteous bs when your probably even for the "stay the course" policy in iraq and the other regions of the world where your corrupt empire now infests.


Excuse me? You declare with righteous fury that I don't know you, and then go on to presume that you know me? I believe it's now your turn to apologize to me. Please pull yourself together.

[Totovader]

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

So once again, it's "you guys are wrong! you're ignoring my claims!" to "oh a false start"...

At what point are you going to do your own research brasil, and start realizing that every single one of your claims has been addressed- whether you want to actually call them claims or not.

[Slayhamlet]

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness. i did not come here to defend myself against YOU. you have no idea who i am.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

"in a cave" suggests they were terrorists hidding and plotting in the mountains of afganistan.

But they weren't hiding or plotting in the mountains of Afghanistan. Either you're lying or you've made a very elementary mistake which should really cause you question your own knowledge about 9/11 and world events in general. Which is it?

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

[thewholesoul]

What is it about the planning of the event that you find doubtful? Are you aware of the airliner hijackings that occurred during the 70s and 80s? Is it too much of a stretch for you to think that rather than simply hijack an aircraft, someone could then go and pilot that aircraft into a building?

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?


Err... "the military" would have only been able to stop the final stages of the plan, if they were in a position to do so. At that point, the plan had quite obviously already materialized. How do you propose that "the military" would have, let's say, stopped the hijackers from boarding the planes? Or are you thinking even further back?

(I have to say, your criticisms don't seem to be very solid or well-founded... at all. You're talking as someone who seems to have nothing more than some vague discontent with what little you know of the events.)

[tomwaits]

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

My dad is a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, so I can't claim any DIRECT experience, but from what I've heard and seen from him, the military is fairly inefficient themselves. Relatively, they are likely better than most of the armies from around the world. However, this doesn't mean they can carry out something as absurdly detailed as what you are suggesting. It's time to exit Middle Earth and return to regular Earth.

[Reheat]

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

Tell me about it. What is your evidence that the military was sleeping or God knows what that day?

[funk de fino]

My point is to show that only once in a long while do we ever hear about these stories, and the majority of the time the intimidation works. I think the Coast Guard incident is an exception.

You THINK? It is either an exception and there has never been any other whistleblowers or you are wrong again.

Sibel Edmonds is an example of a witness/whistleblower case where it has not worked. She was an FBI translator before 9-11 who claims to have proof that the government shut down multiple investigations into terrorism and that the FBI translation office was compromised by foreign spies. She has said her story implicates sitting and former congressman or senators (or both), and reaches into the top levels of government. She has tried every legal avenue to get to tell her story but the threats and gag orders have so far prevented her from talking. She offered all of the major television networks an exclusive interview on the condition that they air it unedited, knowing she will probably be escorted off the set by federal agents. All have refused. You have to wonder what is going on in this situation. What do the networks have to lose by airing what could be the story of the decade? And why is it that her phone is ringing off the hook with invitations from foreign stations? She has refused, obviously. I can't think of a better example to illustrate just how effective intimidation is in cover-ups.

1. Yet you know her story? And were able to tell us?
2. Why would she refuse to tell her story to the UK press?
3. What kind of intimidation would keep you from telling all about the fact you suspect your govt killed 3000 people?

You claim you are bright yet continually fail to show it?

How exactly does Sibel Edmonds fit into the debunker worldview? Seems she has no place whatsoever in it. Does not compute....

Because what she has to say does nothing to help the bombs in the basement theory of yours

[Belz...]

below is a point by point argument by mackey concerning the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the explosions were caused by jet fuel. does this evidence remove the possibility that the explosion heard by numerous people in the basement was caused by liquid explosives?


•Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used.

•Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration

They are also consistent with liquid explosives were used

•Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack

Nobody knows what damage was done to the core in the basement

•Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event

I thought that the fact they reported an “explosion” accounts for something that sounds like an explosion. This could have been liquid explosives

•Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

because nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used means that liquid explosives is a possibility. and none of the evidence provided by mackey removes this possibility, in fact, some of it supports this hypothesis.

Argument from ignorance.

[Belz...]

i find your response entirely missed the point i was making in order to throw in a few insults.

whether it was a muslim, jew or some christian in a cave really had nothing to do what i was saying. your twisting my words.

It's that "in a cave" thing I really like.

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

Aw, not this again. What's so hard about crashing a plane into a large building ?

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

Yeah, we call that an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, you have no evidence that it happened differently than the "official story" says, and you resort to plugging your ears.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

That's a completely different subject.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

And now you're crying to mama. How typical. You made comments that seemed clearly racist. If that wasn't your intent, then fine. Stop whining.

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

The US military are not invincible. Next question.

[SDC]

That's one of the weakest arguments i've ever heard. The CIA has at least a 30 or 40 billion dollar budget. There's a "black budget" in this country that is huge, and classified. I think they're just a little better funded than the DMV, and just a little more excited about their job.

Obviously you've never gone to the DMV in White Plains (Westchester County).

ps Is joke.

pps More seriously. Please provide documentation for your views. There is a lot of information out there, a lot of well-informed people doing good and serious research. Why don't you use it?

[quixotecoyote]

"Muslim" is not a race.

[Calcas]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.


Oh please. Balsamo and his band of idiots at pft have been debunked so thoroughly on this it's not worth rehashing. There are probably a dozen links here that have covered it as well.

The fact that you cite pft for anything reduces your credibility to zero.

[Lurker]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

No, I'll rely on the quotes from the flight instructors who taught the terrorists and said they had enough skill to fly the planes into the building. Why go to second-hand sources when you can get quotes directly from those who observed the terrorists?


if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.
Now you are getting into areas I actually agree with. Tenet getting a medal after the intel failures? Come on!

[thewholesoul]

You are deeply confused.

There is nothing special about "liquid explosives." The most commonly known, I think, is nitroglycerine. Its effects are basically indistinguishable from any typical solid explosive, such as dynamite, which is a derivative of nitroglycerine.

There is nothing about the WTC events that suggests explosives. As before, had explosives, liquid or otherwise, been employed, we would expect to see structural, sonic, or seisomgraphic events consistent with explosives. We do not.

You're grasping at straws in a subject you do not comprehend. Stop it. Learn from us. Your whole approach is predicated on you being right and us being wrong, and all the evidence suggests this assumption is wrong.

i guess there is one way to settle this debate. i believe in the scientific method. that is observation (the witnesses testimony) hypothesis (was it jet fuel or explosives) prediction and most importantly experimentation (we must TEST the hypothesis).

if an 8 story building with the same design parameters as the twin towers was built and 28 kg of jet fuel was engineered to explode on the b2 b3 levels and the results were recorded. if we had the same results i.e. walls turned to rubble, the windows in the lobby blown out, the production of thick white smoke, car park destroyed etc etc then i would concede. such a reconstruction is not impossible.

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.

if 28kg was insufficent then we increase the dose and so on until the results corrolate with the results (not precisely but generally as explained above in black). but if the results are nothing like what was observed and experienced in the basements of the wtc then we should change the hypothesis. perhaps even experiment with some kind of explosives.

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.

your right, i dont know much about explosives, i never claimed i did. but you do know a lot about explosives so would you object to an experiment to prove your hypothesis. we could both learn from the results of the experiments regardless of our background and expertise in explosives.

[thewholesoul]

What methods do you believe the terrorists used to get bombs into the World Trade Center buildings?

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.

[Slayhamlet]

i guess there is one way to settle this debate. i believe in the scientific method. that is observation (the witnesses testimony) hypothesis (was it jet fuel or explosives) prediction and most importantly experimentation (we must TEST the hypothesis).

if an 8 story building with the same design parameters as the twin towers was built and 28 kg of jet fuel was engineered to explode on the b2 b3 levels and the results were recorded. if we had the same results i.e. walls turned to rubble, the windows in the lobby blown out, the production of thick white smoke, car park destroyed etc etc then i would concede. such a reconstruction is not impossible.

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.

if 28kg was insufficent then we increase the dose and so on until the results corrolate with the results (not precisely but generally as explained above in black). but if the results are nothing like what was observed and experienced in the basements of the wtc then we should change the hypothesis. perhaps even experiment with some kind of explosives.

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.

your right, i dont know much about explosives, i never claimed i did. but you do know a lot about explosives so would you object to an experiment to prove your hypothesis. we could both learn from the results of the experiments regardless of our background and expertise in explosives.

Your experiment is preposterous, but whatever, I'll let Mackey respond as he can make a much better critique of it than I can.

Anyway, what white smoke ring are you talking about?

[thewholesoul]

Tell me about it. What is your evidence that the military was sleeping or God knows what that day?

hahahaha i suppose the fact that three hijacked planes hot there targets!!

8:47 a plane hits WTC1
(15 mins later)
9:03 WTC 2 South Tower struck by airplane
(Half an hour later)
9:30 pentagon hit

45 mins!!! Between first hit and last hit.

The military must have been sleeping.

maybe you should take a flight and see how long you will last until your plane is intercepted.

[LashL]

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.

I asked a serious and polite question. How about a serious and polite answer?

[thewholesoul]

Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

So you cannot say "in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below... ", etc. Your statement is demonstrably false. The "1/5 of the structure" - in other words, the building segments above the impact zones - indeed has the potential energy required to 'collapse' and 'crush' through the segments below. The math shows it's possible. If you disagree with the scenario, you must address the energy argument put forth by Dr. Greening in the links above. That his how you show us you're correct: You demonstrate where Dr. Greening is wrong. At that point, you can claim that the 1/5ths segments were incapable of accomplishing what happened. But not before; Greening's work is in direct contradiction to your statement.

Again, I say this with much respect.

hey almundohummus,

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.

look i amgoing to be straight, i havent the knowledge in mathematics to debunk Dr.greenings paper all i can provide is another brainiac with opposing numbers. so where does that get us? these two could argue numbers all day because what we have is an unproven hypothesis.

i highlighted the key phrase above in your post - "demonstratably false". nothing has been demonstrated to be false about my statment. if you are saying that it is demonstratably false because "The math shows it's" and i have just provided another persons maths that back my position - the only thing that is demonstrated is that nothing has been proven.

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

so i am going to JAQ off here and ask whether you would object to such an experimnet (assuming that it was feasible)? perhaps even a computer model could be used - but i would be very sceptical of such an approach.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

[Reheat]

maybe you should take a flight and see how long you will last until your plane is intercepted.

It's a simple joke to you, isn't it? no answer required

You should get a clue and perhaps you might get some credibility.

ETA: This thread is 19 pages long and I've yet to see any credible, even partially substantiated posts by you. You're just another JAQ er offer.

Any further discussion of the NATO response should be taken up in a separate thread.

[thewholesoul]

Be wary of these simplifications..

i take your point here. admittedly i know its extremely simplified. but fractions are conceptually applicable to any object.

i could have said 18 floors collapsing on 92 or 18/92.

the weight of any object can also be divided into fractions.

Weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength.

i do agree with you but i think your overstating you case.

potential energy is about weight height of fall and gravity. weight has very much got to do with the calculations in order to determine whether the building below the impact zone was able to resist the initial collapse.

i agree structure has a lot got to do with it also but to claim weight has nothing got to do with the collapse is absurd.

I can balance heavier objects on my head than the weight of my head.

lets say i place an elepahant on your head - can you balance that?

the structural strength is what is resisting the weight, not the weight.


going back to my basic analogy - the spin is designed to support the weight of the head. if the head on a skeleton was lifted off and dropped from a certain height it will perhaps crack the first vertibrea but it will not crush the entire vertibrae and then itself.

i agree that the structural strenght is resisting the weight not the the weight itself. but the weight of what is falling or being placed upon the structure should be a factor. likewise the upper portion that collapsed on the intact structure below was around 10 or 12% the weight of entire structure. the intact core column below possessed structural integrity. now we could both cite professors and experts who provide calculations debating whether the intact structure could reisist the dynamic load of the falling posrtion. but what cannot be argued is that it was able to support the static load. the only way i could rationally accept the offical story is if the PROVED IT. through expermentation.

[AZCat]

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

so i am going to JAQ off here and ask whether you would object to such an experimnet (assuming that it was feasible)? perhaps even a computer model could be used - but i would be very sceptical of such an approach.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

Unfortunately scale models aren't very useful in this situation. The various relevant properties don't all scale the same. Area, for example, scales as the square of the model ratio while volume scales as the cube. The stresses in a 100:1 scale model would be calculated as follows

Fr is the force on the real building
Fm is the force on the model

Ar is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
Am is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to Ar

Am = Ar * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.0001 *A r

Vr is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
Vm is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to Ar

Vm = Vr * (1/100) * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.000001 * Vr

Mass = density times volume, so the mass of the real building is

Mr = d * Vr

The mass of the model is

Mm = d * Vm

Force = Mass times acceleration, so the forces are

Fr = Mr * g
Fm = Mm * g

Stress is force per unit area, so the stresses are

Sr = Fr / Ar
Sm = Fm / Am

Plugging in the other equations, the stresses are now

Sr = Mr * g / Ar
Sr = d * Vr * g / Ar

Sm = Mm * g / Am
Sm = d * Vm * g / Am
Sm = d * 0.000001 * Vr * g / (0.0001 * Ar)
Sm = d * g * 0.01 * Vr / Ar

The ratio of Sm to Sr shows that the stresses in the model are 1/100th of the stresses in the actual building. Assuming you build the model from similar materials, it will fail at an entirely different point than the building being modeled, rendering it useless as a scientific tool in this respect. This is why the NIST used computer models in their investigation.

[thewholesoul]

Uhh... You need to calm the hell down. Did you happen to noticed the part of my post where I essentially retracted my labeling of you? Or did you simply choose to ignore it so that you could continue to act indignant?




And yet here you are. Obviously you think it's necessary in some way. Also, this is a public forum. You don't exactly get a say in who responds to your poorly-worded statements.




Hey, look... I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think it's time you take a reflective look at your own participation on this thread. You don't know any one of us, either, but you seem to have absolutely no problems slinging baseless insults.




Her name, and you can report any post to the moderators by clicking on the http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/report.gif that appears at the bottom left of that post.




Actually, I didn't... I was "just asking questions". Heh. Boy, that's annoying, isn't it, when those "questions" insinuate something that isn't true?




Excuse me? You declare with righteous fury that I don't know you, and then go on to presume that you know me? I believe it's now your turn to apologize to me. Please pull yourself together.

hey man, i apologise for blowing up like that, i had a bad day and when i read the posts of people still going on about this racist charge i just saw red when you questioned if i was a racist.

[beachnut]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.

bush not even going under oath to the 911 commission and had to be accompanied by cheney- the whole thing stinks. and whether or not there were explosives in the towers at the very least someone had foreknowledge - how could a cook like alex jones predict 911??

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.
You are off topic posting the biggest pile of BS I have seen today.

Find a witness on topic. BTW, p4t are not even as good as the terrorist pilots, they said they could not hit buildings in a Simulator. Gee the terrorist hit buildings in real planes, p4t could not in a simulator; those must be your expert pilots.

Alex Jones, now there is a pile of real BS; do you think the roids ruined his brain?

Do you think you can post on topic?

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.
Gordon Ross was wrong, the towers did fail, he made major errors. He was wrong before he started. Plus he has no clue what did bring the WTC down since his work was proven wrong on 9/11. Do you understand this?

[thewholesoul]

My dad is a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, so I can't claim any DIRECT experience, but from what I've heard and seen from him, the military is fairly inefficient themselves. Relatively, they are likely better than most of the armies from around the world. However, this doesn't mean they can carry out something as absurdly detailed as what you are suggesting. It's time to exit Middle Earth and return to regular Earth.

hey i do not doubt that your father is in the military, and that the military is sometimes inefficient. but that doesnt explain how 3 hijacked planes could hit their targets without being intercepted.

once you check out how many planes were intercepted the year before 911 it seems unbelievable that no plane was intercepted that day. in fact they were flying around for quite some time and then after the first tower was hit - 45 mins later the pentagon was hit.

to say the military is sometimes inefficient does nt excuse much less explain the failure of reaction by the military

[thewholesoul]

And now you're crying to mama. How typical. You made comments that seemed clearly racist. If that wasn't your intent, then fine. Stop whining.

i will respond to your earlier posts when i get a chance amigo.

regarding the comment above i feel offended when i am accused of being a racist so shut your claptrap i wasnt whinning i was trying to defend myself from false accusations - got it

[LashL]

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.


As I said above, I asked a serious and polite question and I think it deserves a serious and polite response. Are you pinch-hitting for brasil officially, or just playing the fool?

[AZCat]

Are you pinch-hitting for brasil officially, or just playing the fool?

Aren't they the same thing?

[thewholesoul]

Unfortunately scale models aren't very useful in this situation. The various relevant properties don't all scale the same. Area, for example, scales as the square of the model ratio while volume scales as the cube. The stresses in a 100:1 scale model would be calculated as follows

Fr is the force on the real building
Fm is the force on the model

Ar is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
Am is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to Ar

Am = Ar * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.0001 *A r

Vr is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
Vm is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to Ar

Vm = Vr * (1/100) * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.000001 * Vr

Mass = density times volume, so the mass of the real building is

Mr = d * Vr

The mass of the model is

Mm = d * Vm

Force = Mass times acceleration, so the forces are

Fr = Mr * g
Fm = Mm * g

Stress is force per unit area, so the stresses are

Sr = Fr / Ar
Sm = Fm / Am

Plugging in the other equations, the stresses are now

Sr = Mr * g / Ar
Sr = d * Vr * g / Ar

Sm = Mm * g / Am
Sm = d * Vm * g / Am
Sm = d * 0.000001 * Vr * g / (0.0001 * Ar)
Sm = d * g * 0.01 * Vr / Ar

The ratio of Sm to Sr shows that the stresses in the model are 1/100th of the stresses in the actual building. Assuming you build the model from similar materials, it will fail at an entirely different point than the building being modeled, rendering it useless as a scientific tool in this respect. This is why the NIST used computer models in their investigation.

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

by the way do you reject the scientifc method? is it irrational to require experimentation of a hypothesis in order to be convinced of its truth?

[thewholesoul]

I asked a serious and polite question. How about a serious and polite answer?

polite answers seem to be in short supply in this forum. i do apologise however for my post. it was merely a reflection of how others (not all) have responded to me.

to answer your question - i do not know the method. but i would argue that although improbable it is not impossible.

[AZCat]

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

I have. There are plenty of threads here already dissecting Ross's paper.

by the way do you reject the scientifc method? is it irrational to require experimentation of a hypothesis in order to be convinced of its truth?

Why would I reject the scientific method? Where did I suggest no experimentation?


By the way, did you actually absorb what I wrote, or just dismiss it?

[thewholesoul]

Oh please. Balsamo and his band of idiots at pft have been debunked so thoroughly on this it's not worth rehashing. There are probably a dozen links here that have covered it as well.

The fact that you cite pft for anything reduces your credibility to zero.

why doesnt someone train a pilot for a period of time (equivalent to the hijackers) then put him in a flight simulator and see if he can pull off the same maneuvar. then place a trained and well seasoned pilot in the same simulator with the same objectve and see if he can pull off the maneuvar.

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.

[Reheat]

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.

Bwhahahahahaha

Do you really believe that the hijackers have been cloned?

[beachnut]

why doesnt someone train a pilot for a period of time (equivalent to the hijackers) then put him in a flight simulator and see if he can pull off the same maneuvar. then place a trained and well seasoned pilot in the same simulator with the same objectve and see if he can pull off the maneuvar.

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.
p4t say they were in a simulator and they could not hit the WTC. I put kids with no training, zero flight training, and they hit the WTC with a JET! A guy in Germany with a private pilots license was able to hit the Pentagon with a big JET! Darn, been done.

So I did not train the kids, and they could hit buildings with a big jet. Oops, so it seems the training was a waste of time; but there are things the terrorist learned to make their job easy. You could figure out why flight training and having the 757/767 manuals would help you do a few things to help do bad things.

You mean trainee, and you need no training to hit buildings. Try to learn and you will soon be really upset that 9/11 truth is spreading lies and using you to do it!!! Wake up!

[thewholesoul]

Why would I reject the scientific method? Where did I suggest no experimentation?

you didnt state either way thats why i asked the question.

but great, when we have an experiment to PROVE how the towers fell by gravity, how jet fuel caused so much damage to the basement, and how the trainy pilots executed those manouvers then my mind will be made up i will be convinced one way or the other

- because all i hear from debunkers is a hypothesis yet to be proven. just like 911 conpiracists.

[Gravy]

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.Another student from the Swing Dangler School of 9/11 Research. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2632158&postcount=119)

Or is he from the Swing Dangler Graduate School for Ignoring Answers? (NB: photos deleted from post)
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2641173&postcount=251)

[LashL]

Aren't they the same thing?

Good point. They do appear to amount to the same thing.

[Gravy]

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.thewholesoul should investigate who nick rockerfeller (sic) is and isn't related to and report back to us. That would be funny.

Btw, I have one of those aeron chairs. Very comfortable.

[LashL]

polite answers seem to be in short supply in this forum. i do apologise however for my post. it was merely a reflection of how others (not all) have responded to me.

While that appears to be a very left-handed apology, I will nonetheless accept it for the sole purpose of moving forward with the discussion.

to answer your question - i do not know the method. but i would argue that although improbable it is not impossible.


That is not a legitimate answer at all. Is it that you have nothing of substance to say about the subject, or that you are unable to follow the discussion, or is there some other reason that explains your nonsensical response?

And if you "do not know the method", why did you even respond to my question to brasil about the methods to which he/she referred, with your patently silly response?